RF 24-105 f/4L vs EF 24-70 f/4L

[spiffydoggo3]

Hi everyone,

Need some opinions on what lens to buy next.
Currently have:
Body: Canon R6
EF-S 10-18 mm f/4.5-5.6
EF 70-200 mm f/2.8L
RF 50 mm f/1.8

Considering:
EF 24-70 f/4L IS USM
EF 24-105 f/4L IS II USM
RF 24-105 f/4L IS USM

Which one would you buy? Looking for an all-around zoom lens that fits my budget (<$1000).

 

[koenkooi]

Unless you have a special use-case that needs EF, go for the RF24-105L, it's a great lens. The copies I rented all performed well. I didn't buy it because in that range I'd most likely be traveling and then I'd rather use my EOS M

 

[jd7]

FWIW, my thinking is:

Get RF 24-105 f/4L IS unless you would really value the (semi) macro mode of the EF 24-70 f/4L IS, in which case get the EF 24-70 f/4L IS. (Once you add the EF/RF adapter, the EF 24-70 f/4L IS wouldn't really save you much, if any, size or weight, so I have ignored size and weight differences.) Since you own an R camera, I wouldn't even think about the EF 24-105 f/4L IS II.

To try to explain my thinking ... I have the EF 24-70 f/4L IS and I have used the EF 24-105 f/4L (original version). I prefer the IQ of the EF 24-70 f/4L IS, and the macro mode and slgihtly smaller size and lighter weight are nice bonuses. Everything I have read is that the EF 24-105 f/4L IS II is very similar optically to the original version. The mark II is notably bigger and heavier too. I haven't personally used the RF 24-105 f/4L IS, but from what I've read and seen it is at least a bit better than both versions of the EF 24-105L, it's about the same weight as the EF 24-70 f/4L IS with EF/RF adapter, and it gives you the extra zoom range. I really do like my EF 24-70 f/4L IS and it has served me well, but if I was starting now in the R system, and I was happy with an f/4 lens (you could always think about a f/2.8 ) , I think personally I would go for the RF 24-105 f/4L IS so I didn't need to use an adaper and becasue I would find the extra zoom range over EF 24-70 f/4L IS useful. Anyway, as I've said, I haven't actually used the EF 24-105 f/4L IS II or the RF 24-105 f/4L IS, so probably best to take my views on this with a grain of salt

 

[Del Paso]

Based on my own experiences with both (EF 24-70 & RF 24-105 f4), the EF 24-70 is visibly sharper, and I often use the macro option.
the RF is a good lens, mechanically certainly better than the EF, so it's basically 105 mm vs. macro+sharpness...
But: if you do not own a DSLR, go for the RF 24-105 plus an RF 35mm macro.

 

[ronaldbyram]

Hey anyone know where I can purchase a rf 24-105 L? They are like no where to be found

 

[john1970]

B&H is claiming that they should be available in the next 2-4 weeks. Maybe place an order and be patient and if one comes available sooner just cancel the B&H order?

 

[JayLauz]

I think your best bet would be the RF 24-105 f4! It’s actually a really good lens, it is very surprisingly sharp and probably sharper than the EF because of the use of the adapter. Allowing the back lens glass being closer to the sensor is a good advantage, plus the convenience of simple connection. The auto focus is very fast as you would expect and the versatility is awesome. However, you need to be aware that the zoom barrel on the RF 24-105mm F4 has a wobble, it is very common and does not affect performance whatsoever! Nonetheless, you can’t go wrong with the RF glass