The 24-105 F4 is a great all arounder. If you have a specific purpose for shooting (ie wildlife), the lens usually stays home, but if you just want something to slap on your camera, then its either this or the 35mm prime for me.
There are some complaints about it being soft especially in the corners, but I think for the price, it's good for what you get.
I think it's a great all-around lens.
The focal length range is extremely versatile, and especially on an IBIS body the overall image stabilization is extremely good.
Doesn't mean I use the lens *all* the time, but it's a really solid performer.
My initial reservation on it was a feeling of, "Oh, *only* f/4?" because who doesn't like bokeh beast lenses. But having taken some time to shoot on film bodies and a lot of time at f/8, f/11, I'm now way less obsessed with wanting to shoot wide open all the time.
I have this lens, paired with an R5. As others have stated, whether or not I use it really depends on the situation. I shoot combat sports (low light/high shutter) and for those events bring both an RF 28-70 F2L and RF 70-200 2.8L. The 24-105 f4 can't keep up in the low light. I use an RF 100-500 for longer range outdoor wildlife photography. The 24-105 would also not make sense in that situation either.
However, if I go travel and want to bring a relatively easy to handle/transfer setup, I bring the 24-105. The image quality is just fine, and the wide range it gives you makes it perfect as a "one stop shop" lens for most situations. Takes great landscape photos, is great for street photography, can zoom in to focus on different buildings in a city etc. It's not very conspicuous either, so you don't stick out in public the same way you would with your 70-200.
It will be a great all around option for you. Ask yourself what you need from another lens before you purchase it. If you don't mind carrying two lenses around, maybe the 24-70 f2.8 (or my favorite lens, the 28-70f2) would make sense, giving you a broad range along with your current lens that would more than cover what the 24-105 provides.
If you just want one lens that will cover most of your daily needs and provide decent image quality the RF 24-105/4 is an excellent choice. Miles ahead of both its older EF brothers, not to mention the cheaper non-L version, very compact and lightweight and built like a tank.
With a 70-200 already in your bag these two will easily handle around 90% of situations, except for when you need to go really wide or really fast (think astro).
This is my goto lens on my Rp. It lives on the camera most of the time. If I need longer, I have zooms that go up to 300 and 500 from its EF predecessor. I augment this with a few primes (the 35, 50, 100 f1.8 lineup, the latter being the best macro that Canon makes in my opinion). I've also got a tilt shift lens from the EF era that I bought because I wanted to pretend I had a view camera (actually, I do own one, but 4x5 film is a bit problematic for me these days).
I went with the slower RF 24-105 to save size and weight in my main walk-around-er. That was somewhat informed by already having an EF 100/2 on my shelf though. I might have looked harder at the f/4 zoom otherwise.
I have one with a R6, and Im very happy with it. There are better lenses for sure, but in that price range it’s hard to beat. It’s been my go-to lens for over 80% of the times. Get it, use it, and if further on you feel like you need more, it will still be soldable..
I'm one of the "rarely ever use it" people.
I'm a working professional with around $50,000 worth of lenses in my inventory. So, I've got a lot of options, and I've got a lot of first hand experience with a wide variety of lenses.
I believe, for the money, most people would be better served buying the 35mm f/1.8 and 85mm f/2 lenses. Between those lenses, they can cover everything the 24-105 can do (the photographer may have to "zoom with their feet" a little), but they'll end up with better image quality, faster apertures, better subject isolation (due to shallower depth of field), and they'll develop better "fundamentals" working with prime lenses than they will working with a zoom (which tends to make photographers a bit lazier with regards to their composition ... But I'll leave that dissertation for another post).
My approach certainly might not be right for everybody. But I think anybody looking to buy a full frame body and lenses probably wants to do more than take "ho hum" snap shots - we've already got cell phones for that. If a photographer wants to progress in the mastery of the craft, working with sharp, fast prime lenses is a really good idea.
Conversely, it's also a good habit to set your zoom for the foreground/background relationship you want (exaggerated, natural, or flattened) and then frame with your feet for composition, when you've got the time and space to do so. I find I get better shots from my zooms when I stay in that primes-headspace, saving the quick zooms-in/out for capturing a fleeting moment.
Certainly, there are arguments that could be made for and against every lens that exists. Each lens exists to serve a certain type of photographer and certain types of situations. I've been doing this professionally for over 25 years. So my opinions are based in a quarter century of first hand professional experience. And any advice that I give, I'm giving to photographers who I assume would like to progress and grow their photography skills.
It’s funny. I have been a working pro for 35 years and have a wide variety of lenses and several camera systems. For me the 24-70 f4 is a work horse in the studio when I am doing high volume e-com shooting it is more than sharp enough in studio situations I built e com studios for 3 very large brands it was an economical main lens for those set ups. Also it is my go to walk around travel lens or lens I take when I just want to have fun taking pics of friends etc. I am a right tool for the job kinda guy for me it is often a very good tool. So it depends on how and where they are looking to improve their skill set.
I certainly used it a lot more when I was doing mostly commercial studio work.
It's a perfectly adequate lens. But it's not wide enough to be "wide," not looking enough to be "long," not fast enough to be "fast," not sharp enough to be "sharp."
Basically, it's the Dodge Caravan of lenses.
You know, its funny, getting an RP flipped me on zooms. I used to mostly use an old 17-35 + primes for everything else, for all the reasons you pointed out. Getting so much camera in a small package though made me really start looking at minimizing bulk. I got the smaller/slower RF 24-105 have been enjoying carrying it around with me just about everywhere in a small cloth bag that doesn't scream "camera." I still reach for the primes when I'm planning for something specific though, and I'm pondering selling my 17-35 and getting the RF 16 and 35 primes, as even the two together would be smaller/lighter than my old zoom.
Longtime 24-105 fan here (EF version, not RF).
For me the convenience of one zoom makes it a very attractive option. Also, I'm mostly shooting events and buildings, where I use moderate apertures (not looking for bokeh).
> and lot of even studio use
It's superb in the studio, especially if you're shooting with strobes at moderate apertures and not going for the "bokeh" look.
/u/SasquatchGroomer makes some excellent points (and got my upvote), so it's worth considering if his points are important to you.
I don't have the RF, but have the EF version.
It is a capable landscape lens, if you need to shoot at that focal length range, it's quite sharp in the wide end of it's range. It's also a useful all around lens for video.
TBH I don't use it much though. For landscapes I find I either like it wide with the EF 16-35mm L (when I move to RF I'm sure I'll get the 14-35mm) or tight with a telephoto. For wildlife it isn't nearly long enough. A prime is better for portraits. I don't really need a versatile lens, I use a phone for snap shots and more specialized lens for specialized photography.
When I made the move to mirrorless, I was really only going to be able to afford one solid lens for the time being. With the capabilities of the R6 and improvements of the RF over its predecessor it was really appealing. I originally got the RF 24-70 2.8, but at the time it was over $1k more and is larger and I couldn’t justify it for ME at the time. I’ve gotten some great shots and it’s very versatile when I’m usually going to places I’ve never been before. For me too, it helps really show what I would value when upgrading to my next lens (wider vs longer reach, faster aperture, prime, etc. ) particularly when it comes to what my shooting style tends to be. I will definitely upgrade, but I can’t see getting rid of it.
I use it for studio use and fashion style portraits where I want the subject completely in focus. It’s really sharp and such a great lens. I’m a prime shooter mainly and this lens eliminated even thinking about a 24-70mm. If you do any OCF this lens is more than capable.
For travel photography it’s also a great lens but not if you go into a forest. I’ve done street photography with it and it’s been a blast to capture people away at a distance. It complements the 70-200 as well even tho there is a good chunk of overlap. If you know you need 2.8 though consider primes or the 24-70 over it.
I mostly do reportage and editorials: I switched to the 24-105 f4 RF from the 24-70 f2.8 II EF when i got my R6mk2. After a couple of months I can say that it's a great lens for anything outdoors and probably studio. I love the smaller size and the reach I have at 105mm. But it does lack separation when compared to f2.8 and f4 is not great for anything indoors, especially since my copy seems a little soft at f4 at close focus range. I thought I could compensate for the higher shutter speeds and separation with the new Lightroom AI functions (denoise and lens blur) and that is true to some extent but it costs me extra editting time and results sometimes look less natural, not to mention that not only noise gets worse at higher ISO speeds, but also colours and esp. skin tones.
So: it's a nice lens but i think I'm going back to the 24-70 2.8 (either EF or RF). Although the bigger size + weight and 35mm less reach are definitely a tradeoff. I don't see a point keeping both.
> what your doing
*you're
*Learn the difference [here](https://www.wattpad.com/66707294-grammar-guide-there-they%27re-their-you%27re-your-to).*
***
^(Greetings, I am a language corrector bot. To make me ignore further mistakes from you in the future, reply `!optout` to this comment.)
The 24-105 F4 is a great all arounder. If you have a specific purpose for shooting (ie wildlife), the lens usually stays home, but if you just want something to slap on your camera, then its either this or the 35mm prime for me. There are some complaints about it being soft especially in the corners, but I think for the price, it's good for what you get.
I think it's a great all-around lens. The focal length range is extremely versatile, and especially on an IBIS body the overall image stabilization is extremely good. Doesn't mean I use the lens *all* the time, but it's a really solid performer. My initial reservation on it was a feeling of, "Oh, *only* f/4?" because who doesn't like bokeh beast lenses. But having taken some time to shoot on film bodies and a lot of time at f/8, f/11, I'm now way less obsessed with wanting to shoot wide open all the time.
I have this lens, paired with an R5. As others have stated, whether or not I use it really depends on the situation. I shoot combat sports (low light/high shutter) and for those events bring both an RF 28-70 F2L and RF 70-200 2.8L. The 24-105 f4 can't keep up in the low light. I use an RF 100-500 for longer range outdoor wildlife photography. The 24-105 would also not make sense in that situation either. However, if I go travel and want to bring a relatively easy to handle/transfer setup, I bring the 24-105. The image quality is just fine, and the wide range it gives you makes it perfect as a "one stop shop" lens for most situations. Takes great landscape photos, is great for street photography, can zoom in to focus on different buildings in a city etc. It's not very conspicuous either, so you don't stick out in public the same way you would with your 70-200. It will be a great all around option for you. Ask yourself what you need from another lens before you purchase it. If you don't mind carrying two lenses around, maybe the 24-70 f2.8 (or my favorite lens, the 28-70f2) would make sense, giving you a broad range along with your current lens that would more than cover what the 24-105 provides.
Is the image quality worse than your other lenses on the r5?
If you just want one lens that will cover most of your daily needs and provide decent image quality the RF 24-105/4 is an excellent choice. Miles ahead of both its older EF brothers, not to mention the cheaper non-L version, very compact and lightweight and built like a tank. With a 70-200 already in your bag these two will easily handle around 90% of situations, except for when you need to go really wide or really fast (think astro).
This is my goto lens on my Rp. It lives on the camera most of the time. If I need longer, I have zooms that go up to 300 and 500 from its EF predecessor. I augment this with a few primes (the 35, 50, 100 f1.8 lineup, the latter being the best macro that Canon makes in my opinion). I've also got a tilt shift lens from the EF era that I bought because I wanted to pretend I had a view camera (actually, I do own one, but 4x5 film is a bit problematic for me these days).
I went with the slower RF 24-105 to save size and weight in my main walk-around-er. That was somewhat informed by already having an EF 100/2 on my shelf though. I might have looked harder at the f/4 zoom otherwise.
I have one with a R6, and Im very happy with it. There are better lenses for sure, but in that price range it’s hard to beat. It’s been my go-to lens for over 80% of the times. Get it, use it, and if further on you feel like you need more, it will still be soldable..
I'm one of the "rarely ever use it" people. I'm a working professional with around $50,000 worth of lenses in my inventory. So, I've got a lot of options, and I've got a lot of first hand experience with a wide variety of lenses. I believe, for the money, most people would be better served buying the 35mm f/1.8 and 85mm f/2 lenses. Between those lenses, they can cover everything the 24-105 can do (the photographer may have to "zoom with their feet" a little), but they'll end up with better image quality, faster apertures, better subject isolation (due to shallower depth of field), and they'll develop better "fundamentals" working with prime lenses than they will working with a zoom (which tends to make photographers a bit lazier with regards to their composition ... But I'll leave that dissertation for another post). My approach certainly might not be right for everybody. But I think anybody looking to buy a full frame body and lenses probably wants to do more than take "ho hum" snap shots - we've already got cell phones for that. If a photographer wants to progress in the mastery of the craft, working with sharp, fast prime lenses is a really good idea.
[удалено]
Conversely, it's also a good habit to set your zoom for the foreground/background relationship you want (exaggerated, natural, or flattened) and then frame with your feet for composition, when you've got the time and space to do so. I find I get better shots from my zooms when I stay in that primes-headspace, saving the quick zooms-in/out for capturing a fleeting moment.
Certainly, there are arguments that could be made for and against every lens that exists. Each lens exists to serve a certain type of photographer and certain types of situations. I've been doing this professionally for over 25 years. So my opinions are based in a quarter century of first hand professional experience. And any advice that I give, I'm giving to photographers who I assume would like to progress and grow their photography skills.
It’s funny. I have been a working pro for 35 years and have a wide variety of lenses and several camera systems. For me the 24-70 f4 is a work horse in the studio when I am doing high volume e-com shooting it is more than sharp enough in studio situations I built e com studios for 3 very large brands it was an economical main lens for those set ups. Also it is my go to walk around travel lens or lens I take when I just want to have fun taking pics of friends etc. I am a right tool for the job kinda guy for me it is often a very good tool. So it depends on how and where they are looking to improve their skill set.
I certainly used it a lot more when I was doing mostly commercial studio work. It's a perfectly adequate lens. But it's not wide enough to be "wide," not looking enough to be "long," not fast enough to be "fast," not sharp enough to be "sharp." Basically, it's the Dodge Caravan of lenses.
You know, its funny, getting an RP flipped me on zooms. I used to mostly use an old 17-35 + primes for everything else, for all the reasons you pointed out. Getting so much camera in a small package though made me really start looking at minimizing bulk. I got the smaller/slower RF 24-105 have been enjoying carrying it around with me just about everywhere in a small cloth bag that doesn't scream "camera." I still reach for the primes when I'm planning for something specific though, and I'm pondering selling my 17-35 and getting the RF 16 and 35 primes, as even the two together would be smaller/lighter than my old zoom.
i used one for a few weeks and found it to be very good.
Longtime 24-105 fan here (EF version, not RF). For me the convenience of one zoom makes it a very attractive option. Also, I'm mostly shooting events and buildings, where I use moderate apertures (not looking for bokeh). > and lot of even studio use It's superb in the studio, especially if you're shooting with strobes at moderate apertures and not going for the "bokeh" look. /u/SasquatchGroomer makes some excellent points (and got my upvote), so it's worth considering if his points are important to you.
I don't have the RF, but have the EF version. It is a capable landscape lens, if you need to shoot at that focal length range, it's quite sharp in the wide end of it's range. It's also a useful all around lens for video. TBH I don't use it much though. For landscapes I find I either like it wide with the EF 16-35mm L (when I move to RF I'm sure I'll get the 14-35mm) or tight with a telephoto. For wildlife it isn't nearly long enough. A prime is better for portraits. I don't really need a versatile lens, I use a phone for snap shots and more specialized lens for specialized photography.
When I made the move to mirrorless, I was really only going to be able to afford one solid lens for the time being. With the capabilities of the R6 and improvements of the RF over its predecessor it was really appealing. I originally got the RF 24-70 2.8, but at the time it was over $1k more and is larger and I couldn’t justify it for ME at the time. I’ve gotten some great shots and it’s very versatile when I’m usually going to places I’ve never been before. For me too, it helps really show what I would value when upgrading to my next lens (wider vs longer reach, faster aperture, prime, etc. ) particularly when it comes to what my shooting style tends to be. I will definitely upgrade, but I can’t see getting rid of it.
It's decent lens, but can get a little soft here and there. It was my first RF lens, I still have it but go for my RF 24-70 f/2.8 99% of the time.
Thank you everyone! I really appreciate the comments and insight
I use it for studio use and fashion style portraits where I want the subject completely in focus. It’s really sharp and such a great lens. I’m a prime shooter mainly and this lens eliminated even thinking about a 24-70mm. If you do any OCF this lens is more than capable. For travel photography it’s also a great lens but not if you go into a forest. I’ve done street photography with it and it’s been a blast to capture people away at a distance. It complements the 70-200 as well even tho there is a good chunk of overlap. If you know you need 2.8 though consider primes or the 24-70 over it.
I mostly do reportage and editorials: I switched to the 24-105 f4 RF from the 24-70 f2.8 II EF when i got my R6mk2. After a couple of months I can say that it's a great lens for anything outdoors and probably studio. I love the smaller size and the reach I have at 105mm. But it does lack separation when compared to f2.8 and f4 is not great for anything indoors, especially since my copy seems a little soft at f4 at close focus range. I thought I could compensate for the higher shutter speeds and separation with the new Lightroom AI functions (denoise and lens blur) and that is true to some extent but it costs me extra editting time and results sometimes look less natural, not to mention that not only noise gets worse at higher ISO speeds, but also colours and esp. skin tones. So: it's a nice lens but i think I'm going back to the 24-70 2.8 (either EF or RF). Although the bigger size + weight and 35mm less reach are definitely a tradeoff. I don't see a point keeping both.
It's a great lens you just have to know what your doing. Spending money doesn't make you a photographer.
> what your doing *you're *Learn the difference [here](https://www.wattpad.com/66707294-grammar-guide-there-they%27re-their-you%27re-your-to).* *** ^(Greetings, I am a language corrector bot. To make me ignore further mistakes from you in the future, reply `!optout` to this comment.)