Canon RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 IS STM lens review with samples 

maybe Canon is a bit too cocky about their camera's high-ISO capabilities

@@GungKrisna12 No one understood this comment. I got your back. f/7.1-what do they expect us to use, 2s exposure, or ISO 25,600? LMAO Yeah, no

@@mikepawlikguitar You know what is the difference between 7.1 and 5.6? The difference between ISO 800 and 1200. If you don't like it you can always buy the F4 version for 3 times the price and 2 times the weight.

@@todanrg3 Why does nobody mention that this lens has a 5 stop image stabilization. You can get that back down to iso 400 if you want. People are so close minded.

Haha

I heard there will be 100mm f.22 soon, watchout

Watch out for pin hole lenses for RF cameras! F35 to F56. You can take a direct picture of the SUN at ISO 1million and still need a 1s exposure!

🙂🙂

The Canon RF-"D" lens for gorgeous diffraction.

Alexander Kouris how much? 299€? ;)

Hahaha

Hahaah

People say "...that's why aliens won't come visit us" but aliens actually run this world. Lol.. my 2 cents 😅😅🤣🤣

f5.6 is not a down from f4 😂

This lens is about the same as the 18-85 kit found with the crop bodies. They're 'cropping' the lens instead of cropping the sensor because everyone wants to shoot in FF.

@@LK-ho1dg it's like a third stop of difference 😂

T 1/8 ? crazy. Next will be a 1:11 I suppose

@Paul Jones and that hiding of distortion through firmware and software trickery is really bad taste

and you won't even need a promist filter anymore

Everone is tired of bokeh blurry nausea.

@@winstonqin9595 😄😄😄

I'd say by next year. This Christmas I have no doubt Canon will do a big sales blitz with this lens and the RP, and I bet it sells a ton. Then, when people realize how shite this lens is and they actually care about having a good lens, they will flood the used market trying to recoup. No different from the 18-55mm lenses that get bundled. I have two of those that never see the light of day, one that never came out of the friggin box. I never even bothered to try to sell them since they are just not worth anything and anyone that would want one already has it! LOL

@@kevindiaz3459 My first camera was a Canon 400D with the 18-55 kit lens. Unfortunately it took me a while to realise how terrible it was. With a decent lens, even a 400D can actualy take great pictures, but I didn't know that before swapping to better lenses. Don't under-estimate used gear value though. I digged it out my old stuff box, and decided to sell it after more than 10 years... The 400D (working well but with significant wear) was sold 100€ within 2 days. The 18-55 (perfect condition lol, not much used) was sold 50€ within 24h, and I had a lot of contacts, I'm sure it could be sold even more than that. Honestly I didn't even expect to sell it, but it seems that there is a market, even for old crappy entry level stuff lol

@@PAD32 kit lens are actually amazing, if u cant use it to take great pictures dont blame the lens, blame on how you see something.

@@mrinsaf Did you ever use any good lens? I think you didn't, otherwise you wouldn't say that this 18-55 is amazing LOL. I owned some gear from budget to professionnal, and also things in between, and yes, I can tell you that this lens is REALLY bad. Poor autofocus, poor optics, small aperture, no IS. I can't see anything good about it, except maybe the price. Even my mid-range smartphone is better in a lot of aspects than a kit like this. A decent lens on a decent camera helps taking better pictures, it offers a lot more possibilities, and is just a lot more pleasant to use. Now, can you take great pictures with a 18-55? If you don't care about image quality, yes. But there is MUCH better options, even for low price

@@PAD32 A wood screw also has a good price ;-)

I was going to do that given my favorite lens when I had my 5D was that 24-105L, but then I remembered that that Mk I lens was not really that sharp and even at F4, the DOF was very, very shallow compared to any crop sensor or 1 inch compact (The original 5D having terribly slow focus, too). Being that it would be 1 inch even longer with the EF-R adapter and it was as big and heavy as I remembered, I tried this first. Plus, I have all the primes in the focal lengths I like, so who can complain when the total (body and lens) weight is at about 2 pounds. The difference between now and back then is the smaller bodies, better image stabilization and much, much better optics on the 7.1 lens.

I thought the same with the EF F4. Size and weight matters enough that I will not bring it if it gets in my way. Plus, I have all the tiny primes adapted so I never worry about wide apertures or low light. Don't forget, the IS allows you to get lower ISOs at the better apertures.

😂

Nah, I did a DIY version by cutting the bottom off of a milk bottle.

Yes. It's great lens for outdoors and hiking. It also adds a wide range of macro. Landscapers and studio work rarely shoots below F8 too. If 'speed' isn't enough, you can pair it with the RF 35.

I have an EOS RP and it's a good enough camera to deserve better lenses than this for sure. Even my 1990s 28-135mm EF lens is much faster than this, at f/3.5-5.6, and those things cost like $100. And it has in-camera correction profiles on these cameras, AND also have image stabilization.

You can use a flash for those low light situations

​@@sethmoyer 2/3 of a stop is not "much faster". Not to mention the 28-135 has fairly poor image quality that requires stopping down.

Should still be returnable then. Good luck!

@@ekevanderzee9538 Thank you, luckily they are even open on the holiday tomorrow (gathering from your username I think you know which one I'm talking about)! I'll make a call to them than. I checked out the website of the store and if I had bought the bundle of the body and the L 24-105 mm lens, it wouldn't even be such a huge difference between what I now paid. I'm wondering if they let me trade in this almost new lens with a small amount of money for the L lens :O

This lens is absolute trash, especially for the EOS R, don't waste your money on this, buy the RF 24-105 f/4L. The RF 35mm is SIGNIFICANTLY better than this cheap shit.

I was thinking to buy the kit too, now I will not buy with this lense

Yes. If you ever played Metal Gear Solid on the 1995 Playstation, it'll be familiar.

Haha, I just got an R8 after buying all these Sony bodies. Sony bodies are good, their lenses are not. Canon was right to release this lens and a bunch of small primes. NOBODY wants to carry an "SLR" bulky body anymore. With a small Canon full frame body (RP, R8) this is what I am complementing my Samsung Ultra with. It doesn't have to be one way or the other. The full frame captures all the details. If it looks good on my phone I take another with the Canon.

I think efs lens are better in price performance. a cheap 24.70 or 28.80 4 to 5.6 should be easier to make at a good price.

Wouldn’t average consumers buy an aps-c camera? Full frame cameras aren’t cheap for the casual shooter. You can expect full frame buyers to know their apertures and at that point you’re giving them the option between experiencing a blackout or spending 3k. Btw, the RF mound as a product should be profitable on its own. Subtracting from entry level aps-c cameras is bad business at best and completely illogical in general.

I have one of these on an EOS R and it works great. The image quality is more than adequate if you're not going above 15x12. It is well balanced on the camera and makes a great travel camera outfit. And yes, I do have a set of L-series lenses and in real-world use you have to take into account the weight of extra glass. The f7.1 issue is not a problem

@@hopkinsroger f7.1 is not an ISO problem with 5 step IS. It is a subject to background issue. Just get closer or have the subject come closer.

Sigma Art FTW. Love their prime lenses.

Hopefully soon! Unfortunately, Canon RF mount is closed to third party. Yes, Sigma, Tamron, Samyang, etc could possibly reverse engineer it but it wouldn't be as good as native. Reasons, why I shoot with Sony right now, their mount is opened to everyone!

Canon is shooting themselves in the foot with the closed RF mount. No resources for inexpensive 3rd party lenses. Canon stop trying to be Apple!

Eh?? These are totally different lens types, purposes and market segments.

You missing a point of this lens. The lens you mentioned is much bigger. And full frame is getting into affordable category, no longer is a premium. That means we will soon see a sub $1000 brand new FF camera. So those affordable cameras will need a kit lens similar in size and price. And the 7.1 aperture at 105mm is still brighter than a 5.6 lens on APS-C, for example.

A full frame with a decent lens for 1000$ it's really interesting. On used market you'll soon find them for about 600$.. this means that a modern full frame will be affordable for everybody.

@@lino100x100 yeah, might be worth upgrading from Eos m6(mark 1) with kit lens.

I've already seen it at & 1399. The RP + this lens.

You made it ! Today we saw this bundle with exactly price as you mentioned !

@@ZhigeLi Yeah, I literally just found out yesterday and ran out to buy the bundle myself. Was going to wait and get the RP + 35mm when I had a bit more money, but local best buy only had one of these bundles and it was too good of a deal to pass up.

Exactly, Canon did what Sony did not do. Release a bunch of small good enough primes. Like candy for photographers. I only use the 35F2 and will add the 28RF pancake for ultimate portability. And this lens is sharp enough to actually say it's better than my cellphone. Many lenses are not. Even the pancake 40mm2.8 adapted is good, but a slow focuser. Many of those tiny primes I rarely use 50, 85, 100 can all be adapted and are excellent lenses.

the F4 is great!

it may become their next kit lens

Gung Krisna still we’re talking about full frame and a kit lens for a bodies that are likely to start around the $1500 mark. I would argue that people buying into the RF System do have experience with better aps-c lenses than the kit lens they are going to get.

Lol, I'm stuck with it since it was bundled with the RP I got for a deal. Body only was 899 and bundle was 999, so I effectively paid $100 for the lens... For that price I'd say it's alright, it's actually pretty good for video. Saving up for the RF 24-105 f/4 now.

@@philsbruno and yeah, that lens is now one of the kit lenses for EOS R6 (besides the more expensive 24-105mm F4L kit)

@@LinhNguyen-im4uu for 100 bucks this lens is a steal. 😁

Same lol

Yardragil LAP Agree

But way too big. A 24-85mm 3.5-4.5 is much closer in size

But the 24-105mm f4-7.1 would become their future kit lens

Why not just get the RF 24-105 f/4L - it's only $100 more than the older EF version.

Wabajak13 The 24-85 is very soft in the corners as well. I sold my copy to get a 24-105 f4. It’s not perfect either but at least it has OIS and longer zoom

I don't think it is mediocre, I think it is total GARBAGE!

Anyone who spends $2000 - $5000 on a Pro FF Camera body only to use a $400 garbage lens on it, needs to get their head checked!

@@-WhizzBang- How much is a Canon RP? Less than $1000. This lens not meant to be for $5000 Pro FF cameras. Not everyone wants or needs $1000+ lenses. This lens combined with a FF sensor is still brigher than the usual 5.6 APS-C lens. For the price it's a very good lens! If you want better, get the F4 variant for 3 times the price or the 24-70 2.8 for 5 times the price!

@@todanrg3 the Canon RP is also a piece of junk. I have used this lens, and in my opinion, it is a cheap piece of garbage. You get what you pay for, which is WHY you will never see any real photographers use this lens for anything other than a paper weight! But hey, if it works for you, then great! I just hope nobody is paying you for any photography work!

@@-WhizzBang- Everything is garbage for couch pro's like you. Go buy $5000 cameras then. "Real" photographers are not defined by the price of the gear

Exactly, plus a lot of EF primes are really excellent and cheap right now. I still use my 35mm F2 ALL the time. This zoom lens is just as fun as when I had the F4 version almost 20 years ago but the body and lens now weighs as little as the lens itself!

What would you need this lens for though? Paperweight?

years later I'm still chasing my tail on this topic - I have the 15-35 F2.8 Rf and the 100-400ii.... on occasion I would like to have something to cover that 35-100mm gap - but! It seems like the only "decent" option is the F4 24-105 RF... I'm just not thrilled about the price

@@07wrxtr1 And now you see half of my problem with them. The good native options for that focal range are expensive, and the cheaper ones have some glaring issues that make them worth avoiding. This is why I'm such an advocate for cheap adapters and vintage lenses.

@@RealRaynedance Yeah maybe I can find a good copy of the old 24-105 EF F4 L ??

@@07wrxtr1 Or some manual focus primes from the 70s and 80s from various brands if you don't need autofocus or could live without a zoom. Only you know whether you need those two things or not. Personal preference for me, I prefer covering 35 to 85 with primes.

Maybe use it as a sunshine lens. Pity about the sharpness then, though.

Man, 6.3 vs 7.1 it´s about 1/3 of a stop less... It´s the difference between shooting at ISO 1050 instead of 800, so not that much. But if you said f5.6, I would agreed with you :P

Regarding your prediction for a price drop: 3 years on price remains the same $399.00 USD and is currently on backorder.

@efreutel With inflation, maybe it is a drop in real terms lol. But lens selection has improved on mirrorless and the used market is more active thanks to the elapsed time.

Yes, that's correct. But even with an added 5% tax, it's better value in the US

The F-stop would still be F4-7.1. That doesn't change. The FL would be somewhere around 15-65mm, that is pretty close. From a technical point of view, crop factor also doesn't change the focal length, but rather the effective angle of view. People express it as FL since it seems easier to understand it that way, but then, I think that is really only true for those that have the knowledge of what FL is most useful in a given scenario for a full frame camera. Then, when compared to crop factor, that knowledge tells them what FL to use. It's more confusing than it has to be...

It's still a little bit better than a crop kit. While F7.1 will always be F7.1 in terms of light-gathering, keep in mind that FF shoots higher ISO better than a crop. So, it's still right to assume the same F4.4 performance on a crop altough not always correct. It depends on sensor quality for the light.

With an infinite depth of field. And that's why many people want to try a "proper" camera instead of their phone. I guess we'll see many RP's on Ebay soon with all that disappointment coming up.

Kevin Diaz I’ll try to explain it again. You have two DIFFERENT cameras with two DIFFERENT lenses. One is full frame (FF) camera with a lens 105mm, Aperture set to 7.1, ISO 500, shutter speed let’s say 1/100s. The other camera is a 1.6 crop (APSC) with a 65mm lens, aperture set to 4.4, ISO 200, shutter speed 1/100s. If you take pictures with those two cameras and settings mentioned above, you’ll get the exact same RESULT (same composition, same depth of field, same exposure and even the noise level is the same on same generation sensors). This is just physics, this is how it works and it’s been proven and you can try it too (people tend to argue until they try it). So, there’s really no difference between APSC and FF if you had equal performing lenses (which would be also equal sized). Just a side point: the real difference whether to chose APSC or FF system is the lens selection (for example, you can get 85mm f/1.2 for a FF but there’s no 50mm f/0.75 for an APSC system) and the fact that FF camera base ISO is usually 100 whereas APSC camera base ISO is also 100 but it should be translated to ~40 for the same results. Alright, after that theory, back to my point: People get mad about a FF lens f/7.1. But they are fine with APSC f/5.6 lenses that give you even worse results... Once again, we talk about FF lenses on FF cameras, APSC lenses on APSC cameras

@@og7650 You are 100% right! But people like to rant.

I would buy an old EF L lens over this one tbh.

1:1 gets rid of the corners so any lens will be awesome.

I have all that just like you. For the lenses I rarely use, the adapter will just be fine. But for the most compact and highest (and cheapest option), I went RF 7.1. It's way sharper than the old 24-85 and half the weight or more than the rest. If you understand FF, IS, ISO and apertures then 7.1 may not be an issue.

It’s ok for the general user getting into photography. However, while it’s not a real fair comparison because of sensor size and therefore cost of the lens, I can’t help but compare it to the lumix 12-60 f3.5-5.6. Which on a m4/3 camera gives an equivalent field of view of 24-120mm at a brighter aperture of 5.6 in the telephoto and 3.5 on the wide. It’s optically great with no major flaws, stabilised, extremely cheap and it’s even dust and splash proof with a gasket at the mount. It just makes me think that perhaps the target market for this lens, being the low budget novice photographer would be better served with a small size sensor that will be able to facilitate better lenses for the same or cheaper prices.

What lense do you use for your eos r?

I got the R6 with this lens it’s pretty awesome. Takes nice sharp photos. Don’t need an ND filter since f7.1. Pretty cool

This is a fascinating idea. I guess that this f/7.1 lens will work better with R5 than with EOS RP. Because R5 will likely have better low light performance than RP. So R5 owners can use this lens, whille RP owners should pay more, and buy the RF 24-105 f/4.0. (I am not 100% serious, but it is an interesting thought.)

@@dahebable plus, R5 will have an IBIS

@@dahebable It will not be significantly different between those cameras. Even if you compare old cameras, let's say a 6D, with a EOS R, there is almost no difference in low light performance

I don't think the R5 would be so happy to see this trash lens in front of its sensor lol

You can already compare image quality using my videos :-)

@@christopherfrost thanks for replying. I have watched yours and distin abbot review of the samyang rf 85mm 1.4. You both love that lense. For its price what an opportunity for a regular budget to come close to the best lenses. ive thrown all out the sensible canon all rounders out window and ill get that as my only lense. For a while

Atleast lenses with forgotten nd filters have better bokeh 🤣