Opticallimits
RF 24-70 f2.8 vs 24-105 f4 - Printable Version

+- Opticallimits (https://forum.opticallimits.com)
+-- Forum: Forums (https://forum.opticallimits.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Canon EOS (https://forum.opticallimits.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=11)
+--- Thread: RF 24-70 f2.8 vs 24-105 f4 (/showthread.php?tid=5419)



RF 24-70 f2.8 vs 24-105 f4 - bartonke - 12-29-2022

Is there a difference in optical quality / sharpness between the Canon RF 24-70 f2.8 L IS USM lens and the RF 24-105 f4 L IS USM lens? Or is the difference between the two lenses only in the aperture (i.e., f2.8 vs f4)?


RE: RF 24-70 f2.8 vs 24-105 f4 - Klaus - 12-29-2022

It is generally a misconception to think that a 24-70mm f/2.8 (also 16-35mm f/2.8 or 70-200mm f/2.8) are better because they are more expensive.
They are primarily more expensive because they are faster - meaning that the manufacturers have to put in extra efforts to maintain high quality at faster speeds.
Optical challenges increase exponentially the faster you go. That's a primary reason why the price roughly doubles per extra stop (and they like the extra profit margins from milking pros).

Of course, that's just one aspect. Whether a design is excellent or fucked up also depends on the lens designer. e.g. the EF 24-105mm f/4 L was a dud on high mp DSLRs - but that wasn't because it's a 24-105.

In this specific case, I don't see that the RF 24-70 IS is worth the extra costs if it's only quality you are after and you don't care about f/2.8.
The RF 28-70mm f/2 is better than both, though.

Overall, I'm not a huge fan of 24-70mm f/2.8s. They are relatively fast, yes, but it still a far cry from any prime lens. Even a measly 50mm f/1.8 is way faster at a fraction of the cost.

just my 2c


RE: RF 24-70 f2.8 vs 24-105 f4 - bartonke - 12-30-2022

Thanks Klaus, much appreciated. So, I’m trying to put together a lens collection to shoot family photography with a Canon R5. Which approach would you recommend? In light of your response and really helpful reviews, I was thinking about the following line up:

1. RF 50mm f1.2 L IS USM
2. RF 85mm f1.2 L IS USM
3. RF 24-105mm f4 L IS USM

The RF 50mm f1.2 and RF 85mm f1.2 would do the heavy lifting, while the RF 24-105mm f4 would give me some flexibility with focal length when necessary. Alternatively, I could remove the RF 24-105mm f4 (and perhaps the RF 50mm f1.2), and replace it with the RF 28-70mm f2 USM L. However, I wonder if the RF 28-70mm f2 will end up being too big / heavy to shoot with in practice. I’ve also shot with the RF 50mm f1.2 and really liked it. Thanks in advance for any insights / suggestions.


RE: RF 24-70 f2.8 vs 24-105 f4 - Rover - 12-30-2022

Pity there was never a retest of the EF 24-70/2.8 II on the 5DSR by the way. That camera made short work of the 24-105/4 II but I wonder what would've happened to the big guy.

I almost wish I could test my most unlikely combo of the 24-85 and the high MP camera ... for the sake of gory results. Big Grin


RE: RF 24-70 f2.8 vs 24-105 f4 - wim - 12-30-2022

(12-30-2022, 01:29 AM)bartonke Wrote: Thanks Klaus, much appreciated. So, I’m trying to put together a lens collection to shoot family photography with a Canon R5. Which approach would you recommend? In light of your response and really helpful reviews, I was thinking about the following line up:

1. RF 50mm f1.2 L IS USM
2. RF 85mm f1.2 L IS USM
3. RF 24-105mm f4 L IS USM

The RF 50mm f1.2 and RF 85mm f1.2 would do the heavy lifting, while the RF 24-105mm f4 would give me some flexibility with focal length when necessary. Alternatively, I could remove the RF 24-105mm f4 (and perhaps the RF 50mm f1.2), and replace it with the RF 28-70mm f2 USM L. However, I wonder if the RF 28-70mm f2 will end up being too big / heavy to shoot with in practice. I’ve also shot with the RF 50mm f1.2 and really liked it. Thanks in advance for any insights / suggestions.
Not Klaus, but exactly my setup for the same reasons, and that works well indeed. Both F/1.2 lenses give results that make you never look back at the price you had to pay for them, that is how good they both are. Bokeh, sharpness, rendition, they are just fabulous, and the 85 is even a tad better than the 50. With the EF-versions you tended to shoot at F/2.8 in order to get enough DoF, but the RF versions are so sharp that you don't notice the lack of DoF even at F/1.2, and de fall-off of focus both in back- and foreground with both lenses is so beautiful and gradual, it is (almost) to die for, if you'd ask me in any case.

The RF24-105L just fits a general, walk-around, jack-of-all-trades lens which is really great optically, way better than the EF-versions as well, especially under difficult lighting conditions, where the EF-versions fell apart. I got it with my camera, and was really impressed with its performance. Not a very large maximum aperture, but with the R-series of cameras that is not really a problem, as they are quite a bit better from a noise POV when it comes to higher ISOs.

The 28-70 F/2 is a lens I would like to acquire still, at some point, but I will likely try out the new RF 135 F/1.8L first, considering how much I like the EF 135 F/2L Plus, I really prefer shooting with primes if at all possible.

I do agree with Klaus regarding maximum apertures when it comes to zooms vs primes. Unless you really need a zoom with the fastest aperture possible, there is no need to get an F/2.8 zoom anymore, as IQ going from an F/2.8 L and an F/4 L is generally negligible if there even is a difference in real life. The only exception may well be the RF 28-70L, but as you yourself mentioned, it is enormous, and very heavy, and in addition it has a very limited zoom range. Effectively, it is a 50 mm F/2 with a sightly variable AoV. Personally, I rarely use 70 mm, I prefer 85 mm or even better, 105 mm, so if there ever will be an RF 28L or 24L I will very likely get that first (for now I will stick to my EF 24L II Smile), and a fast 105 prime I will jump at as well.

I happen to get a RF 24-240 and RF 35 F/1.8 as well, and I am quite happy with those too. The zoom I use if I need a single lens travel setup when I need to carry as little weight as possible with compromising focal abilities too much, and the 35 is a great lens which tends to be fast enough in most circumstances, and is extremely light as well. I got it to try it out, and it is my first ever 35 mm lens I actually like.

Anyway, HTH, kind regards, Wim


RE: RF 24-70 f2.8 vs 24-105 f4 - toni-a - 01-05-2023

(12-30-2022, 01:29 AM)bartonke Wrote: Thanks Klaus, much appreciated. So, I’m trying to put together a lens collection to shoot family photography with a Canon R5. Which approach would you recommend? In light of your response and really helpful reviews, I was thinking about the following line up:

1. RF 50mm f1.2 L IS USM
2. RF 85mm f1.2 L IS USM
3. RF 24-105mm f4 L IS USM

The RF 50mm f1.2 and RF 85mm f1.2 would do the heavy lifting, while the RF 24-105mm f4 would give me some flexibility with focal length when necessary. Alternatively, I could remove the RF 24-105mm f4 (and perhaps the RF 50mm f1.2), and replace it with the RF 28-70mm f2 USM L. However, I wonder if the RF 28-70mm f2 will end up being too big / heavy to shoot with in practice. I’ve also shot with the RF 50mm f1.2 and really liked it. Thanks in advance for any insights / suggestions.

If all you need is family portraits then 24-105f4L should do something like 95% of your needs
Believe me, you don't need the f1.2 primes for family portraits, I opted for the 85mmf2.0 and no regrets, it is good enough for the job, it can focus closer and you can have your child's face/eyes filling the frame, something the f1.2 can't do because of longer minimal focus distance and you can do flower closeups etc something the f1.2 can't do neither, you will have to test its autofocus speed in the shop to decide if it's fast enough for you or no.
I would pass on the 50mm and opt for 35mmf2.0 it has stabilization and would give low light capacities better than the 50f1.2 being stabilized, unless you are cropping or printing on A3 paper or bigger you won't be able to spot any difference in sharpness.
Add an ultrawide or the tiny 16mmf2.8 and you have everything you need