Canon RF 24-105mm f/2.8 L IS Z Review: The BEST Do-It-All Lens?

[@dj_laundry_list]

When Chris uses it, it's actually a 24-34 and 36-105mm lens

[@niccollsvideo]

It’s like the thirteenth floor!

[@bocaraka]

nailed

[@falxonPSN]

It's 2 lenses in one!

[@4uPhotos2c]

My copy the 24-105 f2.8 arrived last week. So far, I love this lens. Yes, it's big, but it handles well. I especially like that it doesn't change size when zoomed. It's not that I'm worried about dust, I just find it unexpectedly pleasant shooting with this lens after shooting for decades with 24-70s and 24-105s whose barrels expand when zooming. For me, the killer feature of the 24-105 f2.8 is its ability to take portraits like a fast, short telephoto prime, but also shoot wide angle. It's like having a high quality 85mm prime (one of my favorite lenses) and a 24-70 f2.8 all in one lens. This lens is great for indoor, window light portraits. I figured out a trick that makes this lens work for street photography... I hesitate to give this away because it's so slick and clever, but here goes... Because the lens is so long in appearance, when you're shooting wide angle, it looks like your pointing it at something distant and off to the side. Nearby bystanders have no idea they're in the frame. It sounds ridiculous, but this giant lens can be stealthy for street photos. I've only had it for a week. Further experiments are required.

[@teknonmy7210]

the length giving people the impression that it's a tele is real. People will duck out of my way when I use my tiny 32mm (on APS-C), but pay no mind to my 18-130mm that's 3x longer

[@MrWiseinheart]

Good points 👍

[@obscurelines]

I'm not a canon shooter anymore (though I did used to use the 28-70 f2). But, seems like a great wedding lens. Just pretty stressed free. Maybe a second body with something fast on it (your choice, I'd go with an 85mm to pluck people out of the crowd at a bit of distance), seems perfect.

[@nsbhagwat]

No Jordan, that's unfair. We need his opinion on the video capabilities.

[@falxonPSN]

He was too busy rocking out to the music

[@AnastasTarpanov]

yeah, exactly my thoughts.

[@brentj7564]

agreed

[@1property1com]

great review Chris , though the queen is dead for two years almost , and why use a picture her for focus comparison ? just weird 2024

[@niccollsvideo]

@@1property1com I didn't realize that focusing has to be done using only current monarchs. Is that a rule? We still have heads of state on our money that are long since gone. And we don't have anything updated with King Charles yet.

[@agcouper]

The best lens you will mostly keep at home because of its size

[@TechnoBabble]

I bring my Sigma Art 40mm f/1.4 out with me a lot, it weighs almost as much as this and doesn't even zoom.

[@EXkurogane]

Nah only weak people keep it at home. I bring a bag of f1.4 primes and f2.8 zooms when i go out.

[@mmartel]

@agcou0er I'm pretty sure this is a pro lens intended for folks like wedding photogs and pro video operators. If they're leaving it at home, it's because they forgot it and they're about to get fired, not because it was too big or heavy.

[@nSpiraliArchitectb]

hobby photographers who moonlight as strongmen incoming

[@TechnoBabble]

@@mmartel Seriously, I don't understand half of these comments acting like it's designed for your average hobbyist.

[@JoelRiveraMD]

Is not that heavy. It feels very balanced. For events there is no other lens like this one ! Love it to be honest. Focus and zoom ring are buttery smooth

[@alexmaccape8411]

+1 This is the ultimate do-it-all lens

[@ritrattoaziendale]

The Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8 is way more flexible, and cost pennies compared to this

[@slurp3194]

@@alexmaccape8411this is the ultimate I am lazy lens.

[@JoelRiveraMD]

@@ritrattoaziendale how are you gonna use that one on canon ?

[@ChadMoiMedia]

@@JoelRiveraMD Good point. Best not shoot with Canon then. (Just joking btw)

[@KevinNordstrom]

Was debating getting this lens but i went with the 24-70 2.8 and 100mm 2.8 macro. Sure its two lesnes, but size and weight matters the longer you're out in the field. Hense why i also went with the 100-500 instead of a 500f4 and why i went with a 24-70 2.8 instead of 28-70 f2.

[@codythep]

As a wedding filmmaker, it's an absolute perfect fit for me. Just can't afford it yet 🤣

[@dj_laundry_list]

Tamron 35=150 and social distance

[@panmosadu]

@@dj_laundry_list not for canon

[@obscurelines]

I'm trying to make sense of it for weddings. Obvs it's a classic 24-70 with 50% more range but then I don't always like 2.8 indoors and if I were outdoors I guess I'd just use the f4? That said, you could literally do a whole wedding with this (and maybe a fast 35mm or something and a wide in the bag), have all the pics on one card which is a time saver. Hmmmm.

[@codythep]

@@obscurelines we have multiple shooters and I’m the mobile guy. Theres a ton of footage where my sigma 24-70 is too shakey and I cant use it. My 15-35 is too wide but stable enough, and the 70-200 is covered by another shooter or I wouldn’t use it indoors. And this lens would solve all three and then some

[@kylekaiser9525]

For weddings you're better off with two cameras, one 24-70mm and the other 70-200mm at all times or if you are filming, one dji ronin 4D-8k cinema camera and you are good to go

[@birdnerdqc4028]

Nice lens, which we had a little review from Jordan about video use with the powerzoom motor. No Jordan in the last podcast and this review. We miss you!🥲

[@PetaPixel]

Unfortunately, a power zoom motor was not provided with our review sample. I did really enjoy using it to shoot a BMX competition, it’s a great video lens. I’ll be back on the pod in two weeks! - Jordan

[@LoFiAxolotl]

there's like a 65% chance that Chris finally snapped and is keeping Jordan in his basement and that's why we haven't seen him

[@niccollsvideo]

@@LoFiAxolotl A very likely scenario that you should keep under wraps from now on.

[@alankefauver6187]

I love it.."if you get a good copy."

[@GerryL116]

Unfortunately that's been true of not only the RF 24-105 f/4's, but going back into the EF 24-05's as well.

[@DanielFazzari]

Nice review! Glad you mentioned the hybrid nature of the lens. Too many people think this is just a photo lens. Regarding the onion ring bokeh, not sure if it was the types of lights I had in the background, but when I compared the 24-105 2.8 to the 28-70, they had very similar onion ring bokeh.

[@TORKiT]

Is it worth upgrading from the 24-105 F4 L lens?

[@yummm8775]

Just keep your F4 unless you're planning to do a lot of low light shooting.

[@charliewaterman816]

Was that a wotancraft bag? How is it? I've used and have a bunch of bags, but I keep going back to my favorite hadley small most of the time. O and canvas all the way!.

[@niccollsvideo]

The Wotancraft Pilots are the best I’ve ever used. They look nice, they handle very well, and they are lightweight!

[@charliewaterman816]

@niccollsvideo awesome! I'll have to give one a try, thanks :)

[@hkn777]

I tried this lens with my R6 mark II and to be honest I am very impressed with image quality and sharpness, but the size :(

[@gadgetman7119]

im currently using the canon R3 , thinking on either getting this lense ( 24-105 f2.8) , or instead getting the 24-70 2.8 PLUS 70-200 f2.8. im wondering its best to get just the 24-105 2.8 and have one lense to rule them all, or rather get the other two lenses i described for hybrid shooting video and photos ? its the size and weight of the 24-105 F2.8 that keeps me worried

[@cgiovanni5982]

your question is hard to answer because we don't know what you shoot exactly but I'd say if the 70-200 range is a necessity for you then you got your answer. On the opposite side, if you don't need it and you really need video features then go for the 24-105 2.8. I think size and weight won't be a problem here because that lens seems well balanced compared to the others

[@Madtography]

A 20-80mm f2-2.8 with no breething, bit of macro, smooth bokeh and IS would be my dream lens for video work..

[@d.k.1394]

I will get to work on it

[@HwL01]

If the price and size isn't crazy, this will be like the go to lens for travel for everyone.

[@xkben90]

Agreed. Except I’d change the range to 18-75

[@d.k.1394]

@@xkben90 ohhhh ok

[@d.k.1394]

@@HwL01 soooo true

[@zodiacmanan]

About time someone made one of these.

[@MarcBirks]

snap, ive always surprised it hasn't been done already.

[@TechnoBabble]

​@@MarcBirks Tamron used to make a 28-105 f/2.8... but it wasn't very good optically and had slow autofocus.

[@kurtdewittphoto]

4:20 Stunning. Simply stunning model.

[@Rollergold4]

Maybe I'm missing something but why isn't the aperture ring enabled when taking pictures? They should have added a click on & off switch and enable it for Photo Mode. For such a pricey lens, seems like a half wasted feature otherwise on a lens marketed towards hybrid use.

[@DanielFazzari]

"This allows video users to manually control exposure adjustment and the degree of background blur while shooting video, with click-less, smooth operation - similar to the operability in a cinema lens."

[@Rollergold4]

@@DanielFazzari That's all well and good for video but the fact you can't use the aperture ring in photo mode at ALL & you can't add/remove the clicks for the aperture ring like you can on other lenses makes it a half baked feature for a lens that is marketed towards hybrid use. If Canon marketed under their cinema line/solely as a video lens then I can see the point.

[@el_fucko]

@@DanielFazzari Dude, Canon isn't gonna take you out on a date or offer you a job for defending this boneheaded choice.

[@DanielFazzari]

@@el_fucko Darn

[@thomasanderson5929]

Hey Chris, how does the lens IS with IBIS in Canon rank against Olympus, ie, their 12-100mm with an em1 iii?

[@niccollsvideo]

Nothing can quite touch what the OM System can reach but it is a much smaller sensor with lower megapixels. The difference is pretty minor and I find the Canon IBIS and IS to be very capable.

[@thomasanderson5929]

Thank you Chris! Always appreciate your realistic view on M43 strengths and weaknesses :) You're one of the reasons why I switched to Olympus from Canon a couple months ago :) @@niccollsvideo

[@Mother-Russia-Z]

when will the Canon RF 70-200 mm f/2.8 L IS Z be available?

[@eriksopracasa3449]

R5C or FX6 which camera would you recommend :)?

[@EduardodeRegules]

Thanks for your honest down to this world opinion 👍

[@Gremlack13]

I rock a 24-105 f4 that I use for most everything. I enjoy it. Question is is the 1 stop of light worth the size, weight, and cost difference for photos?

[@mavfan1]

depends

[@LoFiAxolotl]

Nope it makes absolutely no difference tbh... 1 stop you can always make up with ISO/SS except in the most unrealistic and extreme made up circumstances someone will name... also optically the 24-105 f4 is just better... Canon had glass figured out already like 30 years ago and now they just release garbage with wider apertures because that's what people think is important... 24-105 are specifically made for wedding photographers and such... you really don't want a shallow depth of field and with modern cameras ISO perfmormance the low light doesn't matter anyway... save yourself some money and neck/backpain

[@TechnoBabble]

​@@LoFiAxolotl Since when do wedding photographers not want shallow DoF? Also, one stop more light means half the noise. It doesn't matter how good the noise performance of the camera is, the amount of noise is halved by adding a stop of light. I frequently shoot in scenarios where f4 would give a near unusable shot, though f/2.8 wouldn't be a ton better. I'm often shooting at f/2 or f/1.4 on primes.

[@LoFiAxolotl]

@@TechnoBabble what the fuck are you talking about? Noise doesn't just multiply because of a stop of light and is incredibly situational and random based on a billion factors.... and wedding photographers just as portrait photographers don't want shallow depth of field because someone spend hours and hours desinging the background and they're usually interesting and tell a story... if you're a terrible photographer and don't understand compostioon and have to hide your talentless shots in bokeh that's fine... nobody cares... Go watch some Tony Northrup and talk to him about all your shallow depth of field needs

[@Amphibax]

For most people clearly no if you need the extra stop of light you already know it

[@DerekBezuidenhout]

Keep getting stronger! Thanks for all your vids, and for being open in this one. Heart problems suck - been there myself at about same age. Sucks, but we can be super grateful for the medical professionals. Keep shaking!

[@benji_h3734]

You have my dream camera combo right there, I'm getting closer to get it tho next month I will finally buy r5 and only future will tell when I will get that amazing lens!!

[@yesthisisdonut]

really makes you wonder if theyll release any new cine cameras using the RF mount besides the R5c and C70

[@LoFiAxolotl]

the release cycle for Cine cameras is much slower than for consumer cameras because consumers are much more led by marketing while a business that has a C70 would be really hard to convince to buy a more modern camera... 8k isn't needed since even 4k is barely used... fullframe is really not needed for video... and a C70 is already overkill for it's applications... and smaller productions are probably much better suited for a R5 or Panasonic S5ii or GH6/G9ii because you don't have to deal with stuff like timecode anyway which make a small cine camera interesting for some rather niche applications

[@heartshapedfilms]

I feel this lens shows they will. This lens is crying out for a ff event shooter camera the r5c is not that and the c70 is S35, C300 RF or MK4 / C500 which is already full frame but EF While there is the RED 8k Global shutter camera which I am sure will work well with this lens.

[@tylerdoestech]

According to some longtime Canon pros with industry contacts, this lens has been in development *forever* since the days following the original EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L lens. I can see why they waited so long to bring it to market, however, with the uncorrected distortion performance, the LOCA, and the bokeh highlights onion rings. Before this "golden age of digital," that kind of performance would kill lens sales. This lens definitely seems like more of a niche product when you take in its whole performance. Nevertheless, immense congratulations is due to Canon for bringing a truly innovative lens to market.

[@jhonnysaenz1748]

I want to buy it and use it with the Canon R6 mark II camera for video with the DJI rs3 pro gymbal that you recommend?

[@cgiovanni5982]

sounds good to me

[@gotja]

I’d use this for work all the time

[@travissmarion]

"Z for zoom... I ah•zoom so." Such an underrated play on words there sir. Good job! 👍🏻

[@frankc1702]

I’m curious how well this would do with professional sports like boxing and basketball. I haven’t seen anyone shooting with this yet ringside or courtside. Maybe due to its price. The extra reach is awesome. It would be perfect for boxing if it performs just as good as the 24-70 2.8

[@JoaquimGonsalves]

If you don't mind APSC, we have the cheaper and lighter Tamron equivalent.

[@classicboy97]

I applaud Canon for making interesting workhorse lenses, even though they may be behemoths. Your move Nikon and Sony

[@selishots]

Tamrons already got the 35-150 F2-2.8 for Sony and Nikon. kzbin.info/www/bejne/p2rXn6ljeq1qg7M

[@BernardSolomon]

There is a Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8 for both Sony and Nikon mounts. Which I think is more versatile than this.

[@TimSeraphiel]

I'll stick with my 24-120mm f4 thanks. Much smaller than this thing. You don't need that fast of a lens for a everyday lens. Smaller is better.

[@trulsdirio]

I can't think of many occasions where I would wanna carry the enormous extra weight and size plus pay the premium over a similar lens with an aperture of f4.

[@Donbros]

@@BernardSolomoni need 24 not 35. 28 would be fine though

[@-grey]

At what point is it better to just have two bodies with different focal lengths? Bonus if one is aps-c to get a different kind of reach with the same lenses. A 28 and an 85 would cover 28, 40, 85, 120 ish. A step back or forward here and there and you've got a solid effective range maybe?

[@nSpiraliArchitectb]

Weird that Canon chose to lock out the aperture ring outside video...

[@nickkeppol627]

Especially on the R5C. This was a bit disappointing Was hoping that would work with the latest firmware.

[@alexmaccape8411]

Aperture ring will work in photos in future bodies, maybe also in current bodies with future firmware updates.

[@davidcuellar7414]

I get he sees the tirpod collar not clicking into 90-degree points as a con, but honestly it hinders movement significantly if you can't fluidly rotate your camera on a monopod. Especially for fast-paced shooting like sports. You're more likely to snap too far or not far enough when you have those

[@Cracky003]

Bro got hammered at the oyster bar, lmao.

[@AsphaltPlanet1]

seems like a similar idea to Tamron's 35-150 for Sony mounts.

[@mbismbismb]

Different focal range darling... this canon is much much much versatile

[@easttremont718]

@@mbismbismb”similar idea” you weirdo, he didnt say same EXACT lens, relax a little and stop fanboying over canon lol

[@LoFiAxolotl]

it's really not "much much much" versatile... it's a different focal length... i can't even remember the last time i shot anything under 40mm... but i love portraits at 135mm.. you also have poop on your nose might want to stop brown nosing Canon@@mbismbismb

[@RayValdezPhotography]

@@LoFiAxolotl i never got a 135. I want one but I dont know how useful it is.

[@LoFiAxolotl]

personally... i prefer portraits on longer lenses somewhere between 120-150 my Hassleblad 150 f3.2 is for me the absolute pinacle of portrait lenses... i do shoot mostly headshots though for full body shots it's not really suitable or you'll be way too far away from your subject... other than headshots and maybe if it's a macro lens macro i don't think there's too much use for a semi-long lens other than maybe some uses in product photography where you don't need a tilt-shift@@RayValdezPhotography

[@Chris-uc7kh]

Ahhh but is it really better than the Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8??

[@LuigiL75]

Wait…is that available on the RF mount??? 😮

[@Chris-uc7kh]

@@LuigiL75 just Sony and Nikon as far as I know

[@hakanyucel1639]

Probably the only lens you need 🤷🏻‍♂️ for 80% of us!

[@Smokeyr67]

But is it the only lens we want?

[@hakanyucel1639]

@@Smokeyr67 80% off us... If you are Bird photographer you need 400mm > 1200mm Sport 200mm > 400mm ok if I ask you like this You are going to travel you have 10 Canon Lenses but this time you can only pick up only ONE Lens which one do you pic?

[@radoo86]

This lens is a dream come true! to bad for those onion rings.

[@bala1000mina]

Helpful and informative, thank you so much! love the review!

[@GreenLightFlight]

Wow, i was not expecting that much distortion. I was interested due to it essentially being parfocal but correcting for that much distortion on a zoom is too much hassle to leave me excited anymore. Unless its automated somehow, someone let me know?

[@AdrianWilsonBridders1234]

Chris and Jordan, can you do a comparison test with the F4.0 version as well?

[@xiaoabrose]

Outstanding Canon! So good to see new options and not just the usual suspects.

[@ratgirl13]

I’m not interested in the lens-just enjoy watching you guys!

[@dannypgrizzle]

Always interested on RF glass performance on RED Komodo-X and V-Raptor X since those cameras, I assume, have no digital lens profiles or corrections.

[@trym2121]

Gonna wait 24-105f2. Cmon Cannon!

[@nickwilliams7867]

That would be enormous and weigh a ton

[@parmanduke]

Tamron 35-150 f2-f2.8 better but oh wait. Can’t get it on Canon

[@RayValdezPhotography]

@@parmanduke 35 isn't wide enough for general purpose. plenty of times the 28-70 isnt wide enough.

[@simonmaduxx6777]

I'm thinking it'll be a bazooka and you can't take it to parades

[@collodionpositive554]

Naa, waiting for the 20-200 F/1.4, hoping for under $1000 as well!

[@samgao]

Just got back from Japan, and I brought 3 lenses with me: 35 f/1.4, 70-200 f/2.8 IS, 16-35 f/4 IS. 90% of the time, 35 f/1.4. 8% of the time, 70-200 f/2.8. 2% was the 16-35. Honestly, I washed that I had the extra 24mm, and I wished I had the 200 on the long end. But changing lenses on the go, is just tooo tooo cumbersome. going back and forth and back and forth for "fun" becomes tedious. I wish I can get this in a f/2 flavor to match the bokeh of the 200@ 2.8. but 2.8 @ 105 will do.

[@yawningmarmot]

Is the lens by any chance parfocal (physically or through software)? Looks sure interesting for video. If only the zoom dongle didn't cost a grand...

[@DanielFazzari]

It's "electronically" parfocal. The AF corrects to match focal length.

[@karankanwar6003]

Would love a comparison video between this and the Tamron 35-150, both on 45+ MP sensors! 🙏

[@armandot9137]

I have the 35-150 and while i do not have yet this lens (getting it tomorrow) i think the 28-105 wins on usability in terms of range, af performance and zoom operation. The Tamron is strongly non parafocal and if you are tracking a subject while zoom racking you lose your subject. The 35-150 is optically fantastic, excellent for video, and unique zoom range but strong limitations if used for moving subjects, and it feels more often than i would want that 35 is a limitation more than the extra millimeters a benefit

[@HappeningPhotos]

⁠@@armandot9137I’m a pro event shooter, and you can have my Samyang 35-150 when you pry it from my cold, dead hands. 105mm is too short, and 24mm isn’t wide enough. Gotta use two cameras anyway, so it’s 35-150 and 20-40 for me.

[@armandot9137]

@@HappeningPhotos there is a reason why the 24-105/4 has always been so popular. Btw, i have both the 24-105/2.8 for my canon and the 35-150 for my sony

[@HappeningPhotos]

@@armandot9137 Yeah, I know - I have one. The much smaller 24-105/4 makes a good all-rounder single-lens walkabout choice, although I’m now more attracted to Tamron’s 28-200/2.8-5.6 for this use. But, as an event pro, I’d far rather have a 35-150/2.0-2.8 than a 24-105/2.8.

[@armandot9137]

@@HappeningPhotossure, it depends on what you are shooting. For sports for me the 24-105/2.8 is the perfect match to my 100-300/2.8. For sports the Tamron 35-150 the AF is pretty awful

[@dpierre]

Hi, I found it a bit short. Nothing on the 8-stop super steady? What's ridiculous about this lens is its length and weight. On the other hand, it would have been wise to produce a 35-135 at 2.8 or even 2.0 with 8 stops. Because as soon as we create a zoom that starts from a super wide angle on TV, we are inevitably disappointed and especially at such a price. Fortunately Canon has finally understood that we want stabilized fixed focal lengths like their fabulous 135mm 1.8.

[@astrobotnautics5291]

It's a shame you didn't cover the 'electronic par-focal' features of this lens. As a videographer I've seen some reviews of people using the par-focus features and it looks pretty dodgy. Like it seems to lag behind the zoom ring too much to be helpful. Maybe useful if you're crashing in or out of a subject, but for live zoom motion it looked weird. Would have been nice to see if you were having the same experiences.

[@AnotherOtherMan]

Being effectively the first promised lens since the industry shift to mirrorless, I wonder if more zoom range for the same aperture (like the 18-105 f4 aps-c lens sony makes) will arrive for full-frame any time soon. Considering the low-light performance of most cameras on the market today, I'd take the trade-off of a faster aperture for larger zoom range at a constant aperture. What are your opinions on this particular game of trade-offs?

[@crameraj90]

KZbin Question: I don't see your Audiio licenses in the video descriptions. How do you avoid the copyright issues? Is there something you do when you upload a video?

[@CarlBergsdorf]

Idk how the service they use work, but EpidemicSound (another music provider for creators) just let you register your YT, IG etc on your ES profile and then you don’t get issues.

[@stickgarrote8582]

The ones saying it’s too big don’t realize that for wedding and event photogs, this could potentially cut one heavier lens and one body from the bag. That’s easily 3-5 kg off.

[@HappeningPhotos]

Yeah, but a 35-150 paired with a 20-40 is better. Never shoot an event with just one of anything.

[@Itsjayduhhhhh]

This would be great but throws out so much of what makes the F4L so great. the size is so convenient on the other one that makes you want to have it on you if you’re not sure what you’re gonna shoot, if I’m bring a lens this size I probably know what I’m gonna shoot

[@3d8d]

One and only lens you may ever need😮

[@M2008tw]

It seems to me that Canon has two departments, one for photo and one for video. How do we solve a hybrid model? Must be the question here, but it's like they each keep their cards close in the house. Aperture ring is for video and I shoot on a Canon R5C which is almost born for this lens where you change the system either for photo or film. There are functions that are in the camera that do not apply to video - super annoying that they don't manage to make a real hybrid so close. I'm missing someone who works with film to look at this lens in this review - again it's a hybrid lens and for film it's a fantastic option when you see how much it covers if you're on the move.

[@tech.plucero]

wow! how much is this lens?

[@christinaconway4797]

I hope you will review the RF 200-800 next!

[@andrewboddyspargo]

So, Chris, would you say that you prefer onion rings in your “boca” but not in your bokeh? 😂

[@fofopho]

This lens is so dope and I’m glad it exists. As a Sony shooter, I’m glad to see Canon trying new things and pushing lens development forward. I don’t think I would buy this lens even if there was an e-mount - that 24-70 GM II is just better. I think I would do the 28-70 over this tbh. (Not even considering price) Still, such a cool lens - I’m glad to see new things coming out of canon’s corner.

[@SilatShooter]

Nice Professional Use Lens clearly aimed at paid work. Have always wished for this range at f2.8 but this is too big for casual use (for me). Love that Canon is pushing lens design. This will be a great video maker's tool and a great studio lens.

[@armandot9137]

It would have been interesting to hear more about your thoughts about using it as sports lens. Having recently purchased the RF 100-300/2.8 this seems too be the perfect match for a second body

[@4uPhotos2c]

I have had a copy of teh 24-105 f2.8 for two weeks. I think it would work well for sports. The focus is blazing fast and it works well with subject detect. Surprisingly, this big lens is one of the fastest focusing lenses I've ever used.

[@armandot9137]

Thank you! Mine should be arriving tomorrow! Looking forward!!!!

[@BBEEKKAY]

Cool throwback to the camera store.

[@ericlundquist3466]

That's hilariously big to take out in town. I guess I'm used to my om1 with a 75mm that's a quarter that size but bigger zoom. Something that big in the states is a big flashing billboard asking to get jacked for your gear

[@marklaurendet1861]

Nice review but what happened to Jordan?

[@kylekaiser9525]

The most useful lens I can think of but what's the point if you already have a 24-70mm and 70-200mm?

[@Ausknutz]

F/2.8 for a walk around lens is nice, but the weight is a no-go for me. I use a Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 that weights less than this and I find it heavy already. I might change it for the 24-120 f/4, which is way lighter.

[@eystonaustin4988]

Hahahahaha I guess I’m crazy like you!! 😂😂😂 I use the 28-70mm F2 at my daughter’s volleyball games!! Taking pics from the sidelines in a relatively dark gymnasium requires higher ISO, but the pics can be epic!!! Well, at least for me since I’ve just started my photography journey. Cheers!!

[@roystansell7640]

I do horse photography in arenas and I have a sneaky suspicion that gymnasiums are also where light goes to die.

[@TechnoBabble]

I find it really funny how many people are complaining about the weight at 1.3kg... I frequently shoot with the Sigma Art 40mm f/1.4, doesn't even zoom and it's 1.2kg.

[@arian12300]

Lol that’s because nobody shoots with that lens

[@TechnoBabble]

​@@arian12300 What could this reply possibly be in response to in my original comment? It's completely nonsensical.

[@yawningmarmot]

You do realize other people may prefer different lenses than you, right? :)

[@TechnoBabble]

​@@yawningmarmot Indeed. Never said people can't. I said it was funny to see people complaining about the weight of a lens that everyone knew would be large and heavy before it even came out and was specifically designed for event coverage or video production. If you want something small and light then this lens isn't for you.

[@kanaheiusagi]

Disappointing onion rings, LoCA and corner to corner performance, relative to its weight, size and price. Would still need to carry a fast prime for low light or subject separation, I'll still go with the 28-70f2 instead.

[@DanielFazzari]

The two lenses are very, very similar, including onion bokeh.

[@Itwillbeoversoon]

My perfect lens would be a new technology Zeiss Otus lens that has everything done right without missing anything and no issues, and it would be 10mm to 300mm, f/1.0 and be designed to fit all the major camera brands, affordable, and make everyone happy about it.

[@Neopulse00]

Still waiting ok the 80-200mm f/2 from Canon. It would pair well with the 28-70mm f/2.

[@shawndonnelly862]

I purchased this lens primarily for indoor sports. It has been outstanding for basketball and wrestling.

[@daggerman-dcgk]

Very nice! Thank you!

[@Mattrossphoto]

Wondering how the vignette is? Looked horrific on polins video

[@dima1353]

It seems to me that we will no longer see a wide angle from Canon without 7-10% distortion. Regardless of whether it is an L lens or not. They lasted a long time, a really long time. In the past they have made great lenses with balanced performance, but now they really like this "camera will fix it" thing. The camera doesn't fix anything for free, it uses the potential of image quality. The sensor pays for the imperfections of the optics.

[@gabedamien]

While that is technically true, in practice what I see is that Canon is rightfully sacrificing optical characteristics which are *largely* correctable in software, for engineering gains elsewhere. For example, there is a good reason they have never done a 24-105 f/2.8 before, which is that to make such a lens with minimal distortion and vignetting would require an even heavier and bigger lens than this one. While this one is not light, it is light *enough* and the distortion and vignetting are correctable *enough* such that this kind of new lens is finally viable (for many types of photography). It may not be what you want yourself, and that is fine; engineering is always about tradeoffs. I have my own complaints about Canon's direction, but sacrificing distortion and vignetting in favor of new lens designs that were previously infeasible isn't one of those complaints. Your needs may differ however.

[@dima1353]

@@gabedamien Dustin Abbott calculated that with the built-in profile 24 1.8 STM crops the photo from the R5 to the real size of 33 megapixels. Having made more careful correction manually, he achieved a result of 37 megapixels. What kind of “corrections” are these? I can't even call it "corrections", it's just a waste. I just don't need this smartphone approach on my camera. This is not why I bought expensive specialized equipment. And I overpaid a lot of money for this 24x36mm sensor. So I demand all of these 864 square millimeters. Nobody said that this is an optional feature, nobody said that at wide angles there will be more like 600-700 square millimeters of usable area.

[@LoightaFluwid]

What we need now is an asp-c version of this lens. A 16-70 f2.8 will surely please the C70 and R7 users.

[@fotografalexandernikolis]

I was gonna say have you heard of Tamron 17-70 2.8? But then I remembered Canon has banned all 3rd party brands 😂

[@cgiovanni5982]

@@fotografalexandernikolis they opened to tamron and sigma now :)

[@fotografalexandernikolis]

@@cgiovanni5982 About time, but APS-C only so far.

[@CocoKoi321]

ould see this as a staddium lens and best for stuff like shooting at live music shows

[@benbunch4159]

Wow for the price the aperture not having customizable between click and declick and not working for photo is absolutely obnoxious. I’m a video professional and I can’t remember the last time on a set we had to do an iris pull with a motor outside of something on a steady cam, and never during a shot.

[@Gijz74]

Wow. Aperture ring that only works in video mode. That would drive me insane and would be a complete deal breaker for me. Why?!?

[@baekmedier]

But when you put it on the only RF cinema camera with build in NDs (C70) from canon, then its not really a 24 mm anymore is it :P And if you go with the R5C )yes it has the C but its NOT a Cinema camera.. Then you dont have the ND filters any more... and if you use the adaptors it becomes EF mount, and then the lens does not fit anymore :P

[@Donbros]

I imagine it is being great for documentaries and filming movies when you just want one lens

[@Owen-gc8yc]

crazy size for pros only I think who am i to say only an om-1 user with my 12-40 f2.8 (24-80 mm equiv ) couldnt imagine walking around a city with that all day

[@JJARCHIE]

Its not meant for a walk around lens , and small format lenses has its downsides aswell

[@YogevMontekyo]

besides its price, this lens seems too heavy for using a full day of shooting. At range of over 70mm and above, f4 bokeh is very good and f2.8 diff is not much compared to that. Also, for close-up portraits f2.8 depth of field doesn't cover whole face (we get blurry ears, hair, etc.). We need a lower aperture such as f2 or lower for wider shots with 35mm or lower so this lens doesn't really deliver this. Even if the reasoning is low light and faster lens, with current mirrorless such as r5,r6m2 and even r7 we have high resolution and oversampled video so we can easily use f4 + iso 3200, that's in any case very similar to what our eyes see (exposure higher than this is basically a night vision device). So bottom line, i still prefer to keep my older combo for crop 24-105 f4 + 18-35 f1.8, for ff 24-105 f4 + 24-35 f2. So it requires owning 2 lenses for this kind of setup, but even for crop + FF, these 3 lenses cost $250 less ! adding to that more practical use - better bokeh in wide shots , less weight hand-held. For video focused users, EF lineup is preferable since it supports RF-EF adapter with drop in filter (VND and others). So had this new 24-105 f2.8 lens include a built-in drop-in filter set in this price range (that is top quality VND + Clear) as it is obviously video oriented, it would be something to consider. Final last grunt, Canon is basically missing the whole idea behind mirrorless camera system, it should be LOWER weight and scale.

[@HagaishiSama]

Nice, us Sony apsc users been enjoying our ver (Tamron 17-70mm F/2.8) it's super very useful. Just did a professional mauy thai fighting promotion not too long ago with it.

[@tomperry9034]

Three grand orrrr drop a stop and use the 24-105 F/4 IS L II on the adaptor for 600. EF L lenses are getting super cheap - if you don't need 2.8 or focus pulls, save your money.

[@neilonthemove1481]

I had one and sold it because I couldn’t stand the constant lens creep and there was no lock mechanism on it

[@gamebuster800]

Sony. Get off the couch and give me this lens. I want a 24-105 2.8 GM. What a load of BS that the aperture ring doesn't work in photo mode. Cmon Canon!

[@meynp4337]

Go get the Tamron.

[@-MrEVIL-]

Tamron 35-150 finally got a competitor

[@mbismbismb]

Of course tamron loses

[@-MrEVIL-]

@@mbismbismb in what way lol that thing starts at f2 also goes to 150

[@LoFiAxolotl]

at a lower price... without LoCa... Canon had lenses figured out 30 years ago and this lens performs about as well as a $100 chinese lens

[@Xirpzy]

​@@-MrEVIL-35mm and not constant f2. This canon lens is definitly more versatile. 28-70 f2 is also an option.

[@-MrEVIL-]

@@Xirpzy doesn't change the fact it takes 35mm f2 shots tho Versatile or not thats to the user what range he uses. Tamron also cheaper

[@neilvn]

detente? That’s funny, if intentional. It’s also funny if unintentional.

[@shuttersounds__jpg]

an aperture ring that doesnt change aperture 👍

[@niccollsvideo]

Yah its annoying.

[@tylerdoestech]

This was the dumbest thing I saw about this lens. Sure, let's put a ring marked with a specific function on this lens that only works in one mode of the camera's operation! That needs to be a firmware fix yesterday.

[@shuttersounds__jpg]

that would drive me absolutely insane@@niccollsvideo

[@DanielFazzari]

It's for video. Did you miss that point? "This allows video users to manually control exposure adjustment and the degree of background blur while shooting video, with click-less, smooth operation - similar to the operability in a cinema lens."

[@tylerdoestech]

@@DanielFazzari, I am sorry, but I am not sipping the Canon Kool-Aid on that. You don't put UX elements on a lens that only work in a single mode of operation. Imagine if power zoom only worked in movie mode. Imagine if manual focus only worked in movie mode. Imagine if Canon said, "This lens is optimized for 35-100mm at f/4 or higher in photo mode, so only those settings are available in photo mode." It is a stupid software limitation that decreases functionality, not a "feature." Canon's other cinema lenses all have aperture rings that all work in photo or video mode all the time.

[@Emlt]

that thing is huge! 🤯

[@WallaceLau]

Is that what she said?😂

[@SliverCreations]

Wow the uncorrected image is really horrible. Might reconsidder this lens.

[@Bobbylopezcreative]

Nice sharp boog on your mustache there 😂

[@angusmackay7281]

Don't think I could buy into the Canon eco systemn because trying to choose between those three lenses would kill me.

[@DeepteshLovesTECH]

Tamron 35-150 2-2.8 isn't far off. May be Tamron can do something similar!

[@mbismbismb]

Its not constant aperture darling

[@noahpadgett245]

@@mbismbismb Are you saying you would rather have a constant f2.8 and not f2 that then moves up to f2.8 ? I could understand your position more if the Tamron compromised image quality for that lower aperture but it doesn't. It also costs $1100 less and is smaller.

[@PetaPixel]

I would love to see that lens in RF-Mount. - Jordan

[@GeertDelmulle]

@@PetaPixelWell, you’ve got it in E-&Z-mount, already. And when is Canon gonna open their mount to third party manufacturers? Now that they came out with this lens, it wouldn’t make much sense (for them) to also make the 30-150 as well, IMO. Then again, my Tamron 30-150 F2-2.8 ‘never’ leaves my A1 - it’s so versatile. I like to pair this combo with my A7C2 + 16-35 F2.8 GM. Makes for a very nice bundle, for me! :-)

[@Nathan.1882]

@@noahpadgett245 i would rather have a constant F2.8, less headache on changing of lighting. Since that only shoots F2 at 35 which is rather negligible at such wide angles

[@sgpork]

very interesting lens and creation from Canon. But I still see this as a tripod lens or only for working lens. Cant see myself going on a holiday carrying this lens with me the whole day in the streets or etc. Maybe afew years later.. if there is 24-105 F2.8 that is the size and weight of today 24-70 f2.8.. then that will be really "game changing" even if it would cost 1 grand more. I'll buy 1.