CANON RF 24-105 f2.8 Z REVIEW: a Total GAME-CHANGER!!!

[@Bad_Wolf_Media]

The true mark of success is reaching the point where you can buy whatever you want to use and so the companies give them to you instead. That's not me being facetious (though a bit envious), it's simply a matter of fact. I would love to have the 24-105 f/2.8 for concert work (as Jared pointed out here), but that cost is five months rent for me. I simply can't justify the expense.

[@froknowsphoto]

The good new is, the every day public doesn’t care what you use. All that matters is you got the shot. I started my photography career with a kit lens. I bought used when I couldn’t afford new. I watched as people walked into Allen’s camera and dropped $15,000 in one go as I stood there wondering how. At the end of the day, the gear doesn’t make you…you make the gear.

[@JordysRailVideos]

​@@froknowsphotothis, doesn't matter the lens, all that matters is that you get "the shot" and be proud of it no matter how long you waited to get it

[@DirtyRedVI]

What city do you live? 5 months rent is a deal if it adds of to 3k. Let me in on your secret.

[@Xirpzy]

Priorities. I dont make much money each month but I also dont have alot of other expenses. Been able to buy the RF 100-500, 28-70 f2, 1.4x tc and bunch of accessories and cheaper lenses in the last 2 years.

[@Willymaze]

Crazy, this lens is not even worth a month of rent for me, I live in California.

[@smaruzzi]

Great. I just bought it. For years I was tempted by the 28-70, but the additional flexibility of the 24-105 on both ends and the lower weight suggested higher versatility. For short trips this will be my only travel lens, with very limited regrets about not having a prime with me. Thanks, Stefano

[@jeffgaboury3157]

Love, love, love the image of the cheetah with the storm at sunset. What a dramatic image!!! Looks like the safari was an amazing experience!

[@flochfitness]

If you are a wedding videographer. This would be the only lens you’d need

[@Dayn-El]

I agree with u. I have hard time switiching between primes because I dont have constant zooms that reaches far and wide😂

[@mgplaying8435]

Hm, not sure. I prefer the Tamron 35-150 f2(8)

[@gabolujan3109]

@@mgplaying8435 no 35 isn't wide enough

[@claudianreyn4529]

F2.8 is a horrible aperture for wedding. If you are an amateur, yes it's the perfect lens for you.

[@edw777]

@@claudianreyn4529 you say this as if most wedding photographers don't keep a 24-70 2.8 on their camera 80% of the time

[@ianmartin5389]

I've been using the RF 24-105 f4 version for a couple of years now and love it. Such a versatile "walk around" lens and razor sharp photos. This 2.8 will be without doubt awesome. Time to start saving.

[@naludog8087]

Is the 2.8 going to focus substantially quicker and track better better than the f4? I’m mostly filming surf from the water.

[@hermenegildotrujillo458]

@@naludog8087 if your interest is surf go for 70-200 RF, that extra zoom works a lot

[@mattcarlstrom4817]

I'm looking at the 24-105 2.8 as an indoor high school sports lens and school activities. Looks amazing

[@craigmyersphoto]

Filmmakers rejoice

[@charlesjames9783]

Canon is killing it as a system. A lot of zooms go 100 to something. Add a fisheye and a 100-400 and you’ve got most of the game licked. I like it!

[@Carl83839A]

Tamron put out a 35-150 f2.0 like a year ago.... So Canon isn't "killing it". But fanboys will rejoice anyhow....

[@alistairbeavis1536]

@@Carl83839A The Tamron is f2 on the wide end, but f2.8 at the long end. And for some, 35mm might not be wide enough for a general purpose zoom.

[@AtomicDig]

I'm pretty sure that the 100-500 is the successor to the 100-400mm lenses

[@NyamkaNkk1162]

@@Carl83839AIf you are not the canon fanboy… what are you doing here lol

[@johnwrycza]

my 24-105 arrived 12/14/23 - traded in F4/24-105mm immediately noticed improved lower light focusing results, I'm typically holding 70-200/100-500mm lenses so nothing new - other than zooming no longer changes the balance on a gimbal I really like this lens, and yes its worth the $$ - if I had 1 lens, this would be it

[@RayValdezPhotography]

I havent used it on a gimbal yet. I am not used to using gimbals with telephoto range lenses.

[@toto_chanel6952]

What about IQ between the 2.8 and 4?

[@77dris]

Man, this lens looked perfect: the focal range, the size, the image quality... I had it in my cart, waiting for the smell test, and I can live with the smell of dung! Here we gooo... was about to hit the "BUY NOW" button but then that wind tunnel test crushed all my hopes and dreams. Maybe next time Canon THINK OF THE WIND TUNNEL TEST! With the $5000 Canadian I've saved, I'm going to go buy some groceries for the week.

[@msa4548]

Cutting it kinda close for groceries.

[@Ken_Makers]

Are you feeding the whole neighborhood lol

[@TomaszMelnicki]

the size is perfect?....no it isnt, too bulky, too long and too heavy....have full frame sony but moving to APSC with Sigma 18-50 F2.8 as SIZE is matter!

[@abwt]

You always put out such informative and entertaining relevant content. Thanks from Portugal 🇵🇹

[@AustinRoss]

6:29 Gonna break this down for anyone wondering 1 - Stabilization is always engaged. Great for video.... but it will eat your battery alive. 2 - Panning - Trains, Cars, Motorcycles. Things moving from the left to the right and vise versa. 3 - (Recommended) Basically 1, but only engages stabilization once you start metering (ie, holding down the shutter button)

[@PooMonkeyMan]

This is a blessing. Is this across the board for all 1/2/3 modes on both RF and EF lenses?

[@AustinRoss]

@@PooMonkeyMan It's all recent lenses (within the past 10 years or so). You'll find that lenses like the 100-400 mark 1 don't have the 3rd toggle, but the mark 2 does. The 1st and 2nd still apply though.

[@danahlfield7547]

The wind tunnel test should be augmented to demonstrate weather sealing since saliva is very likely to spew! How does Canon not consult with Jared about the wind tunnel prior to releasing such pricey items?! Can't wait to see a third party vendors begin to release RF class and to copy this form factor! Definitely a game changer, thanks Jared!

[@CybrSlydr]

I'm frankly amazed it took this long for someone to make one. It seems like the perfect all-around lens, never understood why it was only f/4 for so long. Wish Sony'd come out with one. But that price, though... Oof.

[@lsanchez297]

So they dont kill the sales of the other lenses.

[@ghosted-_-7650]

Yeah fr 3g’s for that lens that’s a nope for me

[@JuanSanchez-zz3me]

Well Tamron DID make a 28-105mm f/2.8 in like the 90s or early 2000s or something. But it wasn't very good optically. Even for back then. I assume it wasn't made again till now, because of the difficulty to make such a lens

[@Bad_Wolf_Media]

The reason it took this long is because of the physics of optics and the realities of manufacturing. The precision necessary to create these types of components at a rate needed to mass-market them (versus speciality lenses). Which is also part of the reason for the price, because making these things isn't easy or cheap. That sounds like I'm making excuses for Canon, but I'm not. It's just the way reality works.

[@lb7144]

I’m saving up now 🤦🏾‍♂️ I can’t help myself, this lens is calling me and my R62.

[@shadowfoxsports]

I think this lens (RF 24-105 f2.8) would be the perfect sports lens for indoor sports. And I also think it's going to be my next go-to lens later in 2024. Thanks for the review Jared.

[@tijsbeek8590]

Indoor sports? 105 is a pretty small range, I'd much rather have a 70-200 2.8 or a 300mm F2.8

[@tijsbeek8590]

105 is not much zoom* not a small range

[@crxgator]

@@tijsbeek8590I was using the 28-70 f2 most of the time for basketball this season. It did wonderfully. But, now onto the 24-105 f2.8

[@kennethlui2268]

Great lens. Thanks for the review. I guess some people hate Canon. Canon makes RF 200-800 under $2k. I think it is very affordable but people say it is f9 and too slow. Canon makes RF 24-105 f2.8 which is awesome but people are saying it is too expensive.

[@kennethlui2268]

@@TigaWould totally agree

[@ER-gn8io]

Die meisten Kritiker können sich dieses Objektiv gar nicht leisten! Da reicht eben der Mindestlohn nicht! Dann geben sie Kommentare ab, über Objektive, die sie gar nicht besitzen. Es wird die Kritik von anderen Rezensionen wiederholt ohne das Objektiv jemals in der Hand gehabt zu haben! Das sind arme Würstchen die ein Geltungsbedürfnis haben. Hey, ich will auch mitreden, habe aber leider keine Ahnung!

[@NyamkaNkk1162]

@@ER-gn8ioSpot on !!!

[@xabierlanda8998]

Stunning pick with the leopard with the light on him and the storm colors are amazing. Kudos

[@Freep-m2l]

I got one today. Sharp sharp sharp. Fast focusing. Amazing. One lens to rule them all.

[@katman042]

I’m an amateur and I already own the 24-70 f2.8, so I’m going to stick with that. I have the 70-200 f2.8 if I need a telephoto lens. However, it does look like a really nice lens. If I didn’t have the 24-70, I’m not sure what I’d do.

[@charlesjames9783]

The 200-800 is made for you. Don’t let the f9 scare you. I have the 800 f11 and on the R5 the high iso is not an issue.

[@danielhenzphotography]

The image with the girafs and the cheeta with the storm are indeed amazing pictures

[@markelroy7774]

one of your best reviews I think. awsome photos

[@denoall]

I’m glad that you went on a vacation/work trip that involved animals and nature. Definitely like the mix of journalistic and wildlife photos. I wish you were to start doing more videos like this.

[@robertschneider2189]

I joined your channel a couple of years ago. I don't think I've ever thanked you for your product reviews, not to mention your FroPacks. You have kept me from going down some wrong, expensive allies, and helped me figure out glass that helps me get the shot. I appreciate that very much. I didn't mention camera bodies, which I view as something we hook onto the most important part of the photography system, that being the glass. I used to be one of those photographers who thought shooting in anything other than JPEG was a waste of time. After FroPack, I should buy an "I Shoot Raw" t-shirt. FroPack won't fix a bad shot, but it sure can make a good shot pop. Thanks. Have a great 2024.

[@Buzzer9000]

For me it is the perfect lens for documentary film. I traded in my RF 27-70 and RF 100. I am so exited to use it on my next project.

[@chadmullins7553]

The mirrorless cameras are really making photography exciting with the possibilities... Can't wait to get some of these things

[@TheTechnoPilot]

To be clear, it’s technically not optically parfocal, but instead electronically parfocal. It moves the focusing system based on the zoom position to compensate and make it effectively parfocal when powered.

[@gamebuster800]

Does the difference matter?

[@gamebuster800]

@@TigaWould at least the electric boogie woggie woggie doesn't impact the image quality, unlike the extreme lens profiles in some modern lenses

[@EmeraldAudiovisual]

@@gamebuster800 sort of. Because if you zoom too fast in low light situations, you can outrun the parfocal adjustments. But Jared showed a zoom example in a well lit environment, and you don't see it going out of focus there. I've managed to outpace it, but you nearly have to intentionally want to do it, to make it happen.

[@gamebuster800]

@@EmeraldAudiovisual Won't it correct itself after zooming quickly? I have a lens that loses focus when zooming quickly and won't recover unless I half-press again, which is annoying while filming

[@EmeraldAudiovisual]

@@gamebuster800yes, it will catch up / correct itself automatically. All I said, is that you can outpace the lens keeping up. But it does correct itself, generally within a second or two at the most.

[@gnawty4662]

Lots of beautiful photos here Jared. The cheetah one was my favorite. The storm looks incredible

[@PooMonkeyMan]

Gonna love this for street photography. Been craving this lens for ages and now it’s finally available for street and urban photography. 🙌

[@FART-REPELLENT]

How about a 8mm Circular Fish-Eye lens for Street-Photography?

[@fm101foto]

HILARIOUS!! You're a funny guy. You're on safari with a HOFer and lead with, "This is Jason. He is the team photographer..." You got "The Kid" with you! The Swingman!!! Naturally, I kid and appreciate your humility but not only did you have an epic adventure in the safari itself but you stepped it a notch by sharing the experience with KG Jr very few if any will be able to do. No disrespect to Jason and Matt, however. Thanks for sharing.

[@bill29456]

I leaning toward this 24-105 2.8. Especially since I do a lot of video and with the power zoom on the horizon, this will be great on my C-70

[@GDoggProductions]

that's my thinking as well, I have the same camera, but I'm not sure if I could just make do with a 24-105 f4

[@bill29456]

@@GDoggProductions don’t forget the pwr zoom for video

[@dougsillers]

OMG I have watched a dozen videos and completed 7 AI searches trying to figure out what my "other" lens is going to be as a Dad photographer.... YOU nailed it and I am grateful. 24-105 2.8 is the lens I am going to buy now. Thanks Fro.

[@MichaelThomas-qh4yv]

Greetings Jared here from across the pond here in the UK, I trust you, your family and loved ones had a wonderful Christmas. Just want to say I have found your channel and its videos, educational, helpful and entertaining; as a keen amateur photographer. May I wish you and your loved ones a Blessed, Peaceful and Prosperous New Year 🙏 🎉

[@russellmm]

My wife and I fed that Rhino at Ol Pejeta back in early Feb 2020. Was one of the highlights of our Kenya/Uganda trip which happened right before the Pandemic.

[@richarddenise3886]

Thanks for the evaluation as well as the Safari photos! Happy HEALTHY New Year, young man!

[@_SYDNA_]

Bought the 24-70 over the 28-70 f2.0 because I figured it would take a lot of muscle to slam all that glass around in AF. Mostly shooting sports. Good decision? I dont know but it was on sale and the price was right. I notice that the f2.0 tests out very sharp on DXOmark.

[@stelioskritikakis]

The amount of cropping, by lens correction applied in camera is massive in some cases.. Try to shoot with the RF 16mm 2.8 and try to compare the original shot from camera with the corrected one in LR.. LR will fix the vignette and distortion issues and will give you 15% of the frame as well

[@Mattrossphoto]

Didn’t look to me like Lightroom even came close to correcting the severe vignette. Adapted ef glass on the gfx does way better than this, doesn’t seem acceptable to me from a major manufacturer

[@codythep]

That wide shot at 16:10 is absolutely stunning

[@51hondarc]

I just photographed a friend's surprise BDay in a bar setting... used my EF 24-105 f/4L on my R5. This RF 24-105 f/2.8 would have been sweet to test... time to save a few more $$$. Thanks for the great review!

[@Dwaverill]

The case for the 24-70 seems diminished as more lenses come out, but I do believe it still has its place. In my experience with the 24-70 (and what I have seen so far with the 24-105 2.8) the lens corrections are not as heavy compared to the 24-105 2.8. Portability (depending on work circumstances) is better. Lower silhouette, etc. Losing out on the 71-105 range does hurt a little, but not too much. Initially I was torn between the 24-70 and 28-70 but ended up going with the standard zoom. All fantastic lenses! The 24-105 2.8 is going to fill almost everyone's needs if they end up getting it. Excited to see more on this lens in the near future!

[@kellenholt6655]

I'm going to be honest and say I've always liked your reviews as I feel you're realistic and don't pull any punches or show any favoritism towards brands, but this felt like you gave Canon a pass on some tangible flaws in this lens. The dependence on lens correction to avoid vignette is something that other manufacturers tend to get negative press about (not necessarily from you but definitely from other reviews) and this lens seems to lean on it heavily, yet it's portrayed as a minor issue in this review. Additionally, while flare is very subjective, the flare in the shot you showed I feel would be rather distracting to many shooters but again it's portrayed as not that much of an issue in this review. Canon deserves their props - this lens is definitely an engineering achievement, and the general image quality looks very good. But this "review" just felt like a general praise of it without much criticism. The icing on the cake was your line at the end when talking about whether to get this or the 28-70mm F2 and you said "...I'm keeping both because I'm special and Canon sends them to me...". I know you don't usually hide the fact that companies send you review samples, but that combo'd with little to no criticism of this lens just feels like a bad look.

[@Mattrossphoto]

That vignette is pretty bad

[@evilZardoz]

We really shouldn't be making a habit of relying on lens corrections. While the end results are fine in many cases, it's clear that there are some concessions being made to keep the size and weight down vs. the larger EF counterparts. If I'm shooting high ISO indoors (12800+), lens corrections rarely play nicely with the noise field and I often have to disable them to reduce artefacts. Furthermore, use of third party processing tools eg Lightroom can yield imperfect results with lens corrections. On many occasions, I need to disable lens corrections on my 28-70 in LR to remove noise banding artefacts. Vignetting correction is also a few stops of exposure increase, which can make my corners noisy.

[@Scott_Lawless]

Am I trippin or is that The Kid, Ken Griffey Jr in front of you in the safari vehicle when you're talking about the Royals photographer?

[@anim8r79]

Probably. I came here to see if anyone noticed the shot @20:21...

[@Scott_Lawless]

@@anim8r79 Hahaha.....Yup, I didn't even see that shot! That's definitely Jr, even wearing his own gear.

[@bigbrownmab189]

Being on a safari is cool and all, but kickin it with JR is even cooler !!

[@lynsmith1096]

Good review Jared and great shots.

[@evilZardoz]

I'd be interested in the backlight flare characteristics of the 24-105 f/2.8 vs the 28-70 f/2. One drawback from the 28-70 (other than size, and the 4mm on the wide end) is if I am shooting with a backlit scene in a dark room, the light will bleed into my subject; my RF 85 1.2 doesn't have this issue. For live music, this is essential to have under control - otherwise, for gigs, this would be a dream lens but for my indoor hospitality events, that extra stop on the 28-70 is everything.

[@DanielFazzari]

Yep, the 28-70 does have some very interesting flare artifacts! I'll test that out and get back to you.

[@jonathandear82]

Agreed. The 28-70/2 bleeds horrifically compared to primes I’m used to 😒

[@pr1sm55]

Is this the absolute dream lens to pair with my R5C? I think it's a yes.

[@horeica]

Canon= good, Nikkon =bad! This sums up your entire channel.

[@andreaskarbe4030]

You should see his videos from about a decade ago. He used to be a very ardent Nikon supporter.

[@wooddogg8]

I'd go with the 24-105 f2.8 Z, BUT I'm not in the position to spend $3G on glass at the moment. I have the 70-200 f4 and a sigma 150-600 (f5 to 6.3) both of which I love and I feel they will take care of any long reach needs that may come up. An African safari not being in the works, though I do plan to visit Alaska next year. So, unfortunately, it comes down to money and, sadly, I'm gonna sit this one out. I may be interested in something like a wide prime, I've got the nifty fifty but that's where my collection needs help. maybe a 24mm prime (or wider?) Idk, but nice video anyway, keep them coming Jared. You da man!!

[@alexnrs8700]

Thanks Jared. Great stuff, as usual! Wondering if you happened to be using a polarized filter for any of the images you showed?

[@pieterschaar5613]

Tamron way back in the day had a 28-105mm f/2.8, I bought this and my first Canon an EOS 50e, loved both, lens out lasted a few bodies till one day it gave up Taken a long time to beat that lens I do want the 24-105, looks like a stellar lens

[@davidbarr9475]

What a sweet lens. Wish I could afford one. Hey Jared I adapt the ef 135 f2 to my r6 mk.2 and man let me say for portraits and pretty much whatever I'm extremely happy with that little set up. Hope you have a wonderful and safe New years. From North central Ohio

[@larrycoonrod5563]

It’s like every other third item Fro reviews is a “game changer.”

[@stevieh59]

Great video Fro. Who was the safari with. One for togs or a bespoke occasion?

[@johnfezz22]

Absolutely love this lense, hope sony has one in the near future. Would love a non petal option hood though.

[@unknownKnownunknowns]

Would love to see you shoot & review outdoor sports w the canon 200-800. Please!

[@MichaelNatrin]

That wide cheetah shot is incredible. Great video.

[@naludog8087]

Great video. Will the 24-105 2.8 focus and track substantially better than the f4? I’m mostly filming surfing in the water using a R5C.

[@blisteringbooks2428]

The sound on my computer has failed, but reading the comments you didn't mention how sharp it is, is it better than the EF 24-105 f4?

[@Team_399]

Thank you for the review. Did you get a chance to use this lens for video? If so how did you deal with the vignetting?

[@JDSellers]

Is that Ken Griffey Jr. with yall?? If so, that is amazing!

[@DropItStudio]

27 years ago, Tamron released a 28-105mm f2.8 lens. The lens costs $250 CAD used. I don't understand the price of $4100 CAD for Canon's 24-105mm when Tamron can release a 35-150mm f2-2.8 for $2500 CAD.

[@jamesjackson4264]

And if you don’t mind light used you can get the tamron for under $1500.

[@jarlathmcnee3833]

Think it will work for my sports shooting, have the 100-300mm and then suddenly players are on you, the 24-105mm seems that missing area. I also shoot lacrosse and that can be a pain with 70-200mm when they come right against the glass. Will see if I make any money this year and go for it

[@d3xmeister]

The ultimate wedding lens !

[@csabapapp8481]

Wow! I didn't know that Fro knows the names of so many species. Nice progress! :)

[@energieinfo21]

24-105 2.8 might be the best compromise for me: Reach (photography starts at 100mm :) with large aperture. Working well for both worlds - photography and video. The "motorizer" would be welcome if I need that in the future to avoid buying another lens. This on FF or APS-C might be a 90% solution for everything! And if you need a really compact and light 40 f/2.8 there is a solution: EF 40 2.8 with adapter if the 24-105 2.8 is too heavy ...

[@idol031808]

One of your best vids. I had the 24-105 f4 L and feel that an extra stop of light would add little to my images to justify the huge price premium.

[@johnbragg2014]

Love that internal zoom...

[@c73w]

The photo of the lion with the 105mm f/2.8 was amazing to be honest

[@GOAP68]

First the 100-300 and now a 24-105. The combination has greatly reduced how often I use the 24-70 and 70-200. Canon has greatly changed shooting f2.8 in 2023.

[@RayValdezPhotography]

They need to drop the price on that 100-300.

[@GOAP68]

@@RayValdezPhotography doubt that’s going to happen. It’s been out for 7 months and Canon still can’t keep it in stock. Plenty of photogs, myself included, are willing to pay $10,000 USD for one.

[@RayValdezPhotography]

@@GOAP68 I usually dont complain about price but i have a hard time seeing why it costs that much. I see it has tech that other lens doesnt have and it is huge so it does seem to be of a higher production cost.

[@Bayonet1809]

@@RayValdezPhotography It costs whatever the manufacturer has judged will make them the most money, which is seldom based on how much it costs to make.

[@thesharpercoder]

I agree. A 24-105mm f/2.8 would a game changes, especially combined with a 100-300mm f/2.8. Canon seems to be redefining the standard focal range of the “f/2.8 holy trinity”. They already have an 10-20mm f/4 and an 15-35mm f/2.8. I fully expect Canon to release an f/2.8 constant aperture zoom that goes down to somewhere between 10-14mm.

[@SoundItOutFilms]

Have you noticed the lens corrections crop into the lens making its field of view narrower than all your other 24mm lenses? In your 10-20mm review, you showed it was 10mm AFTER lens corrections, it seems like Canon did the opposite here and the lens is 24mm BEFORE corrections. It's tighter with corrections than all EF and RF 24mm lenses I've tested, especially noticeable with foreground elements getting cropped out. Thoughts? Love your channel!

[@headbang3r519]

Not just a Total- GAME CHANGER .. but also a CREDIT-SCORE CHANGER too!

[@Mark-te5uz]

I have the 24/105 EF lens for my EF camera, and will be getting my first 24/105 RF lens for my R5.. Can't wait..

[@Jelrodography]

I would love to buy the 24-105! Maybe this will be my first purchase for 2024! 😮

[@spinnetti]

Every time a new lens comes out I get FOMO lol... I recently got the 28-70 F2 and the 70-200 2.8 so I think I got it covered and I love me the 28-70... I do want that 200-800 tho and I hope I have the discipline to make that the last one I buy lol...

[@corykphotography]

OooooooOooOoOOoOOoo I CLEARLY seen Mystery Man!

[@studiodonjean]

For sure a very interesting lens for studio!!

[@integrity2719]

The price for me 😱. My sigma 70-200 f2.8 gives all the range I need on the long end, so this lens doesn’t justify the cost when I wanted something that gave me 2.8 wider but had some distance on due to taking pics from DJ booth at times. Gotta keep searching 😅. Great review as always 👊🏽

[@Brianmatthewlewis]

I know you don’t like focus extenders. Curious what you think about speed-boosters for canon r7. I hear the canon has some purple fringing but the 2 viltrox s.boosters seem good? There aren’t any reviews for photo and none comparing the canon to the 2 viltrox. Now canon has good crop bodies but limited crop lenses. So it seems like a possible work around but I’d like to be sure before recommending to friends looking to get into photography.

[@pobutscrackerbox]

Does Canon have rino eye-detect yet ?

[@LeopoldoManuelRamirezMena]

wow... that's what Canon should have doen long time ago! :D awesome lens!

[@nateclarke1179]

I reckon I could replace nearly all of my lenses with just this one. Its awesome. Maybe keep my 50mm 1.2 because its my fav lense...

[@johnbaker6814]

I generally photograph sports and was thinking of getting the 24-105 f/4 to pair with my 100-300 f/2.8 for when the action gets close. With it being basketball season, I have been experimenting with my 100-300 f/2.8 with a 70-200 f/2.8 and the 28-70 f/2 and I think once I can afford it, I will be adding the 24-105 f/2.8 to my bag. I think it will be more versatile for any court I am shooting at then trying to decide would the 70-200 f/2.8 or the 28-70 f/2 be better for the position I am shooting from.

[@EliudGilSamaniego]

que chingon que te puedas quedar con los 2 lentes de grapa, los reviews que yo hago es porque me gasto la lana pa tenerlos, ojala las marcas de mi pais apoyaran mas

[@jacopoabbruscato9271]

The price tag is hefty, but compare it to all the primes you're replacing. 24, 35, 50, 85 and 105. Lens technology is now approaching the point where a (relatively) compact size zoom like a 24-200 f/2 will be possible. Similar lenses in the cinema world do exist but they're humongous and cost more than a car. Whether this specific lens will succeed as a video lens depends on the focus throw and whether the focus ring has stops or not.

[@BigAntTVMedia]

Test it out for outdoor and indoor sports please

[@HiethGeorge]

Pre-Ordered mine when it was announced ...... still waiting for delivery🙁

[@amermeleitor]

Great times now for photography. The Tamron and Samyang 35-150 and now the Canon 24-105 are in the way to replace a lot of primes

[@SneakyCaleb]

Yup I just picked up the rokinon 35-150 and it’s so good.

[@romani8494]

I wonder what happens to the resolution of the photo after the lens correction

[@dimitristsagdis7340]

It is 500 grams heavier than the 24-70 f/2.8 IS and it is occupying as much valuable estate in the bag as the EF 70-200 f/2.8 and doesn't negate the need for the latter; if one needs to go above the 105mm long end. I think maybe for video but as a walk around lens I think I'll stick with my 24-70. For concerts and other dark places I would prefer primes of the f/1.2 variety - even f/1.8 is slow in such venues (if you want to freeze action e.g. 1/400) , let alone 2.8.

[@derekcunninghamRHS]

Jared! I want to buy one of your shirts, but $8+ for shipping kind of kills it for me. Do you have "free shipping" deals?

[@lauriesolgon1846]

I was told I suffer from GAS - gear acquisition syndrome. I already have the 24-105 f4 that came as a kit lens with my R5 and since I’m not a professional photographer I don’t feel the need to buy this new lens. Of course that doesn’t keep me from “wanting” this or any other new lens. I did a safari in Zimbabwe in 1998 with film. So Jared, that was a black rhino. Do you know the difference and why the white rhinos are termed that? Loved the images.

[@BrandonD1R]

Jared, do you plan on doing any Canon lens giveaways? I need some L series glass 🥹

[@SneakyCaleb]

When Sony has the Samyang 35-150 selling for 999$ and the tamron for a bit more this canon lens isn’t looking great. And those lenses go down to f2. Yes it’s a bit wider but I’ll take f2 and more range.

[@devane68]

28-70... same reasons you stated. The 2.0 just creates a different image. I love the idea of the 24-105 but feel the 70-200 2.8 can cover it (and then some).

[@renestaempfli1071]

What is so game changing. The pictures you are showing, can be taken with almost any modern camera and lens in that focal range.

[@DanielFazzari]

Not at 2.8. Although I can't stand the term "game changing," this is ideal for wedding/event shooters. There is no more debating about the versatility of the 24-105 f/4 vs. the low light capabilities of the 24-70 f/2.8. It's all in this lens now.

[@PassionPainNDemonsStreetwear]

Which is a better option for concert shooting? 28-70mm F2 or the 24-105 F2.8??

[@TomislavMoze]

One correction about the aperture ring, it works in video mode on the R3

[@Herkulez1981]

For Those with money Canon for sure makes some pretty awesoem unique glass. 10-24 f4, 28-70 f2, 24-105 2.8 hybrid lens , 120-300 2.8 etc and seems like they might have a 70-135mm f2 on the way to then some pretty cool ”cheaper ” lenses like the 200-800

[@mvp_kryptonite]

The rf non L glass is sharp too; just not that packed with features. I’d prefer to midrange / L myself but I like the ef just fine adapted. So many ef L bargains now

[@ER-gn8io]

Es gibt kein 10-24 f4 ;

[@RaufZero]

Canon optics are on another level.

[@clemarsanchezperetti806]

I almost jump from the chair when you show the cheetah landscape! what a pic