Decisions, Decisions .....

Joined
Jan 3, 2007
Messages
3,770
Location
Tacoma, WA
Real Name
Ken St John
I've been using the EF lens adapter and my existing set of lenses with my new EOS R. Been very happy with the results, but thought I'd take advantage of a provision in my Canon Pro Services membership and try a dedicated RF 24-105 f4 L and compare it with my existing day-to-day choice, my EF 24-70 f4 L. The loaner arrived today, and I'll admit it may earn a few extra points for looking nice on the camera.
IMG_0794.jpeg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

The two lenses are both 77mm wide.
IMG_0792.jpeg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Size wise, the "native" RF is about 1/2" shorter and, according to my kitchen scale, weighs about an ounce less that the older EF lens when attached to the adapter.
IMG_0791.jpeg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Performance wise, I'm not really seeing any significant difference in image quality. The 24-105 has a little more reach, of course, but the 24-70 counters with a limited, but effective, Macro mode.
EOSR2149.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

EOSR2142.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

With the new RF cost of around $1,000, and a used trade in estimate of around $400 for the EF, right now I gotta say I'm not seeing ~$600 worth of advantage!!

I've got several more days on my loan, so perhaps my initial impression will change.

Ken
 
Joined
Jul 8, 2019
Messages
1,075
Location
SF Bay Area, California, USA
I like the longer reach of a 24-105 over a 24-70.
But you have the 24-70. So unless you really need that extra 35mm, I would not get the 24-105.
Now if you can find the 24-105 at a "deal," then it might be worth getting it.
 
Joined
Jan 3, 2007
Messages
3,770
Location
Tacoma, WA
Real Name
Ken St John
On a cloudy and cool day, I took some images of flowers in our front flower bed. (My wife is the gardener in the family.) Clearly, I cannot really make a judgment on the RF lens based solely on IQ as I cannot tell the difference between the two lenses. And, to make matters more difficult, I found with this series that the extra reach comes in handy ... but I cannot zoom in using the EF's "macro" function!!

EOSR2162.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

EOSR2164.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

EOSR2171.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

EOSR2174.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

EOSR2176.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Planning to get outdoors this weekend to try more "landscape" images.

But ... right now, they're neck & neck!!

Ken
 
Joined
Jan 3, 2007
Messages
3,770
Location
Tacoma, WA
Real Name
Ken St John
And the winner is ...

While the RF 24-105 definitely looks better on my camera, has a little better reach and actually felt a lot lighter than the one ounce indicated on the scale, it looks like there's just not enough reason to invest in $$ for a change. I've always been really happy with the 24-70, especially it's mini-macro function, and I truly cannot tell the difference optically. Since the adapter adds the additional control ring, I'm really not "missing" anything vs the RF lenses.

Perhaps when they start showing up used and the $$ difference is smaller I may revisit it, but for now, happy I am!!

A couple of quick handhelds of my wife's flowers from today ...

EOSR2185.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

EOSR2177.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


** I almost feel bad to say - this is the fourth time I've borrowed something from CPS to try out ... and in each case I decided not to make a purchase. I suspect from Canon's marketing perspective this is not good business ... but it has sure saved me $$!!

Cheers!!

Ken
 
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
3,932
Location
Massachusetts
Real Name
David
And the winner is ...

While the RF 24-105 definitely looks better on my camera, has a little better reach and actually felt a lot lighter than the one ounce indicated on the scale, it looks like there's just not enough reason to invest in $$ for a change. I've always been really happy with the 24-70, especially it's mini-macro function, and I truly cannot tell the difference optically. Since the adapter adds the additional control ring, I'm really not "missing" anything vs the RF lenses......
Completely understand. The macro ability of the 28-105 is one of the main reason I kept it so long.
 
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
8,461
Location
Maple Bay, Duncan, BC, Canada
Real Name
Andreas Berglund
I think your reasoning is sound. When I got my R5 I was in a different situation, I had no FF EF lenses except the long tele lenses and a lowly 50mm F1.8 without a stepper motor. So I looked at 3 lenses (high to lower price):
  1. 24-105 IS USM
  2. 24-240mm IS
  3. 24-105 IS STM (the cheapo kit lens)
I ended up with the Number 1 option the 24-105 IS USM, because the 24-240 seem to big to haul around and is not F4 and has a LOT of vignetting. The #3 I questioned the IQ. The #1 is actually quite sharp at F4 even in the corners, much better wide open than my beloved 24-120mm VR F4
 

Latest threads

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom