Canon RF 24-105mm F4 L The best standard zoom ever? Thoughts in 2024 after many professional shoots

I have been using the Canon RF 24-105mm F4 L lens for the last 2 years, Shooting professional assignments with the Canon R5 Mirrorless camera. In this video I discuss my thoughts and opinions about whether this is possibly the best pro level standard zoom ever produced. I also show a few pictures taken with the lens and talk about some other options for photographers to think about.
Thanks for watching!
RR 2024

[@robertlawrence7958]

You are the first person I have found who shares what would appear to be a very 'minor 'point to every other photographer but which to me is quite significant. That is the little gripe about the red marker on the lens and lens mount of the new RF lenses!! With the EF version and all my EF lenses I could always instantly mount and unmount my lenses instinctively even in very low light situations but with the RF lenses I am constantly faffing around trying to match the lens mount to the body. I don't know why it is so fiddly but even just putting lens and body caps on seem to be a hassle. Not a major problem I know but, for me at least, extremely frustrating. Perhaps I'm just getting old and grumpy.

[@RoyRiley]

Yes! I thought I was the only one! I too am gettin old and grumpy also.

[@trevor9934]

It's been a while Roy, and your videos have been missed! I have both the R5 and the 24-105 f/4, but as a predominantly wildlife photographer I gravitate to much longer focal lengths. When I first ordered my gear, being in NZ and a long way from anywhere, my 24-105 was on back-order for 7 months! Needing a general-purpose lens, I bought the RF 24-240 USM that was available, as a stop gap and can honestly say I was totally impressed and taken with its performance, especially as it fits into that 'Swiss army knife' category you mentioned. Now, much depends on what and how you shoot and very much on what one produces and for what purpose. Given, at 71 and retired, I am now an amateur, and shoot differently from when I did it for a living, so my outcomes are quite different from what others might need.

[@RoyRiley]

Thanks Trevor! I very nearly bought one of those 24-240 lenses while my 24-105 was being fixed.. looks very appealing! As the years roll on I am certainly seeking ways to reduce the weight.. Wonder what your thoughts are on the new 200-800?

[@impopio4987]

​@@RoyRileyhow about 24-105mm f/2.8 ?

[@teesee03]

I bought one of those. For what it cost me, and for what it weighs, I am enormously impressed with it. Quality is good enough for my needs with R6 II - how it would hold up on R5 I don't know - and it really is so versatile. I'm also amateur, and I would struggle very hard to justify buying a 24-104 f/4. For low light I have 35 & 50 primes, & will get 85, which will cover me in that range.

[@vimalneha]

I must say your statements are real and trustworthy and one will take your words as it is. If there is a review for RF 24-105 F2.8 I would certainly wait for it.

[@RoyRiley]

Thank you! If only I could afford a 2.8 version! Big lump of glass and big lump of money! I’m sure worth it though for the right use.

[@impopio4987]

​@@RoyRileyhow about renting the lens?

[@RoyRiley]

@@impopio4987 Hmmm. maybe.. maybe not.. I am not sure its the right tool for me at this moment in time.. would like to give one a throw at some point and im sure canon would probably loan me one but its a lot of hassle when im already well equipped and shooting most days. possibly could be worth it for a specific YT review but i like to use gear for a while bfore giving an opinion based on experience. we will see!

[@peterthart531]

Your insight and opinions are valued. Certainly one of the channels worth watching.

[@RoyRiley]

Hey thanks Peter! Much appreciated. Hope you have a bonza weekend. RR

[@Mel-95]

Just bought the Canon R6 II and 24mm-105mm to replace my trusty Canon 7D II. Your review of the lens was highly valuable. I believe what you tell me because your comments come from personal experience as a working professional. I subscribed. Thanks.

[@RoyRiley]

Thanks for the support! You have an amazing set up .. happy shooting! RR

[@Morgan_In_Motion]

Great to see another video from you Roy! I enjoyed it.

[@RoyRiley]

Thank You MiM!

[@Drew-photo]

And welcome back 🙏 😊

[@andrewhunter9770]

I bought a used ef 24-105 f4 years ago hoping this would be my all purpose lens - but it was a mess due to ca and insufficient sharpness. I hardly use it anymore. After watching your video the idea of having such a "work horse" came back to my mind. I think I will borrow it first and maybe it will become part of my travelling equipment beside my 50 mm 1.8. Thank you for your video. I always love to listen to your thoughts and experiences.

[@viveksrivastava8675]

Thank you for the valuable content 👏

[@RoyRiley]

Thanks for this lovely comment! Much appreciated. RR

[@AnandaGarden]

Your experiences as a working professional have deep value for my decision-making with regard to gear. For the money, and my kind of work (run and gun in a K-8 school), I will likely keep my R6 and EF 24-105, and use the RF money for L primes. 24mm is a sweet spot for classrooms, but the 35/1.4 L and 24/2.8 IS look delicious.

[@FyahAlex]

I definitely agree. The photos from this lens are a bit underwhelming, but it is a Jack of all Trades.

[@classic.cameras]

As a long time lover of the original EF 24-105 f4L (and briefly a MKII user as well) when I had this RF 24-105mm f4L I found it to be vastly better. There was a huge difference. First of all, I was often surprised it was a f4 for how well it worked and how it rendered the images bokeh. You are right, its totally a different lens.

[@scotthunter4]

I owned it, I didn’t like it. The RF 24 1.8 Macro is a much sharper lens for a fraction of the price, not to mention it’s lighter and smaller. If you add the also excellent RF 35mm 1.8 Macro and then either the RF 85mm f2 Macro and/or RF 70-200 f4 I think that is the best way to go

[@RoyRiley]

Thanks for this. Interesting to hear your views. I guess it depends on use case. Sometimes one lens that does it all is just the right tool for the job. Given time and space and flexibility then a bunch of primes is without doubt the best way to go. Any issues with the R4 70-200 F4?? I had one for a while but went back to the EF 2.8 version. I wonder how they hold up build quality wise long term?

[@scotthunter4]

@@RoyRiley I was blown away by the centre sharpness of the 24mm 1.8 Macro. The 24-105 L just seemed a bit meh for the price. You also get the low light advantage and close focusing capabilities with those primes. Everyone’s different but I don’t mind spending the 20 seconds or so it takes to swap lenses if it means I get a sharper image corner to corner. I have found the 70-200 L to be optically almost perfect and performs better than the 24-105 L in the 70-105 range.

[@Thedivinevision.19]

Great images man, i have recently started doing weddings with 3 lenses with r6 mkii, rf 35mm f1.8, rf 50mm f1.8 stm and rf 70-200mm f2.8.

[@RoyRiley]

Thanks You! Nice set up!

[@libation14221]

I just moved up to a full frame Canon R. Bought it used in like new condition and coupled it with that lens you just reported on. Thanks for your opinion as I'm just an amateur having some old geezer retirement fun.

[@RoyRiley]

Nice set up! The sensor in the Canon R is an absolute peach! Enjoy your retirement. RR

[@mvp_kryptonite]

Hi Roy, thanks for the video. So refreshing to hear your thoughts on the lens and your recommendations and the reminder that they are simply tools. I use a crop body and have probably too many EF-S to adapt to my R7 and a some EF L lenses and for my enthusiastic needs it works great. I agree RF body with RF lens is a fantastic pair and unicorn 28-70/2 (if you can forgive the weight) is superb in my opinion. You touch on the 24-105/2.8 which is probably the same weight and size of the EF 70-200/2.8 and would also satisfy those dreamy looks for those who like zoom lenses. Hopefully now Canon can go from strength to strength with cool lenses as so far, I think they are great choices. Would I like RF-S successors to 15-85 and 17-55/2.8, absolutely. Your showcase of pictures are great and look forward to your next video.

[@RoyRiley]

Thanks MVP! Appreiate youyr comment. I keep looking at that 28-70 f2. but I think its lack of range and price tag would make me hate it! I hear people say all the time that its a "special lens" and so I do wonder about giving it a throw. I wa splaying with an R7 the other day and really like the rear thumb control thing. It seems like its the obvious best way to do things.. I wonder why its not more talked about or maybe I have just missed it!

[@mvp_kryptonite]

@@RoyRiley I think the R7 thumb wheel is likely a feature for top line APSC only. As FF bodies a change could set off panic stations especially for those with multiple bodies. I agree it’s location is much more comfortable

[@martinekwall4671]

Thanks for the video! I have used this lens for about 4 years now and I like it very much. Good for both video and photo. Yes, you are right for pro work always using low aperture numbers is not the way. Actually, I find this one has good bokeh even if it's f4. It is sharp like primes. If the light comes against the lens at an angle and shadowing the lens, at f4, the space behind the object will have a very nice subtle haze. All lenses have better and worse distances to the object where the bokeh looks better or worse, it takes some work to figure it out. Yes, the front extending part wigles a bit but doesn't affect the photos. Excellent for video as it is both fast and quiet, one can adjust the speed of focus pulling in camera.

[@RoyRiley]

Thanks for this very informative comment..I agree. With good technique and understanding this lens can produce great bokeh and its interesting to hear your views on getting the best from it. I find it's when everything is against me that sometimes having a wider aperture would be beneficial, ie its dark, I'm trying to shoot an available light portrait, the background is a little too close and a little distracting.. its times like that that having the extra stop of light and DOF would be handy but its certainly workable with this lens and sometimes getting the best from what we have is all part of the journey.. I did not know it is possible to adjust focus pull speed in camera.. I will investigate! Thanks again for your comment and support. RR

[@jonathanburkitt9205]

Good video. Thank you. I am an amature photographer at best and I bought the lens the other day for £900 (like new). I gave it a quick test run yesterday, and I was suprised how sharp the image was I got with a Shutterspeed 0"4 (F22 / ISO100) holding my hands against some railing. I was taking a picture in the Shopping centre and wanted to capture the movement of everyone with Blur while all the shops and objects are crisp. Amazing. Off to 3 Asian countries this week, look forward to getting some fantastic pics.

[@RoyRiley]

Cheers Jonathan. Appreciate your comment and wish you the very best on your Asia mission.. sounds fantastic and you have just the right lens for a journey like this! Over the years I have carried loads of heavy lenses around the globe but honestly the RF 24-105 is one that can do the job mostly all on its own.. ( if it were me going on a trip like yours.. I would add a 50mm 1.8 though just in case!… thank me later)

[@davewaddicorphotography4710]

Very much so roy .

[@tom_k_d]

Nice sunstars, good flare control and very little CAs are worth mentioning, too.

[@RoyRiley]

Bang on! Thanks for adding this. RR

[@matthewsinger]

about 12 years ago, I bought a used ef 24-105 and it was such an eye opener as to how much lenses affect images right out of the camera. It was sharp with better contrast and color fidelity compared to what I had been using. I dropped it onto pavement from tripod height and damned if it didn't keep working for years beyond that. It was a frayed ribbon cable inside that eventually did that lens in, apparently a common problem in Canon's zoom lenses. I now have the RF 24-105 f/4 L and I have been blown away by it. I have one major gripe regarding build quality, and that is the coatings on the front element don't seem to be as robust as previous lenses. I've never had any scratches on my ef version nor my ef-s 10-22mm, but within weeks of owning this lens, I've seen some small scratches appear on the edge of the front element. Luckily they are out of the way and haven't impacted any images, but it's still a bit of a letdown.

[@RoyRiley]

Great story! I love hearing real experience like this. Very valuable and important. I have very few scratches on any of my RF lenses which must be a miracle because I’m a lens scratchy kind of guy( mostly no lens caps either end) but mine are all currently clean as a whistle.. give it time… to be honest all the RF glass is so sharp that a few scratches will probably help in the long run. Happy weekend. RR

[@matthewsinger]

It's so sharp, and my r7 has such high resolution that when I zoom in 1:1, I can still see the plane of focus and landscape coming in and out at f9 and smaller.

[@CHODOSPHOTOS]

Thanks Roy. Ah, $3k for the 24-105 RF 2.8 versus $1300 is indeed a big difference, but if what you say about this lens is true, plus the extra speed of 2.8, I'd say the extra $1700 would give you the low-light beast and make up for it with the right photo and the right session for years to come. But of course, your test could help us decide if it's worth the expense! PS. Nice to see the daytime look with the window on your right! Cheers mate!

[@RoyRiley]

Maybe one day I will give it a try.. also the size and weight to consider.

[@Drew-photo]

Thanks for the Swiss Amy lens , I have an R (5div) and my lens kit 14-35 f4, 24-105 f4 ,100-500 f7.1 , 50mm 1.8 it all fits in one carry-on page

[@RoyRiley]

Nice set up! Been wishing for one ☝️ of the 100-500 to come my way but now wondering about the 200-800

[@Drew-photo]

If you use the crop on the r5 the 100-500 f7.1 is more like 160-800 without giving up stop of light f9

[@RoyRiley]

@@Drew-photonice!

[@abjr303]

Agree fully.

[@AndySnap]

Hi, very interested to hear your thoughts on this lens, as it's been my '90%' used lens too since I started working with the R5. I agree with everything you say about it, particularly that it's a 'gets the job done' but no character lens. You just shoot with it, the focal range is very useful, for me much more the the 'meh' 24-70mm lens range I've never liked. I don't care too much about the f4 max aperture as I don't think there's really much noticeable difference in bokeh between f2.8 and f4, and we don't have to care about lens speed now we aren't confined by film speed. Besides, if you need a wide aperture lens, buy one! I bought the EF 85mm f1.8 (after seeing your video...) as I much prefer a 'proper' wide aperture, prime portrait lens in the bag. Having said that, my corporate headshots need to be in deeper focus so are almost always shot at f5.6 or less, and the RF24-105 is tack sharp by then. One criticism I have about it is that I find it really quite soft at it's closest focus point, so I need to back off slightly and shoot at f4.5 to be acceptable. Oh and the lack of lens changing marking on all RF lenses drives me mad!! And the black LCD on the camera too...grrr. I have to mute my swearing on some dimly lit jobs... My wobbly front end I noticed maybe more after the lens got a bit of a square-on knock on the front, it's ok, and maybe the build quality is better than it seems?? It wobbles far less then the old, worn EF 24-70mm I had...that was crazy wobbly but worked. It's quite a chunky lens too as you say, like many RF lenses. Lens changing needs a firm grasp, a drop feels a distinct possibility every time. I really wish Canon had a range of small, compact primes. Using the 50mm f1.8, or the EF 24mm 'pancake' + adaptor makes the R5 feel much more nimble to handle. Great pics in the video too by the way!

[@agubser07]

Very informative. I especially liked the last bit about who you think this lens is for. I definitely fall into the latter category and like to use more characterful lenses e.g. adapting vintage lenses (hello Canon 50mm f/1.4 LTM 😍) or shooting with two bodies with primes of different focal lengths. However for travel, something like this might fit the bill....Have you traveled with this lens for personal work and did you bring any other lenses if so?

[@RoyRiley]

Thanks for your comment! Yes vintage lenses are fantastic. I have a bag of old m42 and Olympus primes that I often talk about making a video about. There is something very nostalgic about the feel and look of them. I would happily travel with just the RF24-105. Does everything I would need for holidays or travel. I might chuck a 50mm in the bag as a back up though!

[@agubser07]

@@RoyRiley That would be fantastic if you made a video on some of your old film camera lenses, particularly with images when adapted to the R5!

[@RoyRiley]

@@agubser07 I iwll see what I can do!

[@petsco]

i managed to crack the outside of the RF 24-105mm just hitting it on my knee whilst walking. The sort of hit that would normally not do any damage (and I've done similar hits with no damage with other RF lenses). On the main body (next to the actual Canon label), near the split to the zoom ring. Mad really. Fortunately managed to glue the crack back together myself with no apparent detriment to the lens at all - apart from the sudden devaluation on the second hand market. As you say though - to me, this lens is the one you have on the camera most of the time, as it does most of the jobs pretty well. If I want more specialist shots, I'll put on a prime, or the 14-35mm. So as it's on most of the time, it will be subject to more exposure (sic) than the others, and potentially be more at risk.

[@RoyRiley]

Thanks for this.. sorry for you lens damage. not the best. yes it seems there is a weakness but the usefulness of the lens in some way make me look past any negatives.. its probably the kind of tool that we need two of to make sure one is always up and running

[@davewaddicorphotography4710]

top one , cheers

[@RoyRiley]

Thanks Dave! Glad its of some interest

[@kunstfuhrer]

"good Lord, it sounds really boring" 😂😂😂 10 boring stories out of 10😅 Nice to see you Roy

[@nigelwest3430]

The RF 24-105 f4L is my "walk about" lens on my R & R3, great lens for 75% of occasions.

[@RoyRiley]

75% is the magic number! what do you use for the other 25%?

[@nigelwest3430]

@@RoyRiley Depends on what I'm shooting, options are, EF 8-15 f4L, RF 15-35 f2.8L, RF 35 f1.8, Sigma 50 f1.4 Art, Laowa 100 f2.8 2x Macro, RF 70-200 f4L, EF300 f4L, Sigma 150-600 C .......... I like my toys 🤪

[@Frodofoto01]

My concerns about the RF 24-105 relate to sensitivity to damage and inconsistent image quality. My EF 24-105 was a vast improvement on the EF 28-135 it replaced and became a much used lens through a succession of 5 series DSLRs. It was replaced by an RF 24-105 /4L and was an improvement. Until halfway through a wedding when I noticed it wss soft on the left side. Canon repair centre concluded it had been dropped, but I have no recollection of that happening. Repair quote was 2/3 the price of a new lens, so I got a new lens. However, this one was softer than the first one, so I sold it. I now use an RF 24/1.8 and RF 85/2 for events, weddings and travel. But I miss the flexibility of the zoom. Your story about serious damage from a minor fall is a barrier to me getting another. How frequently have you heard similar stories?

[@RoyRiley]

Thanks for this. I think only time will tell.. a few similar stories but also the opposite, with lots very happy. Oddly I have had a few Canon L lenses go soft on the left hand side over the years and I cannot remember dropping any of them either! maybe its wear and tear, maybe they do get a knock without us knowing. Maybe they just have a left handed soft glass goblin inside.. who knows.. What does really annoy me is the Canon pricing for fixing these things.. I dont know what a new 24-105 F4 RF lens is worth to Canon but probably a lot less than half the retail price.. Pro support seems to be out the window.. How you getting on with that 24 1.8 RF? im very interested but just dont want to add yet another option to my toolkit or am i missing a trick? 1.8 is always, always worth it.. I've convinced myself! All the best and thanks for your comment and support. RR

[@Frodofoto01]

I decided to go ahead with the repair and will let you know how I get on. I really like the RF 24/1.8. Acceptably sharp in the middle wide open, which can produce nice fall off. It has quite severe distortion in raw files, but these are corrected in camera or by Lightroom (or better by PureRaw). This does stretch objects near the edge of the frame and if I have people there, I will often leave the distortion uncorrected. Indeed, I like the rendering of uncorrected photos of forests, and the wider angle is useful. Stopped down, it is sharp almost to the corners. I have printed and sold a few prints 750mm wide, so sharpness is not a problem. There is a lot of astigmatism wide open and astro photos need to be stopped down to at least f/2.8. Add the 1:2 "macro", small size and modest price, its a winner. Pity that its not weather sealed.

[@kirkdarling4120]

I used to have a 24-70, but in my portrait business I use 100mm a _LOT._ I always had to carry both the 24-70 and my 70-200 on location even for indoor portraits just to get 100mm. The 24-100 stays on my camera 90% of the time. In fact, I've got two of them because "what is essential must be redundant."

[@RoyRiley]

Sounds very similar to my own use!

[@Lb-py7rc]

hey roy i need your advice, so i have been thinking of upgrading to the canon r5 from the 5d mkiii but i am concerned about the file sizes of the pictures and whether or not my pc will be able to handle them, i dont know the specs of my pc, is there any advice you could give me. thanks

[@RoyRiley]

You are very wise to consider this. The jump in file size is a pain and certainly slowed down my workflow on high spec but oldish MacBook Pro. Ultimately I had to upgrade to a more recent top spec machine and now use external SSD drives for location storage. Really it depends on your need but if you are processing lots of RAW files regularly then you are right to be concerned. If you do t need the massive resolution then the R6 mark 2 is possibly worth a look? Also just uses SD cards so no R5 CF express cards which are expensive and require another reader.

[@jordanbell1565]

new video! let's goooooooooooooooooooooooooo

[@RoyRiley]

Hey JB! Hope you are having a happy Monday! RR

[@JanineMKartist]

I see you have a window sourcing your light from the side. what lens did you film this with? also how does the f4 lens you are talking about do in the same lighting setup you have here ? (ie using window light only). I have purchased the r6 mark ii arriving soon. still need to upgrade lens. of course when I say window light I mean both still and video . I was also looking at the ef 24-70 2.8 with adapter but comparisons shown on KZbin the r lens sharpness on the R lenses is way better than what KZbinrs even say. so most likely I will do this lens you are describing. but I'm concerned about the f4 being the limit.

[@RoyRiley]

I find the F4 aperture to be OK in most circumstances. Good window light is generally OK. Obviously it would be handy to have a wider aperture but this is the compromise we each have to work out for ourselves.

[@RoyRiley]

Filmed with a 2.8 LUMIX lens but aperture set to 5.6 I think

[@JanineMKartist]

@@RoyRiley thanks . My brain is bursting with all the research I’m doing . I want to make the right purchase for my needs . Maybe 24-105 will be ok since they R6 mark II is said to be a great improvement

[@nathanr9242]

I recently picked up the EF used. I'm completely upset with it. It stays at F4 24 to 105, but as it zooms, it requires more exposure. I don't see what the point of a fixed aperture zoom is if it needs more exposure time on zoom. Does the RF have the same problem?

[@sammorganmoore]

This is called Transmission or BS.. you will see cine lenses are called T2.9 this means The Fstop is usually 2.8 and the actual light getting through is worth 2.9. Yes to me observation the ef was about F8 light at the long end or worse. To call it 24-105 f4 was basically blusiht. I never liked that lens.

[@teesee03]

Hi Roy, Do you think it's really good enough for Canon to be selling lenses with the "L" label attached to them (supposed to be their high quality designation) - or even selling any lenses at all - that are held together with glue and fragile screws, that crumple and fall apart like eggshells when they're subjected to a little bit of rough treatment? Doesn't it show contempt for their customers? I can't imagine what someone like Don McCullin would have made of it all.

[@RoyRiley]

I think Canon gear is generally very tough and durable. There will always be exceptions and poor luck I guess and everyone will have different experiences and opinions but just to give some perspective based on my own experience. I have shot Canon for about 30 years from the older manual focus film cameras through EF and DSLRs to now the R cameras and lenses. I really do put my gear through some very tough times but in general all the Canon gear has held up well and be super reliable. Maybe I was just unlucky with this break or maybe they are a bit weaker than previous lenses.. only time and experience will tell but on balance to answer your question.. Yes I do think Canon should be selling lenses. Hopefully they will address any weaknesses moving forward.. we will see!

[@RichieColemanSr]

Great video. How does it do in low light indoors?

[@RoyRiley]

Thanks. It does OK. Not as flexible as a lens with a wider maximum aperture but I use it inside and in low light often and it does OK so long as you understand the limitations of an F4 aperture lens.

[@RichieColemanSr]

@@RoyRiley Thank you for responding. I have a ef 24-70 f2.8 that I use with an adapter. I have always been interested in the reach of the 24-105.

[@markg6841]

Will you be getting a RF24-105mm F2.8L IS??? Hope to hear your review if you got it...

[@RoyRiley]

Thought about it.. thought about it until I saw the price and then I promptly forgot all about it! Could be very good but too big, too heavy and too expensive to find out for me currently.

[@markg6841]

@@RoyRiley I guess after 3 yrs, the price may be more reasonable... like the 28-70mm now... and the RF 50mm L.... local SG pricing..

[@RoyRiley]

@@markg6841 i can think of so many ways to otherwise spend that money wisely.. or indeed unwisely.. than a great big heavy chunk of glass… camera gear is fundamentally very dull!

[@sammorganmoore]

NIce. This vid just popped up. The young folk.. dont seem to realise that excellence of this stuff that just works! F4.. with a 6400iso camera it is fine. With full frame it is fine. Few folk moan about 2.8 on small chip cameras. The 2.8 is interesting that it might really be the lens that never comes off! The old 24-105.. ya more like 5.6-8 in actual light transmission, yuk the ef24-105. Im two years in to canon now with my r6 and 90% it just works, it came with a 24-106F6.3 kit lens that I though I would use to feed the birds.. but even that lens is excellent. Oddly the lens I seem to use most is my 24-70F4 that cost £4.75. Ill get the 24-105f4 when I have a spare ££. Also.. the other ring.. I use that to change focus mode.. 'face rec' or 'focus on the box' - How do you choose focus mode or do you never change it?

[@RoyRiley]

In stills mode I just use ai servo. Back button focus with the different modes set to different buttons.

[@sammorganmoore]

@@RoyRiley Sorry you lost me there. Im not a canon man. Like TV mode.. wtf is that! The focus modes are.. face rec, single point once, single point contiunous, disco dance floor mode - the latter being the camera focusses anywhere but on the subject.

[@RoyRiley]

@@sammorganmoore when I get three seconds of spare time I will give you a call to discuss but I’m buried under seven shades of shit

[@sammorganmoore]

@@RoyRiley OK when you dig yourself that would be great x

[@classic.cameras]

You got a Nikon in the back. Whats the story Roy? (I am a Canon guy who uses Sony now a lot so not judgement)

[@RoyRiley]

Long story. Let’s just say it’s all that’s left of an old friend..

[@headbang3r519]

I personally like the EF range. I know the RF has extra blade[s] and better and faster AF but the build quality of the RF, stinks. They could easily break or wobble up. For me personally, it is about having good glass and taking amazing shots that create a fantastic image. While also saving as much money to travel and explore to shoot more images across the globe. The shot matters more to me than the quality of the image. EF L series range is still good glass and affordable. Sports journalists would benefit the most from RF glass. due to them normally using a stacked sensor and shooting fast moving subjects. But the EF are built like tank, it is a fully known, proven and battle-hardened L series range whereas the RF has already let some people down including other photographers I know. Main three concerns have always been build quality or the lack thereof; the extortionable price and the possibility of additional repair costs because the RF plastic is delicate.

[@RoyRiley]

Bang on! In every way what you say is correct and it’s good to hear you saying about spending money on life rather than gear because that is vital to success as a photographer. The one problem for me is the simple fact (in my opinion) that these RF lenses are just a tiny weeny little bit better in day to day shooting and that’s a hard fact to let go of, especially when shooting for a living.

[@headbang3r519]

@@RoyRiley In that case then Roy, I decided to get this RF 24-105 F4.0. Just ordered it. The price was sensible for me at £1,389.00Cr but I am still keeping most of my EF L lenses because I am not willing to let go of them totally. I will sell my EF 24-105 for now though.

[@geoffreypiltz271]

Do you carry insurance against damage by dropping?

[@RoyRiley]

For sure!

[@peteru3357]

Rf 35mm or 24-105? cant decide

[@RoyRiley]

Only you can decide.. look deep inside your mind.. the answer lies within you

[@kimw994]

reliable? I had a Canon EOS-5+50 25 years ago- build like a toy: no repair at all- Nikon F4´s came later- always in repair, now Fujifilm as well 😵

[@RoyRiley]

Nice history! Loved those old Nikons F3 with the big motor drive.. F4.. FM2. All lovely gear. Lots of memories

[@ricknicholson5894]

I prefer plastic lenses, I know, how gauche! Here's the thing, if metal was all that great, why aren't football helmets made out of it? Plastic absorbs hits, doesn't dent and is a better head protector than metal. So if plastic was good enough to protect my head when playing football, it's good enough for lenses.

[@RoyRiley]

Yes to plastic lenses! Don’t really care what they are made from so long as they are tough and get the job done.. helmets for football.. who knew!

[@marknongkhlaw1674]

You got the right word for it : bland 😊

[@RoyRiley]

I guess it very much depends on perspective. Yes it does not have the character or bokeh of a tasty prime but on balance, if countless successful assignments with happy paying clients is bland then yup. Let’s call it bland! Depends on what you are trying to achieve. To give some context in 30 years shooting professionally I dont think I have ever had a picture editor or client who has moaned about a good picture being shot on a bland lens! What’s your experience?

[@marknongkhlaw1674]

@@RoyRiley yes, I agree it depends on perspective. If clients are happy, then bland is grand

[@RoyRiley]

@@marknongkhlaw1674 haha “Bland is Grand!” Perfect!

[@sunlbx]

it loses to sigma 24-105 f4 art at all settings and apertures, other than 105mm, where they are more or less equal, and the canon one has a better center with similar corner performance. other than that, my opinion is sigma hands down

[@andrewhunter9770]

Don`t you have problems with af? I use the original canon adapter rf-ef and all my sigma lenses have some issues especially in servo mode. (R6 II)

[@sunlbx]

​@@andrewhunter9770 autofocus is never perfect with Canon lenses either. However sigmas can be less consistent , it's a fact. Micromotor lenses suffer more, ultrasonic focusing motors have less play in their drivetrain so they are more consistent

[@andrewhunter9770]

@@sunlbxHi, thank you for your reply. Sigma itself says their 24-105 mm cannot use the automatic motif recognition on Canon R cameras - maybe this leads to the af problem. I `d rather wait for the outcome of the negotiations between Canon and Sigma at the end.

[@sunlbx]

@@andrewhunter9770 yup fancy "ai" modes for cheerful beginners don't really work well. technically though, for professional work, Sigma can't be touched. if we compare the Sigma to Canon 24-105 for EF mount, the Canon is not even in the same league.

[@bigbluerios]

Subscribed!

[@RoyRiley]

Cheers BiG BLUE! Much appreciated

[@brucemercer8441]

Re: altering out of focus blur via software…..this to be used judiciously!…..it depends on what you’re photographing and what genre……family portraits,fine…..serious photojournalism???, big no no!!!….many promising photogs have been caught out and their careers (photojournalists) tarnished ….by “dicking “ around on pictures that aren’t real…..everything else, fine…..just be wary of what you’re shooting and the circumstance…….

[@RoyRiley]

Agreed!