Canon RF 24- 105 F/4-7.1 lens

[prglassma]

When I first bought my EOSR, I justified it through the use of product photography. I heard so much hype about this focal length lens in the F 4 version. so, I originally ordered it with my cameras B&H. Then after doing some research I determined that the minimum focal length would not meet my needs for close focus. I ended up having to order the less expensive zune with variable aperture. I find it very ironic that be 1100 dollar lens does not support close focus. But inexpensive version does. Does anyone know why? Other than that's just the way they designed it. By the way the less expensive version works great for my purposes. Its tack sharp, fast focusing, and very light. Anybody else have an opinion?

 

[AnsibleMedia]

I've got both the L version and the non-L version. The non-L usually rides on my RP as a lightweight general purpose lens, where the L stays on my EOS R. I like them both for their purposes, but the L version is significantly sharper and faster in my opinion.

The difference in the minimum focusing distance likely comes down to the optical design. Having a constant aperture involves a lot more glass elements (18 in the L vs 13 in the non-L) and moving parts. This is somewhat demonstrated in the non-L lens as its close focusing distance shifts further out as you zoom to longer focal lengths and therefor smaller apertures, where the L version remains constant throughout the focal length.