Good choice. When I go light I take my Canon R with two Nikon lenses. Zeiss 35/2 Distagon and the Nikon 180/2.8 D. It works for me and I don't miss auto focus. Have a great time with your family.
I took that lens to Mexico last year, and it performed well. i wanted to pack only 2 lenses to pack light. You getting like 5 different focal lengths. the best travel lens . I am going to the Bahamas next week and I am taking it again with the Canon R6 mk ii. enjoy bro, you are going to have fun with the lens. the lens is so sharp.
Hey Jared, I recently purchased the Tamron 35-150 F2.8-4 and it rocks for many for the reasons you like the 24-105. The extra reach to 150mm is awesome on full frame and even better on the R7! I've also had the RF 24-105 and you are spot on - its a rock solid lens.
You’re right about the 35-150 2.8-4. It’s excellent. I actually sold my copy. My copy was soft compared to canon L and that the physical mechanical focus ring rotated when focusing did get annoying. I hope tamron or canon makes a similar one for RF. I would take a 28-135 f4 or a 35-150 F4.
Awesome Sir, enjoy your time with the family (priority #1!) I purchased this as my (2nd L series lens) 3rd RF lens and had a blast during last year’s NYC marathon. Looking fwd to your next post and stay warm in Mexico 🇲🇽 👍🏼
I total agree. My EF 24-105 is still my most used. I find at 24mm F6.3 is incredibly sharp and also has great colour contrast. 70 to 105 mm F4 I find to it's real sweet spot wide open. Yes the compression at 105 totally blurs out the back ground gives family photos that pro look. I use on my 6 D and my R6#2. It realy really gives even more options on a crop sensor camera as well. I used on my Cuzomel vacation last year on my 80D crop sensor. It gives you a croped focal lenght of 38 - 168 mm F4. It's the gift that keeps on giving. I will never give it up, everyone that does regrets it. Can't wait to see the new RF and what you can do with it. Also the Canon 28 F2.8 is also crazy sharp if you what to try that one as well.
Agree! I won’t be getting rid of this lens. I’ve learned my lesson. I used my 70-200 RF F4 today and that 105-200 makes a big difference too. I’ll have to try the 24-105 on my R7 when I get back.
O you mentioned the 70-200mm F4. I'm all about that lens right now. I just used it at a Gymnastics event. It's so sharp and so much color pop out of that lens . Your correct, 2 lenses 24 -200 F4 that at you need with todays insane camera's. Dustin Abbott mentioned a few months ago we are living in a golden age of camera technology. He frazed it perfectly.
I just picked up this lens on canon refurb sale and am selling the stm to a friend when his camera comes in I am absolutely in love with this lens and I’m so happy to have made the jump
I like the F4 versions, Saves you some money and they are fabulous ! I love my 24-70 2.8 but my go too is my 16-35 F4 EF which is a killer lens. My wife got the 24-105 F4 as the kit lens that came with her Eos R . Too me F2.8 is like a Holley 750 dual line on your grocery getter. Nice to have but don't need that much power! You can get the store just fine with a two barrel. I think about the 2.8 version Canon just came out with ! It is a beast ,but so is price tag . If you go on a shoot with friends and you pull your F2.8 and they say wow! but to me it is like racing your motor at the grocery store parking ,big woo! even if smoke the tires leaving the parking lot, who cares, except maybe the police! LOL
Lol..so true. The new 2.8 version is good for maybe full time filmmakers who have dedicated rigs for it or possibly wedding photographers. Even wedding photographers stop down from there and with ISO being so good now days you can shoot F4 in a reception hall at night pretty well.
Thanks for the video! I just bought a 70-200 F4 yesterday to complement my current gear (RP + RF 35mm F1.8). I was thinking so much about which lens to get, but I just couldn't justify the 24-105 F4 for the price. This FL feels so contested with awesome primes, I could potentially get a 24-105 STM + 35mm + 50mm (or 16mm, 85mm) for the same price and get much better images (and the hassle of changing lenses.. but at least I'll have the option to get "subjectively nicer" images if I really want to have better background separation, shoot in low light, etc). On the other hand for the 100-200 range there aren't many good and affordable options and I quite like the extra range it can cover. I might end up buying the 24-105 F4 later on, but I think I grab a cheap / used STM first to see how it's performing for a fraction of the price. You also mentioned that you're mostly shooting at tighter aperture most of the time with this. Have you tried the STM? What made you choose the F4 over it? I don't want to switch lenses a lot either, if the 24-105 would be a 2.8 for the price I would have chosen that for sure. :P If I had to guess it's mainly about build quality preferences and budget, so not about optical performance. If you are certain that you will use the F4 very often with your family for years to come, the price difference between the kit lens can be negligible.
You will ove the 70-200 F4 RF. It is super sharp. I choose L series lenses because A) they are weather sealed B) Sharp with amazing Contrast & C) Smoother zooms and focus rings. Between going 2.8 and F4 it is really subjective. For ultra wide the 14-35 RF f4 makes sense for the price. I will say though my 24-70 2.8 RF is an amazing lens when it comes to image and sharpness.
@@JaredHoyman Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the topic. I really appreciate it. 🙂👍 I definitely forgot about the focus motor difference, it's great that you mentioned it. Best wishes from Hungary, get that R5 ii pre-order rolling. 😆
My favourite travel lens, and not soft at all on my R6 (at least my copy): while this lens has a reputation of not being super sharp, I can't confirm this if used on a moderate resolution body like the R6 or R6II. Colour rendition is excellent, too.
I have an R6 markii and I am using the rf. 100-500 mostly for sports and nature. I was looking for a versatile zoom lens and I’ve been trying the ef 17-40 f4 using the adapter but I’ve just bought the rf 24-105 f4 and I hope is the correct alternative.
I personally don't ever see myself not owning a Canon 24-105. I've owned all three variations over the past 15 years and it's the ultimate "travel lens" to have. I'm currently on vacation with my wife and dog and my RF 24-105 is sitting on the table next to me right now - it's the best. For professional use, a lot of goofballs out there say it's not professional because it's an f/4...which is hilarious and, sadly, a very ignorant mindset. I routinely use the 24-105 and 24-70 and decide which one to pack based on the job. Now that the RF 24-105 f/2.8 is out...boy oh BOY does that check off all the boxes. I would absolutely never bring the f/2.8 on vacation though. I never brought an EF 70-200 on a vacation either because of the size and just not being necessary for good travel images. You made the right choice. The RF 24-105 is the ultimate travel lens and all variations from Fujifilm, Nikon, and Sony it's the same story.
I totally agree! People don’t realize that most pros stop down to F4, 5.6 & 8 when it comes to video and photographers do the same. Aps-c is a different story but when it comes to 35mm full frame f4 is a normal f-stop for video and photo. The 24-105 2.8 would be awesome to own, but unless I’m doing a lot of interviews and documentary I probably wouldn’t use it a whole lot. I’ll change my tune if one falls in my lap though ;). It would be way too big for recreational travel.
Seeking advise here.. I recently purchased an R5 along with the RF100-500 F4 and the RF 24-105 F4. I also have the RF 50 1.8 I mainly started to do wildlife photography and have my first trip to Africa in the fall.. I have room in my budget for 1 more lens... I am thinking the RF 15-35 F2.8 to have one wide angle lens and 2.8.. Do you think that these 4 lenses are good compliment from each other and I am covered or should I purchase a last different lens? I was considering a Canon EF 70.200 F2.8 instead of the 15-35...
That is a loaded questions. I feel if you have a RF 100-500 L series lens and the purpose of the africa trip is to get the landscape and wildlife, I wouldn't bring a 70-200 2.8 RF too. It would be too redundant. The 24-105 F4 and the 100-500 RF might be the only two you need and then your bag is light. If you think you are going to do some low light and need wide then the 15-35 RF 2.8 is excellent. Otherwise the 14-35 RF F4 is great for anything during the day. You can get the 15-35 2.8 rf renewed at a pretty good deal at around $1600 here amzn.to/4953vg8. The other alternative is this....Bring your RF 24-105, 100-500 and then buy a Canon R7 Body alone. That way you just added 32mp 1.6 crop to those lenses getting more reach when you need it. You can pick one up renewed for around $1100 here amzn.to/3Um3i3z. Keep me posted on what you decide. I'm curious!
Thank you so much for taking the time to reply. I really appreciate it... Well.. I do happen to already have an R7... So I guess, it will be R5 and R7 as a second body with the 100-500 on the R5 and 24-105 on the R7 :) I was concerned about both lenses being F4 and nothing F2.8 but it seems that with the R5 especially I would not be in bad shape even at lower light. @@JaredHoyman
I love my rf 85mm f2 for portraits and I’m planning to get new lenses for traveling and also portraits it will be either sigma ef 24-70 f 2.8 or rf 24-105 f4 So whats your recommendation 👀
I use the 24 105 first version on the R6... But I find it even softer than it was on the 6D... especially doing portraits... Is it too old for this camera and doesn't focus well or is it my R6 that has a problem? It's almost unusable on the R6. I was thinking of getting the RF version
I'm on the fence on this lens. Firstly, I run an R7, but I have plans to get an R6mkii. Second, I have the old EF 70-200 f2.8L version 1 non IS plus with an adapted Sigma 17-35 f1.8 and the old nifty fifty. So a 24-105 either f4 or f2.8 would be great in my bag. I recently came back from Cuba and I brought with me the new RFS 10-18, the aforementioned 18-35, and a crappy but versatile Sigma 18-300 f3.5-5.6 that is fine for non moving subjects but absolute garbage for motion faster than a light jog.
you want this lens it is amazingly sharp, you are getting the L glass, and with any of the canon mirrorless cameras from canon today, it is optimized for the rf mount. with today's mirrorless cameras from canon you can go pretty high on the iso and still get amazing photos and video. the f4 really means nothing. it is going to do good and the compression that you get at 85 mm to 105 is amazing. this lens sat on the shelf for about a year before I used it, I under estimated it, it is not a kit lens. if you plan on getting any of canon mirrorless cameras , it is a must have.
When you add a full frame camera in the near future you will see that F4 looks like F2.8 does on a crop. It was a shock how nice canon L F4 looks when I went from my old aps-c dslr to a canon 6D 12yrs ago. After using the RF version for only a few days I’m excited to try it out on my R7. The process and experience of taking a picture or video is just as important as the photo or video itself. When you find joy and it’s easier to shoot you will make more enjoyable images. Btw….i find the 10-18rf enjoyable to use as well since it’s like shooting with a body only.
I just returned the rf 24-105 f4L today. Maybe I got a dud, but sharp it was not. Not even close. This was at all focal lengths and f stops. L quality just wasn’t there.
Was it missing focus or was it just not sharp? I just combed through my vacation and most were sharp and some missed focus in lower light. My 70-200 RF f4 is very sharp. I’ll need to do a comparison between these lenses with their common focal lengths.
@@JaredHoyman I think it was both things. Probably mostly missing focus. I also have the 70-200 f4L and maybe it’s an unfair comparison, but the difference is night and day, even in low light conditions. In the 3 days I owned the 24-105, I took around 150 photos, and yes, there were a handful that were sharp. It did tend to hunt for focus a good bit.
I almost bought this lens until I rented it and quickly changed my mind after seeing how the images rendered from my R5. To me they looked flat like a cellphone image.
@@lbeetechit’s possible the images look different on different camera bodies due to the sensor and conditions in which the user is trying to shoot/record. I have never had a problem with the RF 24-105 f4 on my R6 and R6 mk II for urban photography, but when I want to shoot fast action sports I don’t use this lens. I use the RF 85 1.2 and soon the 135 f1.8
That setup screams “please, mug me!” Seriously, much much too eye catching for a family vacation. Bring an old crappy camera or small point and shoot. I just got back from a family trip and used my Q2 way more than my A7RV just to remain discreet. Wish I hadn’t lugged the big camera around with me on the trip. Either way - have fun and be safe!
I just got back to our room after forcing my family to do a photo shoot by the water. The shots are great and I will probably only bring the 24-105 next time but got an amazing shots of a monkey in the tree in our resort with the 70-200f4. Otherwise, my iPhone 15 pro has rocked most of my shots.
I think it’s good for specific cinematographers and event photographers who are shooting a lot indoors. For most professionals it’s not needed. Most cinematographers actually stop down to F4 and 5.6 so it’s not needed in most cases. Where it does shine probably is on super 35 and crop sensors.
