At Canon, all cameras with an RF mount have a low-pass filter on the matrix. And it means that their cameras, all other things being equal, will be inferior in sharpness.
Dmitry, you’re absolutely right, but just FYI that we’ve factored this into our lens sharpness tests. A multiplying factor is applied to all Canon MTF tests in order to account for the low-pass filter on our EOS R5 test camera. This way, all of our lens sharpness tests are comparable across brands and are not influenced in a positive or negative manner by the test camera itself. You can read more about how we determined this multiplication factor here: photographylife.com/our-c…e-to-nikon
Kamuran Akkor
February 29, 2024 12:05 am
I used a Sony 24-105mm f4 with A7 III and thought it was a very good lens. Then I switched to Canon R8 with this Canon lens and I was surprised to see Canon is even better. Much sharper at f4 and F5.6, faster to AF, less CA and to my surprise minimum focus breathing (which is great for video but also photography). My copy still has no wobbling after 2 years.
Thanks for sharing your experiences, Kamuran. Both of those lenses should be plenty good on a 24 megapixel sensor. I haven’t yet tested Sony’s 24-105mm f/4 in the lab, so I can’t really comment on your relative experiences between the two. Sounds like you ended up with the right lens for your situation, though.
I’m surprised you aren’t able to wobble the 24-105mm f/4L at all when it’s at full extension. Nearly every externally zooming lens that I’ve tested has some wobble, and the two copies of the RF 24-105mm f/4L that I tested had a little more wobble than most. Maybe that speaks to a difference in design tolerances between different copies of this lens…
It’s possible. I can only really talk about comparative amounts of wobble, with zooms from various companies in front of me side-by-side. None of this says anything about optical quality, though. It’s more about how easily dust/grit can get into the zoom mechanism over time.
Alton Marsh
February 28, 2024 3:49 pm
Just confirming the lens in my comment is the RF 24–105 F/4. Also, I meant to say it “dropped” into the river. It tipped over when the tripod was low at about a foot-and-a-half and I grabbed a tripod leg to pull it out.
I see, thanks for the added context! That does feel fast to have the lens fill with water, but I have to admit, I’ve never dunked a series of lenses underwater all at once to see what the normal rate is :)
Alton Marsh
February 28, 2024 12:00 pm
That lens lasted less than half a second when I dunked it in the Merced River in Yosemite last week. It had water deep inside in that amount of time. It was under a total of 5 to 10 seconds. That’s one of the things you need to know.
Ah man, sorry that happened to you. I bet you were photographing some amazing winter landscapes there. I hope you had other lenses with you for the rest of the trip.
I will say, I never experienced any issues using this lens in the rain. The wobble of the front barrel when extended may not inspire confidence, but a lot of the actual weatherproofing is down to the internal seals. Surviving 5-10 seconds underwater is not something I’d expect of any lens today, even a well-sealed prime with the caps on.
I dunked a pretty new D750 with the tamron 24-70 G1. Both worked well after drying up, but in the course of a few months both had to be repaired several times. It takes some time for the internals to corrode after being exposed to water. But at least I could take photoshop of the rest of my trip 😊
Jeff
February 28, 2024 11:48 am
Thanks for the great review. I have to say that this is not making me regret my decision to sell my Canon camera and lenses.
I’m glad you enjoyed the review, although maybe some of that is because it doesn’t make you regret your decision! :)
I am curious why you switched, it’s always been the type of question that interests me. Having extensively used Nikon, Canon, and Sony, I find them to be at very similar levels, with the “best” really down to the photographer’s individual situation. Given the cost of switching, it’s hard to justify without having a firm grasp on both your own situation and that of your current camera company.
Robert John
February 28, 2024 10:50 am
Doesn’t inspire you to buy a Canon, does it, especially given their refusal to licence the lens mount. Strikes me Canon are 3/3 behind Sony and Nikon (or Nikon and Sony if you can afford exotics).
Maybe so. And I have to admit, it’s hard not to see a trend after having reviewed five Canon RF lenses in the lab so far.
Even so, each camera/lens company has their pros and cons. One thing in Canon’s favor with lenses is that they’re willing to branch out in their designs quite a bit, definitely more than Nikon, and I’d argue even more than Sony. If you need a 10-20mm f/4, 28-70mm f/2, 24-105mm f/2.8, or the 85mm f/1.2 with that special bokeh, for example, not a lot of other companies will meet your needs.
I also remain optimistic that when I continue testing more L glass, we’ll see some winners that match the best of what Nikon and Sony have produced. I already saw that to some degree with the Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II. That was the reference lens I used when calibrating our Canon MTF tests to match our Nikon/Sony MTF tests, and it’s seriously sharp.
They do and it’s a great lens, but Canon’s 85mm f/1.2 comes in two versions, one of which is called the 85mm f/1.2 DS. It has a vignetting-like coating applied to two of the lens elements, which gives bokeh an unusual sort of look. Here’s their explainer: hk.canon/en/co…ng/article
The Canon DS has an apodization filter, as do: • FUJINON XF56mm F1.2 R APD • Sony FE 100mm F2.8 STF GM OSS • Venus Optics Laowa 105mm f/2 Smooth Trans Focus
Indeed. BTW, I would be very interested in RF 100-500 and 70-200 F/4 (not the 2.8, I disliked the handling ;)) tests here for instance. Likely, the 28-70 F/2 would be interesting too.
Jim
February 28, 2024 9:53 am
Thanks for the review. I get a much better perspective when you compare performances across lens. In the intro you mentioned you tested 4 copies. What was the variance across them?
Good question, I should have been clearer about that in the intro. Nasim and Dvir both field-tested a copy. I tested one copy in the field and one in the lab. Between the two that I used, I did not notice differences in sharpness between them in the field. When I have time to lab test more copies, I’ll add them to this review.
Ultimately, I want all of our lens reviews to have lab data from at least two copies of the lens. That said, lab testing is a slow process, and my first priority is to review any unreviewed Canon RF, Nikon Z, and Sony FE lenses.
PRG Lagarde
February 28, 2024 6:26 am
As always, best lenses reviews are here, by far, Spencer. In my own experience, this lens is more or less equivalent to what was the previous EF versions, with some areas being better or worse in one or another. It looks like Canon has not invest much in improving optical characteristics on this RF version which can be seen as good but still, a bit disappointing, especially with those bad results when it comes to chromatic aberrations (bad enough so that they can’t be completely eliminated in C1, for instance). Especially, of course, if you compare it to the stellar Nikon Z 24-120 S ;). On the other hand, my thinking is that the gap of design qualities between AF mount and Z mount is blatently demonstrated with every Z lenses, even the “not best” of them. The difference between EF and RF mounts is much less significant, to my sense. This RF is still a good lens, very easy and pleasant to use. Just a bit sad results are not quite up to these feelings.
Thank you, I’m glad you’re enjoying our lens reviews. Your experience adds a useful dimension here, especially since we haven’t yet tested the previous EF version in the lab.
I too get the sense of a “DSLR-quality” midrange zoom with this lens – good enough for sharp photos, but not the blistering sharpness that we’ve seen on some of the best mirrorless glass.
Even so, the lens’s useful focal length and maximum aperture, combined with a zen mindset to accept the good without worrying about the better, is enough to make it a worthy lens for a lot of people.
Zhang
February 28, 2024 4:53 am
Hi , Spencer Your MTF figure in the chart is based on the Raw file before auto correction(for the vignetting and distortion) in Lightroom or after that?
We always run our tests on unprocessed raw files fed through dcraw via Imatest. No distortion or vignetting corrections, sharpening, noise reduction, or anything else.
Would love to see how it compares to the RF24 to 240mm as another contender for a do it all lens!
So I did check this against your review of the Nikon Z24-120 zoom.
It sure looked to me like the Z24-120 crushes this lens in sharpness across the board. Am I reading that correctly?
Yes, you’re reading that right. Especially if you’re intending to use either on a 45 MP sensor.
At Canon, all cameras with an RF mount have a low-pass filter on the matrix. And it means that their cameras, all other things being equal, will be inferior in sharpness.
Dmitry, you’re absolutely right, but just FYI that we’ve factored this into our lens sharpness tests. A multiplying factor is applied to all Canon MTF tests in order to account for the low-pass filter on our EOS R5 test camera. This way, all of our lens sharpness tests are comparable across brands and are not influenced in a positive or negative manner by the test camera itself. You can read more about how we determined this multiplication factor here: photographylife.com/our-c…e-to-nikon
I used a Sony 24-105mm f4 with A7 III and thought it was a very good lens. Then I switched to Canon R8 with this Canon lens and I was surprised to see Canon is even better. Much sharper at f4 and F5.6, faster to AF, less CA and to my surprise minimum focus breathing (which is great for video but also photography). My copy still has no wobbling after 2 years.
Thanks for sharing your experiences, Kamuran. Both of those lenses should be plenty good on a 24 megapixel sensor. I haven’t yet tested Sony’s 24-105mm f/4 in the lab, so I can’t really comment on your relative experiences between the two. Sounds like you ended up with the right lens for your situation, though.
I’m surprised you aren’t able to wobble the 24-105mm f/4L at all when it’s at full extension. Nearly every externally zooming lens that I’ve tested has some wobble, and the two copies of the RF 24-105mm f/4L that I tested had a little more wobble than most. Maybe that speaks to a difference in design tolerances between different copies of this lens…
Could also be you’re wiggling harder than most since you’re looking for the problem?
It’s possible. I can only really talk about comparative amounts of wobble, with zooms from various companies in front of me side-by-side. None of this says anything about optical quality, though. It’s more about how easily dust/grit can get into the zoom mechanism over time.
Just confirming the lens in my comment is the RF 24–105 F/4. Also, I meant to say it “dropped” into the river. It tipped over when the tripod was low at about a foot-and-a-half and I grabbed a tripod leg to pull it out.
I see, thanks for the added context! That does feel fast to have the lens fill with water, but I have to admit, I’ve never dunked a series of lenses underwater all at once to see what the normal rate is :)
That lens lasted less than half a second when I dunked it in the Merced River in Yosemite last week. It had water deep inside in that amount of time. It was under
a total of 5 to 10 seconds. That’s one of the things you need to know.
It’s a lens, not a submarine.
Ah man, sorry that happened to you. I bet you were photographing some amazing winter landscapes there. I hope you had other lenses with you for the rest of the trip.
I will say, I never experienced any issues using this lens in the rain. The wobble of the front barrel when extended may not inspire confidence, but a lot of the actual weatherproofing is down to the internal seals. Surviving 5-10 seconds underwater is not something I’d expect of any lens today, even a well-sealed prime with the caps on.
Yeesh. My Nikon Z 24-70 f/4 had drop damage from a similar experience, but only fogging and dried out easily as far as water damage.
The drop damage was the bigger problem so it still went in for an expensive repair.
I dunked a pretty new D750 with the tamron 24-70 G1. Both worked well after drying up, but in the course of a few months both had to be repaired several times. It takes some time for the internals to corrode after being exposed to water. But at least I could take photoshop of the rest of my trip 😊
Thanks for the great review. I have to say that this is not making me regret my decision to sell my Canon camera and lenses.
I’m glad you enjoyed the review, although maybe some of that is because it doesn’t make you regret your decision! :)
I am curious why you switched, it’s always been the type of question that interests me. Having extensively used Nikon, Canon, and Sony, I find them to be at very similar levels, with the “best” really down to the photographer’s individual situation. Given the cost of switching, it’s hard to justify without having a firm grasp on both your own situation and that of your current camera company.
Doesn’t inspire you to buy a Canon, does it, especially given their refusal to licence the lens mount. Strikes me Canon are 3/3 behind Sony and Nikon (or Nikon and Sony if you can afford exotics).
Maybe so. And I have to admit, it’s hard not to see a trend after having reviewed five Canon RF lenses in the lab so far.
Even so, each camera/lens company has their pros and cons. One thing in Canon’s favor with lenses is that they’re willing to branch out in their designs quite a bit, definitely more than Nikon, and I’d argue even more than Sony. If you need a 10-20mm f/4, 28-70mm f/2, 24-105mm f/2.8, or the 85mm f/1.2 with that special bokeh, for example, not a lot of other companies will meet your needs.
I also remain optimistic that when I continue testing more L glass, we’ll see some winners that match the best of what Nikon and Sony have produced. I already saw that to some degree with the Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II. That was the reference lens I used when calibrating our Canon MTF tests to match our Nikon/Sony MTF tests, and it’s seriously sharp.
Mostly agree but Nikon has the 85mm f/1.2 as well!
They do and it’s a great lens, but Canon’s 85mm f/1.2 comes in two versions, one of which is called the 85mm f/1.2 DS. It has a vignetting-like coating applied to two of the lens elements, which gives bokeh an unusual sort of look. Here’s their explainer: hk.canon/en/co…ng/article
Yes, I’m aware. I love the PL site. Keep up the great work!!
Thank you!
The Canon DS has an apodization filter, as do:
• FUJINON XF56mm F1.2 R APD
• Sony FE 100mm F2.8 STF GM OSS
• Venus Optics Laowa 105mm f/2 Smooth Trans Focus
Nice, Pete, I didn’t know about all of those!
Indeed. BTW, I would be very interested in RF 100-500 and 70-200 F/4 (not the 2.8, I disliked the handling ;)) tests here for instance. Likely, the 28-70 F/2 would be interesting too.
Thanks for the review. I get a much better perspective when you compare performances across lens. In the intro you mentioned you tested 4 copies. What was the variance across them?
Good question, I should have been clearer about that in the intro. Nasim and Dvir both field-tested a copy. I tested one copy in the field and one in the lab. Between the two that I used, I did not notice differences in sharpness between them in the field. When I have time to lab test more copies, I’ll add them to this review.
Ultimately, I want all of our lens reviews to have lab data from at least two copies of the lens. That said, lab testing is a slow process, and my first priority is to review any unreviewed Canon RF, Nikon Z, and Sony FE lenses.
As always, best lenses reviews are here, by far, Spencer.
In my own experience, this lens is more or less equivalent to what was the previous EF versions, with some areas being better or worse in one or another. It looks like Canon has not invest much in improving optical characteristics on this RF version which can be seen as good but still, a bit disappointing, especially with those bad results when it comes to chromatic aberrations (bad enough so that they can’t be completely eliminated in C1, for instance).
Especially, of course, if you compare it to the stellar Nikon Z 24-120 S ;).
On the other hand, my thinking is that the gap of design qualities between AF mount and Z mount is blatently demonstrated with every Z lenses, even the “not best” of them.
The difference between EF and RF mounts is much less significant, to my sense.
This RF is still a good lens, very easy and pleasant to use. Just a bit sad results are not quite up to these feelings.
Thank you, I’m glad you’re enjoying our lens reviews. Your experience adds a useful dimension here, especially since we haven’t yet tested the previous EF version in the lab.
I too get the sense of a “DSLR-quality” midrange zoom with this lens – good enough for sharp photos, but not the blistering sharpness that we’ve seen on some of the best mirrorless glass.
Even so, the lens’s useful focal length and maximum aperture, combined with a zen mindset to accept the good without worrying about the better, is enough to make it a worthy lens for a lot of people.
Hi , Spencer
Your MTF figure in the chart is based on the Raw file before auto correction(for the vignetting and distortion) in Lightroom or after that?
We always run our tests on unprocessed raw files fed through dcraw via Imatest. No distortion or vignetting corrections, sharpening, noise reduction, or anything else.