RF 24-105 f/2.8

[Kayaker72]

I received my 24-105 f/2.8 yesterday. So far, I am very impressed.

Initial impression...this is a big lens. Very next step after mounting it to my R5, "this foot has got to go!"

That helps a little....but this is a big lens. About the same size as the EF 70-200 f/2.8 II and just a tick lighter. (5.7 oz).

But...the very next impression....this AF is FAST and SILENT. I'll do a test on the speed, but it being noticeably faster than my EF 24-70 II is a solid impression. I am wondering if this is my fastest focusing lens. The silence is not doubt.

Image quality...extremely good. Good enough I am not going to worry about it. It's bokeh is very nice. I was hoping for better than the EF 24-70 II...and maybe it is, but for now, for similar framing, I would call them more similar than different. But...70 mm on the RF 24-105 is longer than 70 mm on the EF 24-70 II. So, I need to work on the framing and check again.

Some pictures (no editing, RAW processed in LR to fit TDP requirements):

EF 24-70 II @ 70 mm f/2.8 (1/10 sec, ISO 400), aimed at a Christmas tree decoration on a table with our Christmas tree in background.

RF 24-105 f/2.8 @ 70 mm, same settings except I dropped to 1/15 sec...not sure why. So, this is darker, but there is a reason.

@ 105 mm (1/10 sec...same settings otherwise)

But..the next thing I wanted to test...Image Stabilization. So, with my R5 and EF 24-70 II, I can routinely hand hold 24 mm at 1/4 and even 0.5 secs and out of a burst of 3-4 images I usually get a keeper.

This is a 1/9 crop (center of image) of 0.5 sec @ 105 mm, f/2.8, ISO 400 :

This is a 1/9 crop (center of image) 2 sec..hand held...105 mm, f/2.8, ISO 100:

I took two images at 2 sec...one was definitely blurry....but the one above...that is usable...that is legit 8 stops of IS. I can't wait to test 24 mm. I doubt I'll get 8 stops...but if I can hand hold 2-3 seconds and consistently get good images, my travel tripod is coming with me far less often.

Overall, first impressions are very positive. The 24-105 range is very nice. The EF 24-70 II was already excellent, but AF is noticeably improved/faster, especially in low light. AF is silent, which will be great for videos (as desired), the extra range is good, and the Image Stabilization is as advertised for 105 mm.

I am not complaining.....

[neuroanatomist]

I'm definitely enjoying the lens so far!

[Jonathan Huyer]

Thanks for the first-hand review! As a gear geek, I'm drooling like Pavlov's dog

[Kayaker72]

For IQ, Bryan has now posted his IQ tests. I have mostly compared it to the EF 24-70 II. I'll go back to the phrase, I think this are far more similar than there are different. If you stare (and I did), I thought some of the EF 24-70 II had an ever so slight advantage and others where the RF 24-105 f/2.8 had a slight advantage.

Video. I did a quick test video. I could not hear the lens at all during the video. Absolutely silent. I can near hear myself breathing, so the next thing for me to work on.

As for Image stabilization at 24 mm. I walked onto my front steps at sunrise this morning just before sunrise. All three images at 1 second were sharp. There is 1 of 2 at 2 second and 1 of 3 at 4 seconds that I would use. Not as sharp at 1 second. So....a hand held, un-braced, 4 second exposure and I have a usable image.

Not trying to win any competitions here, but un-edited ~100% crops from the 45 MP on the R5 before sunrise shots in New Hampshire (overall scene was metered to be 2/3 stop underexposed, but AF was on this house and it has most detail, thus the crop of it).

~100% crop handheld at 24 mm, 1 second, f/8, ISO 100:

~100% crop handheld at 24 mm 4 sec, f/16, ISO 100

Is this replacing my EF 24-70 II for all purposes, no. The size, weight, and ergonomics are different enough.
It this replacing my EF 24-70 II for several purposes? Yes, and the list is growing.

[Kayaker72]

For what it is worth, I am back from family holidays. Between friends and different families, four functions over three days. I took about 260 pictures. I just scrolled through them. I was wondering if the faster AF would have I benefit. I saw 1 image that was not tack sharp. Lots of in-focus eye lashes. Usually, with nieces running around, etc, I get a dozen or so out of focus, so, this is an improvement.

As for IQ, it is excellent. But, I am used to excellent with the 24-70 II. I think someone would have to put in some serious effort to identify a difference between these two lenses in terms of IQ. I did find the extra zoom range beneficial. I usually use the 24-70 II for family events and then add in the 70-200 f/2.8 II occasionally. Here I shot everything with the 24-105 f/2.8. I did occasionally want more reach, but it wasn't very often.

I took a few videos and the AF is now perfectly silent. I also photographed one of the host's house that was lit up for Christmas and dropping down to 0.4 sec exposure and getting a sharp image was nice.

The only "con" is the size/weight. The 24-70 II just handles and feels better. But, I suspect I'll get used to that.

Great lens. Doing exactly as you would expect. I can easily see this being a one lens solution for family events moving forward.

[neuroanatomist]

Great lens. Doing exactly as you would expect. I can easily see this being a one lens solution for family events moving forward.

I found that to be true over the holidays, as well. I had the 14-35/4 and 70-200/2.8 handy, but didn’t use them. Last year, I mostly used the 28-70/2 but also needed wider and longer. The size/weight of the 24-105/2.8 is not a big issue for me in use, it’s like shooting an EF 70-200/2.8 that went on a diet (but not a very effective one).

Before the holidays, I shot a concert with the 24-105/2.8 and 100-300/2.8, it was a perfect combo.

[Kayaker72]

Bryan's review has been posted:

Canon RF 24-105mm F2.8 L IS USM Z Lens Review (the-digital-picture.com)

I think he likes it.

He did find some CA, especially at 105 mm.