Which lens is better?

[Roxanne Baggott]

Would a rf35mm f/1.8 prime be better than a 24-105L f/4 at the same focal length? I have always heard that primes are better, but I have also heard that L glass is better than non-L glass.

 

[RedCobra]

I suspect the 24-105 f/4 will be sharper. The one I had and sold to a friend was razor sharp at both ends. He says it his sharpest lens. Why did I sell it? Bought the 24-105 f/2.8 L Z.

 

[Roxanne Baggott]

I suspect the 24-105 f/4 will be sharper. The one I had and sold to a friend was razor sharp at both ends. He says it his sharpest lens. Why did I sell it? Bought the 24-105 f/2.8 L Z.

Oh I bet that’s a sweet lens. Is it heavy?

 

[Archibald]

Would a rf35mm f/1.8 prime be better than a 24-105L f/4 at the same focal length? I have always heard that primes are better, but I have also heard that L glass is better than non-L glass.

RF or EF?

What will you be using the lenses for?

I have the RF and it is impressively sharp. It is an amazing lens. It is sharp enough for anything I might want to do with it.

I don't have the RF 35mm so can't compare.

In principle, primes should be better than zooms, but in the end it depends on the formula of the lens and the coatings. Some recent zooms like the RF 24-105mm L and 100-500mm L are really great and seem to be just as sharp as primes.

Here is a comparison of these lenses.

Canon RF 35mm F1.8 IS STM Macro vs Canon RF 24-105mm F4L IS USM Detailed Lens Comparison

Read our detailed comparison of the Canon RF 35mm F1.8 IS STM Macro vs Canon RF 24-105mm F4L IS USM lenses to find out their strengths and weaknesses, and decide which one to choose.

cameradecision.com

 

[RedCobra]

Oh I bet that’s a sweet lens. Is it heavy?

About the same as the EF 70-200 f/2.8

 

[Jake Shoots Birds]

Would a rf35mm f/1.8 prime be better than a 24-105L f/4 at the same focal length?

Since no one has yet to answer your question ... yes. You have more depth of field options and it will only get sharper as you close down from f1.8 to f4 where the zoom lives. So it will likely give you equivalent sharpness and less depth of field when you want it.

The question others should have asked before answering is do you only want to shoot at 35 mm or do you have a need for 24-34mm or 36-105mm? The 24-105mm is a great lens. I have one and outside a 50mm f1.8 "nifty fifty" that I have for specific purposes it lives on my R6 if the 14-24mm f4 isn't on it. If you do a ton of street photography I would have both, for the same reason I have a 50mm. If you can only get one now then you need to lean towards which best suits the shooting you do.

For example, I shoot wildlife, and I would absolutely love a 400mm or 600mm f4. It would be glorious. That said, I shot previously with a Nikon 500mm, and while I loved it the flexibility of a 100-500mm when I switched was a revelation, even when I shot 80% of my photos at full extension (500mm). When I added another lens I added the 200-800mm and not a prime, again for the flexibility instead of the restriction fixed focal lengths demand. Those restrictions are less so with wider lenses, which is why I spend two weeks each quarter shooting with just the 50mm, to remind me how to take photographs and not just capture images. If you're asking the question I believe you will find value in eventually having both, because wide lenses at f4 just don't tell the story the way the same focal length at f1.8 does - sharpness be damned.

 

[Archibald]

Badboy Ken Rockwell says that sharpness has nothing to do with the lens and everything to do with the photographer.

Lens Sharpness

As usual with Ken, he makes a very valid point, even if it is not always true.