I have this new 24-105/2.8L. Awesome lens for my use and needs, which is the reason I bought it. At least 90% of my work can be done with this lens. From now on, I only bring extra lenses if I know I need those for some special use. Otherwise I can just go with one lens, and that is truly something!
I purchased this lens exclusively for sports. It arrived last week and so far I have shot only three basketball games (about 3k photos so far). It is amazing. Tomorrow I will use it for wrestling. This thing for indoor sports on my R3 is brilliant.
Hate to say it, but all of the pics you show in the last min, would have looked so much better @ tighter dof, eg @ f1.2 or f1.4 - to knock out that distracting background, imo.
The classic combos are the 24-70 and 70-200, and the tog will often need a prime for the day also and a lighter wider lens for the reception shots (as you point out). So the idea here with this lens is to replace the 24-70 AND 70-200 freeing up the other camera body to a single prime. Less lens swapping, less necessity for a carry on bag, two bodies, done. If I had the money I would entertain this set up, running with a 24-105/2.8 and a 50/1.4 sounds superb (with a fast 24 in the back pocket). Or you could do a 28-70/2 and a fast 135. Canon are killing it, congrats.
Nice coverage. 1/ For a man it is no problem the weight... or at least for me. 2/ The bokeh difference between 2 vs 2.8 is easily achievable in Lightroom and probably other software as well. ;-)
Hi Vanessa, I enjoyed watching your video (a few times now). I see lots of complaints about size/weight/price in the comments, here and elsewhere. These are the same grumblings the 28-70 had when it first came out. After some time passed, and more people used the 28-70, it's now very well revered, myself included. This new 24-105 is a new direction Canon is going with hybrid lenses, as it's clearly designed for video and photography use. I think some people need to understand this, as many complaining comments are only thinking of it for photography. Personally, I am one of those that think this is a "one and done" lens for most applications. However, I do like my 28-70 very much, and the f/2 is the only edge I'd say it has over the 24-105. I think as this new 24-105 gets more widespread use, it will surpass the "too big/heavy/expensive" complaints and become a new standard in - standard zooms!
When you consider you can get away with just using this lens and crop mode (R5, maybe not R6 etc) then it makes sense. If you’re going out with two two cameras and two lenses, that’s heavy…
I love my 28-70 f2. It has a certain…”look”. Portraits, travel, food, events…my R5-f2 pair is my go-to companion. I’ll be happily skipping the amazing but not-for-me 24-105 f2.8. Thanks for confirming this for me!
I predict a video ~9 months from now titled "Why I was wrong about the RF 24-105 f/2.8"....signed a RF 24-105 f/2.8 owner. :) .... and I go classic...It's a Wonderful Life or Scrooge (Albert Finney).
I like the fact that you get 4 focal lengths in one all at 2.8 but that 3k price tag though? Nope, that's what would steer me away from this lens. I'm sure their are other alternatives for less.
I was planning to replace my EF 24-70 f/2.8 with the RF version. In researching, I saw the 28-70 f/2.0 and then the 24-105 f/2.8, but initially didn’t want to spend the extra money. Then as I thought about it, at that price it isn’t that much more and like the idea of extra reach for versatility. I mainly photograph roller derby and don’t feel I need the f/2.0 even though it would be nice. I also have the EF 70-200 f/2.8. Thank you for your review, I enjoy your videos.
I agree that it would be great for video. I have the ef F4 version and it’s one of my favorites for an all around lens. I would rather invest in the 28-70 for portrait use. Another excellent video.
I shoot with the RF 24-105 F4.0 and the RF 70-200 2.8 at weddings. Two of the greatest lenses I have ever used. For Bokeh, I think compression matters, and I won't shoot a bokeh with a wide Fstop below 85mm. I use my 70-200 2.8 for portraits on or above 85MM, 105MM, 135MM and 200MM. But normally I like shooting in lower Fstops to retain as much retail and sharpness as possible for post production which explains why I regard the f4.0 version of the 24-105 highly.
A few years back, I tried photographing a martial arts exam with a 24 to 105 f4, indoors with inconsistent light. The results were not good. I may be getting better as a photographer and the use of a full frame R camera, noise reduction in lightroom makes up for a lot. I cannot change locations, but those testing can move out further than 105 ideally. I would have loved this lens then, paired with a R7, it might solve my lack of the perfect lens. Need to try the R7 with the 24 to 105 f4. For an event where I am mobile, the 28 to 70 f2 just cannot be beat. A 35 to 150 might be ideal for my outlier usecase. A martial arts tournament is best served by a 70 to 200, these are in large gyms. The occasional 135f2 can create something truly special. Long story short, I would have loved an EF version of this lens years ago, i do not think it will make my work stand out, I think that is why Canon made it video focused.
So do you think the 24-105 f2.8 or 28-70 f/2 for martial arts tournaments? I’m literally trading all my gear to get one of these to photograph my kids testing and tournaments. And also their indoor school events. R6Mii is the body.
@@renees8262 First, I would slow down a bit, before spending that much. First determined what focal length you need for each event. Second be very precise in your use of depth of field. Martial arts tournaments, I have attended are in gyms, with 4 to 8 matt rings, and the ability to move in the stands and between the rings. For my experience the 70 to 200 focal length is the best. I am tall enough to shoot over most people. If your tournament setup is different, then pick the right range. 70 to 200 works for basketball in the stands, and ok for soccer. For testing, I could really use a 20mm to 135mm. I know that does not exist. For testing I must sit i. A single location and I do not know where my daughter will be until testing starts. I randomly pick the 24 to 70 f2.8 or the 24 to 105 f4. The noise reduction in lightroom has made my concerns about noise a non issue for me. Back to the depth of field issue. Sparring at F4 provides more flexibility in getting both students in focus, f2.8 and f2 will only get one student in focus. There are those moments when both students are on the same plane of focus, and there are also times, where you just want your child’s face in focus. Both the 24 to 70 and 70 to 200 are fast focusing lenses. Depth of field is f stop, focal length and distance, not all of these are under your control during certain sports. Wedding receptions the 28 to 70 is wonderful, but there is time to compose an image.
@@jeffreyhill4705wow this is so helpful!! Screenshot the whole message so I can think through it. I only get one of these lens for now so I definitely will use it as my guide to think through!! THANK YOU!!
RF 28-70 f/2 price is back to $2799. I was driving listening to your video and when I heard you say it was $500 off, I couldn't wait to check. I'm still saving up for the 28-70 and I can hardly wait! I like watching everything you make for RU-vid! Thank you!
Thought about getting this lens already have the trinity of 2.8 and sometimes i wish i had the reach of 105 but I bought the 85 1.2 cause that lens is just plain insane bokeh.
I'd rather have a two camera setup with a couple of 1.4 prime lenses...all day easy... because when you're indoors that dreadful feeling that you wished you could have taken that f1.4 lens instead of the 2.8 zoom will always linger then fear creeps in on how many opportunities you can potentially miss on a 2.8...my ISO ceiling/ limit is always at 3200 and I don't know how you can freeze motion with it using a 2.8 lens. Even if theoretically, ISO 6400 is acceptable to you then you could probably miss quite a number of shots with a 2.8 via motion blur and no, Image Stabilization can only save you during few ideal situations...like those "say cheese" moments For video YES! For critcal indoor shoots, NO...HECK NO Totally fine with a 28mm + 50mm combo. Or even a 35mm + 85mm You can buy a used SIGMA ART 1.4 prime for $500-$700, go figure do the math
i feel like f/2.8 in the normal range is just not that remarkable anymore, maybe because of the 28-70 f/2 or maybe because lots of enthusiasts have good lenses that go as wide as f/2.8 now, or maybe because smartphones do a lot more than they could 5 or 10 or 15 years ago. but also, i imagine i would be carrying two bodies, ideally with a standard and a telephoto and maybe a few primes and/or an ultra-wide on-hand, and if i've got a telephoto at f/2.8 then 70-105 overlap isn't benefitting me... unless i'm shooting video, like you said. i would be curious if the 24-105 f/2.8 produces video between 70-105mm that optically looks comparable to a 70-200mm f/2.8 between 70-105mm in the way that cine lenses are often optically matched to each other to make cuts between shots less jarring... but that seems like a niche question to be asking lol
Great video - not for me as an amateur, but always interested in hearing how a pro would use a piece of gear. Also, I have a few: Home Alone, Love Actually and Die Hard 😊
Great video, Vanessa. I own the Holy Trinity of RF f2.8 glass. Very happy with that combo. Love my R5. Would consider the RF 28-70 f2. I have found the 15-35 f2.8 to be a very useful lens. Thanks for the content.
Being around weddings would make me sick quite quickly. By the way... Wouldn't it be great if we were celebrating their divorces in the same way ? 50% is lying about the 'until death do us part' so it would be a huge market !
Tamron/Samyang 35-150 F2-2.8 for me is versatile enough for wedding and almost half of the price. 35mm for me is wide enough most of time. Unfortunately, this is not available for Canon RF mount. I am Canon shooter from the very start but I'm switching to Sony soon because of lens affordable native selection.
That's hard for me I'm doing anything variable. If it was 2.8 I would say that would be the one but, I don't like anything adjusting my aperture but me. I've jumped up and left Canon sooooo many times just to come back. The lens selection may look cheap because of 3rd party lenses. Best believe they will come to Canon again one day but, not until they have made their money on their big sellers. Business wise this would make sense because once 3rd party is introduced they cut into your sales. I don't want anything 3rd party right now what Canon is putting out is crazy insane good. Just remember the other glass looks cheap but the overall total for the switch over is expensive. Body/bodies/lenses = $$$$$.... I've done it to many times because Canon was taking to long to go mirrorless. Go to your local camera store and rent what you want to switch too. Make sure it's a good fit and you like processing the files.
@@dantecooper646 Third party lenses make the manufacturers more competitive with the quality and price. Sigma/Tamron lenses are getting better and better while Viltrox also introduce their Pro line up 27mm & 75mm F1.2. I already have Sony A7IV for video, I don't need to spend a fortune to buy decent and good quality glasses while my Canon EOS R still using adapted EF glass since most of their RF non-L lenses are garbage. Yes, Tamron/Samyang 35-150 has variable aperture but if you don't want to change your settings, you can lock the aperture to F2.8. Atleast you still have a 1 stop (F2) to wide end that you can use if needed.
I had this same combo, what I found super annoying though is the 16-35 being too wide and not zoom enough for indoors, and the 35-150 being not wide enough for indoors. I want to capture a wide angle shot, then zoom right in and get some close ups/details. Not achievable with either of those lenses. The 24-105 f2.8 seems absolutely perfect.
I really appreciate the comparison and callout between this and the 28-70. I shoot a lot of Volleyball (action/portrait) and less but a lot of birds / wildlife. I started with the R6 and the 24-105 f4 Kit; however, I’m planning to upgrade to the R5ii this year and I’m trying to decide between this lense, 28-70 f2, or 24-70 f2.8 (Volleyball is mostly 35-70mm from the net). With your experience on the R5ii on both this and the 28-70, I’m curious which one is faster for autofocus or if one outperformances the other with the eye focus. I realize that wedding and sport is probably quite different as far as speed is concerned; the R6 has struggled to keep up when shooting at f2.8 (roughly 50% miss on the 70-200 @ f2.8) so I’ve been using f4 a lot. However the new AI Volleyball focus and eye tracking focus (R5) has me really wanting to shoot wide open; indoor sports is typically low light and I’m having to use denoising a lot at f4. Even on an overbuilt editing rig it is slowing down process flow quite a bit, especially if I have to use AI denoising in LR. I’m leaning toward the 28-70 since I tend to agree that it can replace primes in the bag, but I’m not sure if even the R5 can keep up with high speed shooting at f2; thus the question about focus speed. (I could probably also be more efficient as a photographer, don’t want to just blame the kit)
The R5 ii will be a dramatic improvement over the R6 - I don’t think the combo with either of those lenses will show any sign of lagging or that low of an accuracy rate. I don’t think you’ll notice that one is faster than the other either. Both around the same IMO
Has anyone ever mentioned that you mispronounce the word videographer? Not tying to be a dick - don't know if English is a 2nd language for you or its a regional thing. You're adding an extra syllable.
@@VanessaJoy Cool. I'm a cinematographer but sometimes I moonlight as a photo-ographer. Just got the 24-105 f2.8 a little bit after watching your review. Bought a refurb directly from Canon Sales - saved $400 plus they honored my tax exempt status, plus free shipping, so it was a hell of a deal. 1st 2 shoots with it this week on my R6 and it was a dream. Can't wait to get my Canon C400 to shoot some video with this lens. I never really liked shooting with my EF 24-105 f/4 L IS USM II. Zoom action always felt clunky. Manual focus always felt like a guess... just a blah lens. But this one rocks so far. It is a little heavy, especially with a speedlight on the camera as well... could feel it in my wrist at the end of the day. Overall I recommend this piece of glass for sure. Also this lens plus the Canon R6 still fit and balance on the Ronin RS2.
I'm still using the 24-70 2.8 and love it. I do consider the 28-70 at times but, even though it's in the budget, I can't justify it. And if I want a little bit more on the telephoto end, I recently all but ditched my 70-200 2.8 for the 135 2.0. That's been an absolute dream and I got it for $450 on eBay. Definitely beats the $3,000 Canon wants for the 24-105 2.8. I'll stick with what I've got!
I bought the f2.8 24-105 for natural light, to overcome the indoor shortcomings of the f4 24--105 - it delivered just fine. I've owned a power zoom for a previous Canon lens - worked great for video
I shoot almost all my paid work with a 24-105 f/4 and the 70-200 f/2.8. I typically rock two camera bodies, one with the 24-105, the other with the 70-200, then have a backup body and another 24-105 f/4 and a 70-200 f/4 as backups in the bag. I can totally see selling one of the 24-105 f/4s and replacing it with the 24-105 f/2.8. In reality, I'd love to see something like a 28-240 f/2.8 or f/4 that way, it'd just be one lens for 90%+ of paid shooting and I could literally get it down to just two bodies and two lenses for most jobs instead of the 3 bodies and 4 lenses. OK, maybe 3 bodies, 3 lenses, but they'd all be the same lenses.
This is clearly a lens meant for videography. I also suspect that the housing will be purposed for the next generation RF 70-200 as it is an internal focusing and zoom body. I am not sure that I like the idea of the lens being heavier.
Always an honor to be inspired by the excellence that is Vanessa Joy Photography. I have discovered a gem in the photography universe. I will probably buy this lens for my go to lens.
I used to be strictly primes. I didn’t want a lens that went 1.8 and up. If it wasn’t 1.2 or 1.4 I didn’t want it. I got the 28-70 f2 but, didn’t really care for the weight and yet still the 2.0 I felt I still need 1.2 if I’m that close to it. But, my favorite lens still hasn’t been released yet the 35 1.4…. So I did learn to like the versatility of the 28-70 so I sacrificed and moved to the 24-70 2.8 a lens I have never liked but, my style has changed over the years I have gotten more fluent in flash. The more flash I have used the more I’m like 2.8 can work. Now it’s not the best bokeh but, it looks good. Enter the 24-105 2.8 I pre ordered immediately. I have owned it since day one and I love it. No regrets at all. Yes if you’re shooting 5000 ISO on a 2.8 you’re shooting 2000 ISO on f2.0 but. At 1.2 you’re shooting 800 ISO. So it’s whatever you prefer. I got the R3 the same week as the 24-105 and shooting ISO 20,000 is yielding keepers!!!! The R3’s high ISO capabilities have made me change things up once again and has taught me how to embrace some “noise”. I have shot 3 weddings, an engagement session, team photos and senior portraits all with this lens not taking it off the camera once. 105 at 2.8 is 🔥🔥🔥🔥 the compression & bokeh are fabulous. Now I will say when my 35 1.4 or 1.2 comes I will buy it. I don’t need it but, I want it and it will be strictly for special needs. But, for me this is my one and done. I have the 16 2.8 for just incase a room is super small and “dramatic flare”. Mostly dramatic, experimental shots. But, yeah this lens is great and I don’t regret it. It actually balances very well and feels lighter than the 28-70 f2. Plus, that closed barrel zooming I have missed that so much with the RF mount!
Looks like a cool lens but since I already have the 28-70 and 70-200, I really don’t see the need. I’d much rather get a 35mm 1.2L. Holiday movies? I’m a Big Lebowski little achiever so... :) and When Harry Met Sally… I’d also include Serendipity but Kate Beckinsale blocked me on Instagram LMAO.
Well not everyone is a 110lbs weakling 🤓 one might decide it’s the only lens you’re going to shoot with instead of using two cameras and two lenses. In which case it’s lighter…
Thanks for the review Vanessa. I do own the 28-70 and to be honest, I really dislike it. It's heavy and sometimes I miss that extra 4mm I had with my 24-70 when shooting in tight spots. I do not think the 2.0 is that great that makes it worth it. I'd be using the 24-105 primarily for ceremonies (most of my weddings are outdoors) and formals. I plan on testing it during Shutterfest this year and if I like it, I'll 100% trade my 28-70 for this one. Cheers.
Interestingly enough, I've had people on street notice and compliment my 24-105 f/4 a few times. Maybe because people with "real" cameras are less commonplace these days.
I do love my 24-105 f4 for toddlers and kiddos outdoors because they will not hang in a single location or near each other and I'm not a poser. I like them wild and free. Do I like f4? Nooo, low light is a real struggle BUT I regret it every time I shove on a Prime bc for the 1 pic with dreamy background Ive missed 20 other shots. I'm considering this lens to replace that f4. Wish it was f2 and went to 300 😂 but cant have it all, yet, I guess. Holiday movie: Home Alone
@@VanessaJoy oh, interesting! I typically don't apply lens correction! I like the characteristics the Canon L lenses usually have. So it doesn't bother you that it's adding pixels to the edges and that your RAW doesn't look the same as what you saw through the viewfinder?
I got the RF28-70 in a black friday sales when Canon gave out double cash back . the shop I got it from was selling it £200 cheaper as it was at £2800. so with the cash back at £200 x2 I got is for a nice £2400 which was a steal I know its heavy ( thank one reason for getting the battery grip ) I know it doesnt have IS but the pictures are so beautiful none of that matters. So as much as having the 24-104 range would be great I can not see it replacing the 28-70 I have the 100 macro if I need the little reach but the R5 45 MP I just crop LOL or if a lot more reach change to the 100-500 and oh my the photos at 500mm @ 1.2mtr is a dream
Found your channel for the first time today. Really enjoyed your video and your way of presenting information. I subscribed. I already have the same lens in f4 so I will not probably purchase. I do have the 70-200 and the 15-35 so I am fairly set. Using on a R6 Mark II. Photography for me is fun and not a living. Can't justify the added cost of switching my f4 for this.. Would love it though if I had a purpose. My favorite holiday movie is Christmas Vacation.
I am still team 35mm+85mm on two bodies for wedding photography and throwing on a 20mm or 135mm once a day when needed. it works fine and its f/1.4. but for filming this lens will be a joy to use for many. especially on a rig where you dont want to fiddle around with the whole setup after changing lenses.
Thanks for the review. I love the f4 lens so I am giving this lens serious consideration. But it might not be until the latter part of 2024 before I will be able to afford to pick it up. Still it's in my sights.
3:10 does holding the lens by the tripod foot make turning the zoom ring easier?? It looks very uncomfortable and seems just turning the tripod foot upside down would be much more comfortable. just trying to understand why you held it that way.
It’s more comfortable for me because it gets my elbow to my torso easier, which better supports the weight of the camera and lens vs putting all of the weight in my hand/arm
Do you notice more of a difference between F1.2 and F2.0 OR F2.8 and F2.0? You mentioned there being a big difference between F2.8 and F2.0 on the RF 28 to 70 mm, so that’s a one spot difference. A prime lens being F1.2 to F1.4 is a one stop + difference from F2.0… so is that a big difference as well?
Does Evoto work as a plug in with LR or do you have to export completely and leave the workflow? i.e. when you are done with Evoto edits does it reimport the edited photo back into the LR catalog or is it forever outside of LR unless you manually put it back in? Thank you in advance for any insight you can provide :) -PD
Great review, Vanessa! Very balanced and objective. The huge size of this lens is a turnoff for me as well, but I can see it being perfect for a lot of shooters.
@@PeteCocoPhoto I think they mean you can possibly remove the 70-200 from the equation, especially if you're using an R5. You can get a 168mm FOV in crop mode with this lens.
Personally I'd pair a 24-70 2.8 and a 135 F/2. Seems like a great range for one lens, but not something I want to hold up all day on the short end. Never mind the in-your-face intimidation factor of that for close in work. Dang physics. Can't have everything.
a lot of predictable bla bla. :-) But a good summary. :-) it's only for video use to my opinion, as is yours I believe. ;-) Greetings from the Netherlands, Onno Nugteren. And yes .... 28-70 ;-)
Hello Vanessa, yes predictable answer. But.... :-) the 28-70 shines even more if you can handle it in practice of course because of the 2.0. So yes but only of course on the full frame video's on the C70 it's different. ok lot's of choice but I think I would not buy this lens ever, to expansive and not outstanding enough on any focus distance. 2.8 is just 2.8: beautiful but not more. :-) Do you agree there? Onno Nugteren photographer and filmmaker from the Netherlands so we will probably never meet. 🙂 @@VanessaJoy
my 70-200 2.8L lives on my R6... If I could shoot receptions with it I would.. because of that I love the form factor of the new 24-105 2.8. Its such an appealing lens for sure.. I would agree that it may be a little intrusive in some receptions and crowded dance floors. Would be worth renting to see how it changes my workflow on a shoot day.
Hey Vanessa!! Loved this video..I shoot newborns, maternity and families, my dream lenses are the RF 50, and 85..torn between the 28-70 or the Rf 70-200.my new favorite Christmas movie is Biltmore Christmas.
@@VanessaJoy you are correct and it was not a good lens for weddings anyways. Back then I shot with 2 x Canon A2's those were the days. 1 loaded up with Portra 400 and Tmax 400 in the other.
Yep, you can do that. Still missing 24-27mm, though. You could use this lens in crop mode and get 24-168, which would trump the Tamron 35-150 people like to say is "better."
This feels more like a video lens with the weight and features. These days I often use the RF24-70 2.8 and RF 70-200 f4 as my basic setup. Small and flexible. If I want more maybe macro and 100-500 would be included.
@@VanessaJoy so is the RF100mm 2.8, and it’s priced currently at $999 but I feel like 24-105 2.8 was so highly wanted by Canon fanatics, Canon knows their gonna make a lot of sales with this one. Especially given that the 24-105 f4 was the most common used zoom. Even more than most primes.
I’m actually giving this lens a try for a different reason. I often photograph families around f4 and I find the 24-105 f4 to not be that great a performer fully open. Hoping the $3k f2.8 version will be real strong at f4.
Ok, I am definitely late, but I agree: I'll go with the Family Man, too! Great lens by the way (I love my 24-105 f4 for its versatility), but if I had the money I would go for the 28-70 f2 for the prime look. 😋
