Canon RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 Review & Sample Images by Ken Rockwell 

Thanks for noticing! You might appreciate www.kenrockwell.com/tech/2-kinds-of-photographers.htm

And thank you for writing!!!

Thank you!

Thank you! My website is still the reference; videos here are summaries of the written reviews. Thanks!

THANKS!!! Yes, my website KenRockwell.com is always more detailed and up to date, and these videos are for fun. THANKS!!!

@@KenRockwellTV I think the videos are really great too! I'm watching some more now, getting back into cameras I have to re-familiarise myself and I find your stuff the most informative, so THANKS to you!

Thanks! That’s why I do these.

Thanks for watching!

Ken Rockwell hey Ken I love watching your reviews on cameras and lenses going back decades ago When and what made you abandon your passion for Nikon and move to Canon Kindest regards Ron

Thank YOU!!!

Thank YOU!!!

Thank YOU!

Thanks Lauren! I just report it like I see it; I do this to help.

Hee hee, that’s right. It is an awesome lens. Thanks!

Which camera do you have? Can you use multiple exposures with this lens attached?

@@redpillnibbler4423 I have a Canon RP. Multiple exposures on this camera only has additive and average, no dark or light, so I don't use it much. But if I recall well it only works with prime lenses.

@@lsamoa Thanks for that.

Thank you! All the Canon RF lenses are superb; all depends what you want to do. Thanks!

The k you for watching! The full written review with sample image files is at www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/24-105mm-stm.htm

Thank you!!!!

Nice, eh? Thanks!

@@KenRockwellTVI like it a lot! I set the ring for exposure compensation, its so useful and intuitive

I hope you so love it!!!! Thanks!

Thanks!

Yip, modern lenses are all super sharp. Thanks!

Yip, today almost all lenses are ultra sharp. It’s durability and high speed that costs.

Agreed! Thanks!

Pretty much every lens that's come out since 2010 has been optically super; it's not the old days anymore, Today it comes down to size and weight and handling. Thanks!

I try to keep a midwestern accent from our network TV. In USA it was discovered that that’s the accent that the greatest number of viewers will perceive as “normal” across our great land. Did you know that in the southern USA, when president Jimmy Carter was elected from Georgia, people sighed with relief that we finally had a president “without an accent!” Thanks! Where are you?

@@KenRockwellTV I am from São Paulo, Brazil, South America. I was very happy to hear Mr. Rockwell on RU-vid, in addition to reading the articles on the site. Reading and listening to a topic you like in another language is the best way to learn it. Very interesting the fact about Jimmy Carter, I didn't know about it. Thanks!

Both sharp and good. 24-240 bigger and costs and does more. I prefer the 24-240.

@@KenRockwellTV thanks for comment. I had the choice for 24-240 and 24-105 as kit lens. The second kit wasn't available immediately, and I wasn't sure about the 24-240. But today I'm happy I made the selection for the longer one, and had the camera immediately instead if waiting two ir three weeks. Would be happy seeing your video review of the 24-240. Read of course already your review on kenrockwell.com

Works great on APS-C, just that you’re buying a much bigger lens than you need. For APS-C the RF 18-150mm is much better www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/18-150mm.htm thanks!

Both great optically. 24-240 zooms farther but bigger and heavier. 24-105 better for macro. 24-240 replaces a tele zoom, too.

Ken Rockwell nice! As for sharpness, and Color rendition both are similar? The L version any better to justify the extra $$?

Timothy No significant difference in sharpness or contrast or color or anything optical. L is all about tougher build and faster speeds.

Ken Rockwell I’ll save so much getting this awesome lens then. Thanks! Been following you for over a decade now 👏👍

@@KenRockwellTV a lot of distorsion on the 24-240 and the corner are black at 24...

Exactly. Thanks!

Exactly. Canon makes the best even better. God bless those guys. Thanks!

This RF lens is worlds ahead of the old www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/28-105mm.htm - however the old lens does work swell on an adapter, just that it has no IS and can’t focus as close.

The lens wouldn’t be an upgrade, just different. The RF 24-105 f/4L IS is a much better-made lens, but only covers half the range of a 24-240. I love the RF 24-240 for Canon, and today they’re all great lenses. They’re all just as sharp in actual use; it’s all about what you need for what you do; that’s why there are so many choices. See all my lens reviews, complete with sample image files, at kenrockwell.com Thanks!

my fave is 15-30 and 24-240. DONE.

Cool, huh? It’s not 1967; lenses today are all awesome.

@@KenRockwellTV ..that's what Ansel Adams would say😀

Every Canon RF lens review is in explicit detail at www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/index.htm all are optically great; your question is how much do you want to carry? The 24-105 stm is ultralight. Personally I prefer the 24-240 as it means I don’t usually have to carry my beloved 100-400L IS II. Pictures will all be the same.

If you can afford the RF 70-200 /f2.8 it’s the way to go

@@wesleybrilhante5989 Maybe. But, for the moment, I want the reach of the 100-500 and the 70-200 does not accept extenders. So, I'm leaning toward adding the RF 24-70 to my kit and stopping there for the time being. I won't carry everything. Wildlife and birds and rural landscape outings will involve the 100-500 and the 15-35. Two lenses. Thats it. Family stuff with grandchildren playing sports etc will involve the 100-500 and the 24-70. General travel? Maybe just the 24-70. But, what I take will all fit in a small backpack. Shouldn't be too bad. Maybe down the road I will add some more lenses. But, these three should get me going. I also want to do some astro and I am hoping the 15-35 will be adequate. We shall see. Thanks for the input. I feel so very fortunate to be able to have this lovely equipment for the last leg of my photography days. I hope is spurs me on to put in the effort. Fancy equipment is nice and all, but nothing comes of it without effort.

Get the RF 24-105 STM or RF 24-240 for packing light. Pass right by the excellent RF 24-105/4L; the STM is much much lighter. Full reviews for all these lenses are at www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/index.htm

@@KenRockwellTV Thanks Ken ,will check them out

Kit lenses have been really good since about 2004. Lenses are great lately; the optics are swell; it’s the mechanics and durability that vary. Thanks!

Yes! Great lens for everything. I prefer the zoom range of the 24-240 www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/24-240mm.htm while the RF 24-105 STM Is a featherweight powerhouse.

Ken Rockwell thank you! Just bought it. Are you to provide more links to affordable wide angle lenses for the EOS RP? Really wanna shoot Yosemite and Big Pine this summer. And probably some places here in San Diego.

By wide do you mean wider than 24mm, which is as wide as most people need and which either of those other two lenses do? If you need wider, the worlds best is the expensive RF 15-35 www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/15-35mm-f28.htm if you want less expensive, I use my superb EF 16-35 IS www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/16-35mm-is.htm on an EF to RF adapter www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/ef-adapters.htm and of course you can use any older and very inexpensive ef lensss like the forgotten 20-35 USM www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/20-35mm.htm or sturdy 20/2.8 USM www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/20mm.htm

Ken Rockwell thank you so much! After extensive research on your website yesterday and through other RU-vid videos and friend recommendation, I actually went ahead and bought the 17-40mm f4 l. So now I have 3 lenses. A 50, 24-105, and the 17-40. The latter two are being shipped now but the 50 I have now. They’re all canon.

I use iPhone - best stabilization. I can walk around with it hand-held and looks like it was shot on a dolly. Never seen anything anywhere near as good. Thanks!

@@KenRockwellTV This is exactly why I carry a Samsung Ultra in addition to my Iphone. Otherwise I would just use my now ancient A7r. I only bought a new Canon body thinking I need something Canon again with 4K, but I may not even use it for video. Maybe for the bit rate.

Yes; but this is a lens rather than a camera. I much prefer Canon over Nikon Mirrorless. See www.kenrockwell.com/tech/comparisons/nikon-vs-canon-vs-sony-full-frame.htm use this lens on a full frame Canon www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/index.htm like the R6 II www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/r6-ii.htm

I am looking at purchasing the Canon RF 24-105mm F4-7.1 IS STM. I’m looking to do family and couples photography (outdoor portraits). I’m a beginner at photography. Is this a good choice?

Christmas is coming. Things often hit rock bottom prices. Thanks!

Also, how is the IS Vs the L version? Thanks!

Yes, that’s what I said. They’re both as sharp. It’s not sharpness for which you’re paying with the L.

See my written reviews for definitive tests www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/index.htm

IS is similar, with a slight nod to the cheaper version. See the IS sections of each of their reviews. Thanks!

@@KenRockwellTV Thank you Ken.

Never heard about any limitations to multiple exposure with this or any other lens, but haven’t looked. In the USA just ask Canon at (800) OK-CANON. Thanks!

@@KenRockwellTV OK thanks.

Thanks!

I use a 320EX www.kenrockwell.com/canon/flash/320ex.htm there are newer small flashes, but I haven’t tried them.

@@KenRockwellTV thank you very much Ken for your prompt reply.

What? Never seen that. Thanks!

Will it allow multiple exposures please? i’m a multi exp photographer so its a deal breaker for me.

It’s a great lens optically. Low light? Fine at wide, not at tele. In photography light is the most important part; always better to improve your light than to change your lens. Thanks!

What’s “dual iso?” Great news is, assuming you use the same approved stores I use at www.kenrockwell.com/links.htm#stores that you can try it, and if you don’t love it, just sent it back for a full refund and no worries.

Ken Rockwell ooopss I currently shoot on a gh5 and was also looking at the s1 lineup. Best Buy does 45 day returns for 15% so I guess it’s better than renting

DONT USE BEST BUY! 15% is a rip off. Use any of the places I do and it’s free to return from these places www.kenrockwell.com/links.htm#stores

Exactly. Pictures are identical, L just more expensive and built tougher and faster at the long end. Glad we have so many choices from Canon.

there is. I always use Auto ISO and then set the slowest shutter speed inside Auto ISO to AUTO (it picks the slowest speed before it starts increasing ISO based on focal length). Once that's set, then shift that speed towards SLOWER. Done!

Yes, but it’s the wrong lens designed for larger cameras. You’re paying more and carrying a bigger lens and only using half of it on the R50. The lens for the R50 is the RF-S 18-150mm www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/18-150mm.htm

They are equally sharp. They differ in Price and weight, where STM wins. Need fast f/stop at the 105 end? L wins. Need close macro or amazing IS? STM wins again. Thanks! See also www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/24-105mm-stm.htm#compared

@@KenRockwellTV which one best for group photos nd wedding photography?

They’re the same for that, unless you want wider than f/7.1 at the 105mm end.

@@KenRockwellTV thanks for immediate reply

Yes, but it's a full frame lens mostly wasted on the APS-C R10. For the R10 the correct lens is the RF 18-140mm www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/18-150mm.htm which works so much better on the R10. Thanks!

Yes, but the 24-70/4 isn’t as good as this lens and costs much more. It’s how Nikon spells “ripoff.”

I hear Nikon are really struggling financially to the degree they might have to sell off their photo section as per Olympus. They are desperate for profit so comparative prices may be higher. Canon and others will know this so could possibly put the pressure on Nikon with great bargains like these. A good time to buy into the Canon system?

Christian Petersen maybe it’s a good time to support Nikon? The less competition in the future, the less need to develop better technology and others can push up prices No one can say that Nikon cameras and lenses are not at lease as good or overall better than any of the competitors

@@ronaldsand3000 Nikon need to make a star camera soon - as a tech company there is only so long you can be in the background. I love my D750 but its six years since that camera stood out from the crowd.

Mark Shirley there is more to Nikon than bring out revolutionary models every couple of years Ecosystem, colour science, image quality & build quality etc I assume you’re D750 still produces great photos like it did the first day you bought it All the very best

L lens is just tougher, same great sharpness. Love this little lens!

The L is great and tougher and bigger and faster and much more expensive. See www.kenrockwell.com/tech/is-it-worth-it.htm

Mine is great. Be sure to buy it only from an approved source www.kenrockwell.com/links.htm#stores as I do to be sure you're not getting a returned bad sample, as happens if you make the mistake of buying at retail. Also getting sharp images, like playing the piano well, depends on a whole lot more than having a sharp lens. It's difficult to get the other factors out of the way so you can test just the lens and not interfering factors. Feel free to email me your soft results (JPG only) and I'll try to see what can be improved. THANKS!

There is: it’s called the EOS RP www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/rp.htm thanks!

@@KenRockwellTV I saw that deal, but since I had the 6D, i felt it was only better for the size and weight. The dynamic range was about the same which is not great for noon time shooting (So don't shoot at noontime!). I haven't thoroughly tested it yet, but the R8 is better unfortunately at twice the cost. I wouldn't care or have know about that issue until I played around with my old A7r- that sensor is really good.

Quality. Thanks!

@@KenRockwellTV yes I think, as usual Canon wins with cheap and good lenses, at least since AE1 family. Plastic products still working and selling today

Sony made and still sells some really crappy lenses from the early 2010s for their Mirrorless before they got serous. The Sony 16/2.8 is the worst modern lens I’ve tested www.kenrockwell.com/sony/lenses/16mm-f28.htm#sharpness

Hahaha, that is so true. I have all those crappy lenses. They were really bad. Why did Sony introduce mirrorless to the world with such crappy lenses? I had to buy Sigma and other lenses and they were crappy, too. Even though Sony added those Zeiss lenses, this coincided with the advancement of the cellphone cameras. I thought all those Sony Nex bodies were horrible, but it was probably just those cheap lenses. The consumer lenses were all bad and regular folks couldn't really buy the prosumer ones. I still clung onto my A7r because of the sensor, but not those Nex bodies. Unfortunately, I still have a Sony 6xxx which I feel is not much better than a cellphone. That horrible 16mm. I have 3 of them and the wide and fish eye adapter too.

Sorry if Mr. Frost couldn’t get sharp results. I do. Thanks!

Maybe you’ve never taken a sharp photo 🤔 so you think this is sharp.

@@OscarD209 I took sharp photo's back in the days with my 5D mkII and the EF 70-200 f2/.8 which costed me a fortune. And I had a lot of EF L glass, but my 70-200 was razor sharp. Now I do it easy and bought a Canon RP and this lens to have a very good and light kit for day to day and photo trips and this lens is sharp. I think as sharp as my old L glass. I shot a Fuji X-T2 with the famous 56 f/1.2 and the Canon lens at f/7.1 is sharper as I compare the photos. I don't get all the negative on the Internet about this lens (and the RP). Of course this is not the best of the best, but does the average photo enthusiast need it? The L has more micro contrast etc, etc, but for people who don't need to get a deadline or print on billboards? I see all the amateurs photographing with thousands of euro's equipment and their images are sub par. Learn to photograph and this lens is very good.

@@joepverhaeg I have no doubt this lens can make amazing images in the hands of the right photographer. And I'm sure it has great image quality for what it is. The problem I have is Ken Rockwell making a subtle dig at Christopher Frost who I think stands head and shoulders above Ken Rockwell as a reviewer.

Oscar Diaz Ok, I don’t have an opinion on that because I don’t know both reviewers well enough. 😀

Because I actually shoot every day rather than just talk about it. I’m not a reviewer; I’m a full time shooter and have been for decades. See www.kenrockwell.com/tech/2-kinds-of-photographers.htm Not everyone really knows how to use their gear properly and get great results, and they blame it on their gear. and See the full review and sample image files at www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/24-105mm-stm.htm

They pan it because of the old fashioned stigma that small maximum apertures lenses are cheap crappy ones. 3 things negate most of that: Full frame sensor has less noise, IS gets you lower ISO, full frame has much shallower DOF. Any of the smaller sensors are horrible in low light no matter how big a max aperture, but nobody says anything.

@@superteamvideo1930 Thank you.

Then use f/8, the worlds best aperture. This isn’t film; we don’t need f/1.4 lenses anymore, thank goodness.

Remember when 400 speed film was a last resort? That is 125000 now.

Or a seasoned artist with decades of knowing what really matters. Thanks!

They can: get the classic EF 28-135 IS for $100 used www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/28-135mm.htm and add an adapter ring, and voila! You’ve get an even better zoom range for $200. Thanks!