Control ring fellas! With that and it’s IS and tack sharp image quality if you could take one lens on a trip this is it. It’s a phenomenal lens!
Marc
January 18, 2020 9:47 am
Hm, if a mediocre bokeh is 4 out of 5 stars I would like to know what a bad bokeh rating is, and how reliable the star ratings of this website are.
Vignetting you say “much better than the Nikon Z 24-70mm f/4 S” but the numbers you present us are equal if not worse than the numbers in the review of the Nikkor lens, on this website. If the f stop numbers are correct does that mean that the corner _area_ which is affected is much smaller (“much better”) with the Canon lens compared to the Nikkor lens? At least it is not clear to me what you mean.
Apart from this I like your review, thanks. Regards.
PPK
October 26, 2019 5:46 am
I just purchased the RP and 24-105. Been a Nikon user since 1989. Nikon’s last few years of product have been weak – my 300 pf was never any sharper than an old 70-300 VR… The canon menus are sweet! The 24-105 is light without being cheap. I had some good nikkors over the years – 35-70 f2 is what this new canon lens reminds me of… Go Canon!
Joachim
March 22, 2019 6:31 pm
Dvir, thanks for the review. I’m curious: why did you look into nearly all kinds of optical features and left out or forgot the various distortions? It’s only a question, no complaint.
Joachim, to test distortion and to be exact about it takes measurement tools that are beyond my means. As with the resolution tests, we will update this review in the future with Imatest results including distortion values when Canon releases a higher megapixel body. What I can tell you is that the RF 24-105 is relatively well controlled for distortion for a lens of this type and better than the Sony FE 24-105 and Nikon 24-70/4. At 24mm, there is noticeable though not atypical levels of barrel distortion. The other focal lengths feature pretty good control of distortion and are quite easily corrected. Overall, I would rate the performance as quite good when it comes to the lens’s handling of distortion (again, based on the eye test and not on exact measurements which will come in the future).
Having used both – the Nikon is way smaller and lighter. The specs don’t tell the full story, but side by side, it’s just significantly more compact. In sharpness, both of these are next-level lenses. The Nikon is a hair sharper in the corners at f/4 from 24-50mm. At 70mm, performance is dead even to my eyes. Beyond 70mm, the Canon wins :)
Thanks Spencer! I have the Nikon and have been blown away by it – to the extent that I’m leaving some primes at home and am able to walkaround at night with an f4 kit lens shooting handheld at 1/15 and 1/20 at the 70mm end, and get really useable shots. Great for photographers everywhere that the Canon and Nikon offerings are so strong.
Giovanni
March 22, 2019 5:16 am
“The rotating zoom and focus rings both feel very smooth, while offering the right amount of resistance so that nothing feels loose. ”
I own this lens and I find the zoom ring a lot less smooth than the EF 28-70 L F2.8 first series I own. Yet at the canon shop they told me they are all like this…
Ertan
March 22, 2019 4:34 am
Actually IS performance of the lens on EOS R is very impressive. Success rate at 1/2 seconds at 105mm is very high and I don’t have the most solid hands. Definitely better than my previous A7III and 24-70mm GM. I will compare with my EM1 II and 12-100mm f4 pro lens tonight and see if it can compete.
Maarten
March 22, 2019 3:58 am
“mediocre bokeh compared to some of its peers” and stil 4 ⭐️?
You want 2 stars? There are other factors which impact useability and quality of a lens. To mw this is a solid 4 star zoom lens (one of the good ones in the market).
Maarten was referring specifically to the bokeh rating, I think, and I also would not rate it’s bokeh 4★. And still, I envy Canon shooters for this very round and well performing standard zoom, while Nikon falls 35 mm shorter and comes with massive distortions both at wide and tele end. At the moment it’s useless at 70 mm as soon as straight lines should remain straight and as long as I have no dedicated lens profile in Capture One – this kind of cushion distortion C1 cannot correct.
The Nikon lens is extremely sharp lens when used as designed with the applied lens profile. This is common practice on many/most mirrorless lenses from Sony, Olympus , Panasonic etc . It is a design choice to allow software to correct what it can easily do in exchange for a sharper lens. Even high end lenses in each system take advantage of this. Just in case you think that Canon is not party to this kind of thing take a look at the uncorrected vignette numbers for the RF 24-105 and 50mm F/1.2. In theory if not necessarily in practice :-) utilising software to correct vignette or apply a lens profile gives the ability to produce sharper lenses that provide better results than their DSLR counterparts
I don’t care about vignetting, I do care about distortion because here the picture has to be geometrically altered which costs resolution, no matter how sophisticated you believe the software handles it. And I hate to be forced to use this stupid Nikon raw converter, so don’t even think to mention LR. ;) The RF 50L is btw. a f/1.2, not f/4, but feel free to continue comparing bananas with elephants.
Oh, and you’re just guessing that high end lenses take advantage of software manipulation or care to prove that? “Sharper lenses thanks to software” – well, we all can dream, can’t we.
i dont think that hes claiming that there is a software applied to make the lenses sharper. i believe he means that lens design is a game of tradeoffs. a company can use software to help in some areas and focus on things that cant be fixed in software. its much harder and more complicated to design a lens that is super sharp, no distortion or vignetting than it is to build a super sharp lens with a limited amount of distortion, that can easily be fixed in software.
Control ring fellas! With that and it’s IS and tack sharp image quality if you could take one lens on a trip this is it. It’s a phenomenal lens!
Hm, if a mediocre bokeh is 4 out of 5 stars I would like to know what a bad bokeh rating is, and how reliable the star ratings of this website are.
Vignetting you say “much better than the Nikon Z 24-70mm f/4 S” but the numbers you present us are equal if not worse than the numbers in the review of the Nikkor lens, on this website. If the f stop numbers are correct does that mean that the corner _area_ which is affected is much smaller (“much better”) with the Canon lens compared to the Nikkor lens? At least it is not clear to me what you mean.
Apart from this I like your review, thanks.
Regards.
I just purchased the RP and 24-105. Been a Nikon user since 1989. Nikon’s last few years of product have been weak – my 300 pf was never any sharper than an old 70-300 VR… The canon menus are sweet! The 24-105 is light without being cheap. I had some good nikkors over the years – 35-70 f2 is what this new canon lens reminds me of… Go Canon!
Dvir, thanks for the review. I’m curious: why did you look into nearly all kinds of optical features and left out or forgot the various distortions? It’s only a question, no complaint.
Joachim, to test distortion and to be exact about it takes measurement tools that are beyond my means. As with the resolution tests, we will update this review in the future with Imatest results including distortion values when Canon releases a higher megapixel body. What I can tell you is that the RF 24-105 is relatively well controlled for distortion for a lens of this type and better than the Sony FE 24-105 and Nikon 24-70/4. At 24mm, there is noticeable though not atypical levels of barrel distortion. The other focal lengths feature pretty good control of distortion and are quite easily corrected. Overall, I would rate the performance as quite good when it comes to the lens’s handling of distortion (again, based on the eye test and not on exact measurements which will come in the future).
Thank you for the nice review.
You are welcome Enrique!
How does it compare to the Nikon Z 24-70/4S?
This.
Great efforts by apparently both Canon and Nikon in their mid-zoom f4, how does the 24-105f4 compare to the Nikon 24-70f4?
Having used both – the Nikon is way smaller and lighter. The specs don’t tell the full story, but side by side, it’s just significantly more compact. In sharpness, both of these are next-level lenses. The Nikon is a hair sharper in the corners at f/4 from 24-50mm. At 70mm, performance is dead even to my eyes. Beyond 70mm, the Canon wins :)
Thanks Spencer! I have the Nikon and have been blown away by it – to the extent that I’m leaving some primes at home and am able to walkaround at night with an f4 kit lens shooting handheld at 1/15 and 1/20 at the 70mm end, and get really useable shots. Great for photographers everywhere that the Canon and Nikon offerings are so strong.
“The rotating zoom and focus rings both feel very smooth, while offering the right amount of resistance so that nothing feels loose. ”
I own this lens and I find the zoom ring a lot less smooth than the EF 28-70 L F2.8 first series I own. Yet at the canon shop they told me they are all like this…
Actually IS performance of the lens on EOS R is very impressive. Success rate at 1/2 seconds at 105mm is very high and I don’t have the most solid hands. Definitely better than my previous A7III and 24-70mm GM. I will compare with my EM1 II and 12-100mm f4 pro lens tonight and see if it can compete.
“mediocre bokeh compared to some of its peers” and stil 4 ⭐️?
You want 2 stars? There are other factors which impact useability and quality of a lens. To mw this is a solid 4 star zoom lens (one of the good ones in the market).
Maarten was referring specifically to the bokeh rating, I think, and I also would not rate it’s bokeh 4★. And still, I envy Canon shooters for this very round and well performing standard zoom, while Nikon falls 35 mm shorter and comes with massive distortions both at wide and tele end. At the moment it’s useless at 70 mm as soon as straight lines should remain straight and as long as I have no dedicated lens profile in Capture One – this kind of cushion distortion C1 cannot correct.
Then I misunderstood his comment, if that’s what he meant.
The Nikon lens is extremely sharp lens when used as designed with the applied lens profile. This is common practice on many/most mirrorless lenses from Sony, Olympus , Panasonic etc . It is a design choice to allow software to correct what it can easily do in exchange for a sharper lens. Even high end lenses in each system take advantage of this. Just in case you think that Canon is not party to this kind of thing take a look at the uncorrected vignette numbers for the RF 24-105 and 50mm F/1.2. In theory if not necessarily in practice :-) utilising software to correct vignette or apply a lens profile gives the ability to produce sharper lenses that provide better results than their DSLR counterparts
Here is an example showing that the RF 50L vignettes more at F/16 than the Sigma 50mm F/1.4 ART does at F/2
www.the-digital-picture.com/Revie…#038;API=7
I don’t care about vignetting, I do care about distortion because here the picture has to be geometrically altered which costs resolution, no matter how sophisticated you believe the software handles it. And I hate to be forced to use this stupid Nikon raw converter, so don’t even think to mention LR. ;) The RF 50L is btw. a f/1.2, not f/4, but feel free to continue comparing bananas with elephants.
Oh, and you’re just guessing that high end lenses take advantage of software manipulation or care to prove that? “Sharper lenses thanks to software” – well, we all can dream, can’t we.
i dont think that hes claiming that there is a software applied to make the lenses sharper. i believe he means that lens design is a game of tradeoffs. a company can use software to help in some areas and focus on things that cant be fixed in software. its much harder and more complicated to design a lens that is super sharp, no distortion or vignetting than it is to build a super sharp lens with a limited amount of distortion, that can easily be fixed in software.