Canon RF 24-105 f4 L Fast 6 Month Review

[@klaymoon1]

There is something special about Canon rendering.

[@adude394]

I loved my 24-105 EF. Just a nice, versatile lens for a variety of situations, and my favorite walk-around lens. When I started getting mirrorless cameras earlier this year (R5 and R6 Mk II) it was a no-brainer for me to get the f/4. The newer, "Z" lens is far too expensive and I understand it's pretty heavy as well. As soon as the f/4 came, I put it right on the R6 Mk II. Just like the EF version on my old 7D Mk II, it's really a fabulous match!

[@Hodenkat]

I just purchased this lens used for my R6-II and I'm looking forward to taking it with me this weekend for a short trip. I also have the 70-200 f/4 I feel this lens will pair with pretty well. Nice to hear positive things. I don't have sufficient funding for the f/2.8 version, but between this lens and one or two fast primes I should be able to manage lower light situations. Thanks for the overall positive review even as short as it is!

[@o.aldenproductions.9858]

I just use the kit lens ef 18-135 lens It surprised me and people love it 😅😂

[@reviewitfaster]

Hey if it works it works.

[@jamescarlos8642]

Is canon rf 24-105 f4 L lens a good lens

[@Andi_R.]

Thanks for the quick review. How does the lens feel on a small body like the rp? I consider buying it with an R8

[@reviewitfaster]

I think the size on the RP is actually fine. I do use the canon extension grip on my RP, so that helps. The 24-105 f4 is not a huge lens, more medium sized. I imagine it would be well balanced on the R8.

[@B_22_5]

I use it on an R8 and it feels great. Substantial but not overly heavy.

[@Chris-NZ]

Hi, I use it on my R5 and have taken it on many travels as my “only lens”. Its not a huge lens and pretty sure it is shorter than my old EF version .

[@jamescarlos8642]

Is canon ef 24-105mm f4 is mark ii L lens good

[@hermenegildotrujillo458]

Yes, this is only a little bit fasther and sharper, with less chromatic aberration but EF is good still

[@sweden01ful]

Very good with rp

[@imnikshay]

Do we need a camera Hood or Uv filter is enough??

[@sailingsmith]

They do different jobs, lens hood is useful in sun or indoors with bright light sources too reduce flare, UV does basically nothing for digital photography, potentially slightly degrading image quality. I did have a couple when I was an amateur, but never do now.

[@imnikshay]

@ when i bought canon r50 i asked for the hood he said ,, canon have only uv protection glass something like that !! So basically your saying that uv filters degrades our quality ?? thats why i am not happy with the kit lens 18-45 ?

[@sailingsmith]

​@@imnikshayyes, to am extent, any additional piece of glass in front of the lens will reduce quality. High grade filters will probably be undetectable, lower grade can do. UV can cut haze in bright conditions but digital isn't really impacted like film was. On a cheaper lens and with a UV you might get poor results or it could just be the lens isn't that sharp to start with. I'm not saying don't get one of you are worried about damaging the front element, but after 20 years of working weddings, maritime, sports and just chucking gear on bags, often without a lens cap, I've never damaged one. My theory is why but decent glass only to reduce the quality.

[@imnikshay]

@ i have two dollar uv filter ! can u share a compact lens hood for my canon r50 ?? and, so basically he gave uv filter for lens protection.

[@shahriarrobin2022]

Once upon a time mirrorrless lenses were small 😂😂😂

[@hermenegildotrujillo458]

cheap lenses are small and light, expensive lenses are big and heavy, 28-70 2L is so heavy, more than this one

[@gabriellimson]

Yeah I remember when the selling point of mirrorless was a smaller system than dslr