Full Frame Should i get the 24-105 F4L?

[arma22]

When i bought my R6M2 it was the bundle with the RF 24-105 F4-7.1 lens.
I'm happy with the lens and have taken some great photo's with it. But I've seen photo's that are taken with 24-105 F4L and i think they look amazing.
Now i am thinking about trading in my F4-7.1 and getting the F4L
What do you guys advice i should do?

 

[MSH411]

Having a lens with a constant aperture across the entire range of a lens is always a bonus and @ f4, 105mm you will have more flexibility in low light. I would do it if I had the available finances and if I used my RF 24-105 F4-7.1 lens quite a bit.

 

[RedCobra]

The f/4 is a wonderful lens. A further step up would be the 24-105 f/2.8 Z if the weight/size/price works for you.

 

[Dean Wilson]

Absolutely! Better to have it and not need it, than need it an not have it. I have felt this way with my RF 100-500mm...I wish it was at least an F4 all the way.

 

[Only RF]

Yes!!!!!!!

24mm

105mm

A crop. I'd never normally crop this much but this did surprise me. I was walking around in Spain doing some street photography and heard this squawking. Trees full of these parakeets. Once pets, they were released and have now overrun the Iberian peninsula. I took a shot for something to do.

105mm

 

[JCBigler]

No, you should get the 24-70mm f2.8. And then get a 70-200mm f/2.8 for more reach.

The 24-105 f/4 is an okay lens, and despite the L rating and red ring it doesn't really have the same optical quality as the 2.8s. The 24-105 f2.8 Z is $3,000. Watch the Canon Refurb site and you can get the 24-70 and 70-200 f/2.8 for not much more than that total.

Although, the 24-105mm f2.8 Z is currently in stock on the Canon Refurb site for $2,699: https://www.usa.canon.com/shop/p/refurbished-rf24-105mm-f2-8-l-is-usm-z

 

[StevenAunan]

I love the RF 24-105 f/4L, and would buy it if I didn’t have it. I also have the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for reach and/or shallow depth of field. They’re both high quality lenses, and available refurbished for about $1000 each. I’m sure the RF 2.8 versions are better, but I’m very happy and the $4K difference is almost the cost of an R5M2.

 

[Jake Shoots Birds]

I have felt this way with my RF 100-500mm...I wish it was at least an F4 all the way.

With the same price tag, right?! Don't we all!!

 

[Kamoshika]

Absolutely! Better to have it and not need it, than need it an not have it. I have felt this way with my RF 100-500mm...I wish it was at least an F4 all the way.

 

[Only RF]

View attachment 33774

Boy is that ever accurate.

 

[Only RF]

No, you should get the 24-70mm f2.8. And then get a 70-200mm f/2.8 for more reach.

The 24-105 f/4 is an okay lens, and despite the L rating and red ring it doesn't really have the same optical quality as the 2.8s. The 24-105 f2.8 Z is $3,000. Watch the Canon Refurb site and you can get the 24-70 and 70-200 f/2.8 for not much more than that total.

Although, the 24-105mm f2.8 Z is currently in stock on the Canon Refurb site for $2,699: https://www.usa.canon.com/shop/p/refurbished-rf24-105mm-f2-8-l-is-usm-z

I had the EF 24-105 F4 v1 and used it on a crop. I could not stand the outsides on a FF even if I could correct it in post. I got into event shooting on the side. I sold in and got the EF 24-70 2.8 II. Spectacular lens. I sold my F4 version got the EF 70-200 2.8 II. Spectacular as well. After about 5 years I stopped shooting events. We aren't poor but we aren't made of money either. My wife is great with my hobby but I try to keep some control over spending so to get new toys sometimes I have to move things around.

In 2019 I decided to get on the R/RF train and sell all of my EF gear. I sold my EF 24-70 II for the RF 24-105 F4. I was a bundle of nerves wondering if I had made the right choice. While not the same level as the RF 2.8 it was half the cost, lighter and more range for street photography. The main point is it did not disappoint me at all. Far better than the EF version I had. I was actually surprised.

I also had a hard look what I mostly shoot. I had a EF 100 Macro 2.8 II which as as well amazing but for some reason after playing around with macro I lost interest. So I had some what I call novelty lenses that I decided not to replace.

All I've had for the last four years are two R bodies. Currently the R7 and R6II. Two lenses. RF 24-105 F4 and the 100-500. Plus the 1.4. I'm happy as a clam. I never have to decide what I'll take on a trip. What would like is the RF 600 F4 but I'd have to win a lottery for that one. I sure wish Canon would release a 500 5.6 like the Nikon PF.

As for speed we have excellent modern Noise Reduction AI apps and LrC has Lens Blur.

From our 40th wedding anniversary last year. Rented a place up North. Lens Blur is pretty cool.

 

[Only RF]

I should have also mentioned. If I was still shooting events for money I'd likely have a few RF 2.8 lenses. You can fake bokeh but you can't beat the real thing. IQ as well. I just do a charity event once in a while and it's good enough for me. If someone does not not like it they can find someone else