I'm just trying to pick between EF 24-70/4 and 24-105/4 Mk.II. It is tough call... I like additional reach of the second one but the first one seems to be considered a sharper lens - not sure how much it is actually visible in real world situations.
I'm fairly sure that when they shoot comparison images (in a studio or lab) for lenses, that the cameras are tripod mounted and IS is turned off, and in this case it makes no difference. For people wandering around taking their own shots (real world useage) you are quite probably right; a better IS system gives less shake and therefore, a sharper picture. Similarly, a better AF system will do the same. If both are better, you end up with a lot of happy peopleI wonder if the RF 24-105mm f/4L IS might be perceived as sharper than its EF predecessor because of a significantly better IS implementation?
We get caught up in gear talk so much, especially when it's about the next great thing. How many times have I read on CR that the 24-105 is a "just a kit lens"? As if it were an irrelevant lens meant for newbies... In fact, for years version-one was a workhorse among lifestyle and family portrait photographers because of its range of focal-lengths, good IQ, and IS. It was also heavily used in studio work. I know this from the great number of shots it was used for in PPA's Loan Collections and in issues of PPA and RANGEFINDER magazines, and from personal experience.I primarily use the 24-105 f/4 IS II for video, and use the 24-70 f/2.8 II for stills at the same time. I rarely use the 24-105 for stills, but I'm starting to. I like the 105 focal length better for portraits better than 70, and if 105 is good enough, then I'm not bringing a telephoto zoom. I know it's softer at the long end away from the center, but for impromptu portraits, it's more than adequate.
We get caught up in gear talk so much, especially when it's about the next great thing. How many times have I read on CR that the 24-105 is a "just a kit lens"? As if it were an irrelevant lens meant for newbies... In fact, for years version-one was a workhorse among lifestyle and family portrait photographers because of its range of focal-lengths, good IQ, and IS. It was also heavily used in studio work. I know this from the great number of shots it was used for in PPA's Loan Collections and in issues of PPA and RANGEFINDER magazines, and from personal experience.
(I regret selling my version-one as part of the 5DIII kit it came with. You know, trying to milk a little extra $$$ from the sale by having original everything in the original box. On the other hand, I sold it anticipating version-two to be better! Doh!)
When many CR members dismissed the disappointing performance of version-two as unimportant because of its kit-lens status (and because it is simply futile to question the corporate wisdom of the Canon juggernaut), I realized that priorities here don't 100% align with those of working photographers.
... but the RF 24-105 images I've seen around the internet have made me think the RF 24-105 is a step up on the EF versions.
Good point! Now you say it, I remember reading that when the whitepaper first became available but I'd forgotten about it. I felt like the RF 24-105 images I've been seeing around the internet were a little sharper than EF 24-105 images and the bokeh was a step up, but I guess maybe I'm just imagining it. I still may be interested in the RF 24-105 though, because of the size/weight, but we'll see.i am referring to Canon's own whitepaper that includes a detailed MTF comparison of all their current 24-105 versions: EF L, EF non L, RF. in total, RF does not have a real IQ advantage, plus and minus pretty much even out. and this is firectly from Canon themselves who have every interest to not "undersell" the RF lens ... the current 40% surcharge over EF L is in no way justified.
page 22 ff.
EDIT - perhaps the reason I have felt RF 24-105 images look a little better than EF 24-105 images is that all of the RF 24-105 images are being taken with the R's 30 MP sensor, while many EF 24-105 images are no doubt taken with lower resolution, older, sensors (and I am viewing images on the same size screen)? Of course, there will be some EF 24-105 images taken with the 5D IV and the 5Ds/R. If I get time I will see if I can find some taken with one/some of those cameras to compare against RF 24-105 images.
I feel like I've seen more positive reviews than "it's no better than the EF versions" reviews (like TDP), for whatever that's worth (but it may or may not be worth anything much). I'll be keen to see if the results if Lens Rentals tests it at some point. My assumption though is if Canon had changes the way it was calculating MTF curves, they would have made a point of mentioning that.I think comparing Canon's MTFs could lead to wrong conclusions.
My feeling is that Canon COULD have changed some measurement algorithms. Therefore, me too, I'm relying on Brian's TDP review. Yet, on other websites, mostly European ones, it looks like the ER is noticeably the better lens.
ER? EF? RF?...
on other websites, mostly European ones, it looks like the ER is noticeably the better lens.
I think comparing Canon's MTFs could lead to wrong conclusions.
Sorry, I was tired, I meant RF !.ER? EF? RF?
That typo is hard to unriddle
But could you please post some links of those sites you are refering to?
I'd like to get more info on that lens. Thanks in advance.
I think comparing Canon's MTFs could lead to wrong conclusions.
My feeling is that Canon COULD have changed some measurement algorithms.
size and price, hopefully.
RF 24-105 is far from "stellar". it is "decent". 40% higher price than EF Mk. II, but IQ, size, weight not really better. IQ is behind Sony.
I know that was TDP's conclusion too, but the RF 24-105 images I've seen around the internet have made me think the RF 24-105 is a step up on the EF versions. It looks pretty good to me. In fact, of the four the RF lenses so far, I think this is probably the one I'd be most keen to get (given the photography I do). R + RF 24-105 would be similar size and weight to my 6DII + 24-70/4 and I'd like the extra reach, although I'd miss the macro feature. Anyway, I'm keen to hear opinions about the RF 24-105 from people who have it and have or have had an EF version.
Figuring in the adapter for the EF , the RF 24-105 is smaller and lighter than the latest EF version by a good bit, and it does have the RF electronics. You may be able to get a discounted EF, but the Canon price is the same for the EF and the RF. It's hard to get a street price for a lens that hasn't been on the street.For "white box" or "international" maybe, but on Amazon, B&H and Adorama the price is near equal for new lenses. So appears the cost check I just looked at.
As for quality, the new RF is leaps beyond decent, otherwise you may not have seen shots yet from folks who have got the most out of the lens. I've been watching some samples on the POTN forums and a few folks are getting some exceptional shots.