Canon RF 24-105mm F2.8L IS Z Review | Canon Delivers the Dream?

0:10
Hi, I'm Dustin Abbott. It seems like for
0:13
as long as I have been reviewing and
0:16
covering the photography world that
0:17
people were requesting for a certain
0:21
zoom range and aperture combination that
0:23
it seemed like no one was able to
0:25
actually deliver on. I'm talking of
0:27
course about the 24 to 105 millimeter
0:30
zoom range and a constant f/2.8
0:32
aperture. Always until very recently you
0:36
either had to choose between the actual
0:38
zoom range and dropping down to an f4 or
0:41
smaller aperture value or you had to
0:44
choose the fast the brighter maximum
0:46
aperture of f/2.8 but get a constrained
0:49
24 to 70 millimeter zoom range. Canon of
0:52
course is the first to combine the two
0:55
successfully. And what we have is a lens
0:58
that is well kind of a big deal in every
1:01
way. It is big, it's heavy, it's
1:04
expensive and of course it is pretty
1:07
amazing and it gives a degree of
1:09
versatility that few lenses in the
1:11
history of photography have been able to
1:13
match. But is it worth the lofty price
1:16
tag of nearly $3,300?
1:18
Well, that's what we're going to explore
1:20
in today's review. One thing I know for
1:22
certain that for a long time, ever since
1:25
the release of this lens, everyone has
1:26
been asking that I spend the time to
1:28
review it. And so I do want to thank the
1:30
good people over at Canon Canada who
1:33
have sent me a loaner of it. And I
1:35
appreciate them sharing it with me and
1:37
so that I could share my findings with
1:39
you. This is a completely independent
1:41
review, however, and they have had no
1:43
input in my findings. That aside, let's
1:46
jump in and let's take a look at the
1:47
build and handling of the lens. All
1:49
right, the first thing to note is price
1:51
here. This thing is going to set you
1:54
back $3,299,
1:57
making it nearly $2,000 more expensive
2:01
than the F4 version, the 24 to 105 F4
2:05
LIS, which it retails at $13.99
2:09
USD. So, obviously, you're going to pay
2:12
the price for that. However, this is the
2:14
first time that we are seeing the
2:15
combination of the 24 to 105 mm zoom
2:20
range with a constant f/2.8 aperture.
2:22
So, obviously that is tremendously
2:25
useful. Now, it is not just price that
2:28
sets these two lenses apart, but you can
2:30
see that the size is radically different
2:32
between the two. The f/2.8 8 lens is
2:35
88.5 mm or 3.5 in in diameter but a
2:40
whopping 199 mm or 7.8 in long making it
2:45
92 mm longer than the F4 version. Also
2:49
when it comes to the weight it weighs in
2:51
at 1300 g or right under 3 lb versus 700
2:55
g or right over 1 and a half pounds. And
2:58
so radically different in basically
3:01
every metric here uh when it comes to
3:04
the size and the weight. Up front here
3:06
we have an 82mm front filter thread
3:08
which is large but certainly common and
3:11
so no issue with that. Now the size and
3:13
weight did necessitate having a tripod
3:16
collar and foot here. And as we can see
3:19
this uh is rotatable. There are no
3:22
detents. There are just markings that
3:24
you need to line up if you want to get
3:26
exactly at the cardinal positions. Um,
3:29
the actual collar itself is not
3:32
removable. However, the foot is pretty
3:34
easily removable. You just need to
3:36
loosen this tension knob, hit this
3:38
button here, and then slide it off.
3:41
Unfortunately, as is so often the case
3:43
with the tripod feet from firstparty
3:45
brands, there is no Arca grooves on
3:48
here. So, as you can see, to go onto the
3:50
tripod, I had to add a quick release
3:53
plate and so that I could mount it right
3:55
onto the tripod. It's a pain, and I
3:57
don't know why it's only the third
3:58
parties that allow you to actually get
4:00
the Arca grooves on there. This is an L
4:03
series lens, and so that means it has a
4:06
thorough weather sealing, starting with
4:07
a thick gasket here, about 19 seal
4:10
points inside the lens itself, and then
4:12
flooring coatings on the front and rear
4:15
elements. and so thoroughly, you know,
4:17
tough. It's primarily engineered
4:20
plastics on the outside, but I know from
4:22
long experience that these Canon L
4:23
series lenses, they are tough. They hold
4:26
up well over the long haul, and so no uh
4:28
concerns when it comes to the build
4:30
quality there. Now, as far as the
4:32
feature set, we do have an aperture ring
4:35
here. This is always going to be
4:37
decllicked. There is no click option.
4:40
There is an iris lock, however, that
4:42
will allow you to either lock into or
4:45
out of the aperture ring. This is not
4:48
just like a clicking button, but it
4:51
actually has to be pulled back. And so
4:53
that will allow you to go in or out of
4:55
it. And then it will lock into place
4:57
depending on where you want to lock in.
5:00
So either locking into the automatic
5:02
mode here where it's controlled within
5:03
the camera or locking into the aperture
5:06
ring itself. Now, unfortunately, as is
5:08
the case with all Canon lenses with
5:10
aperture rings, the full aperture
5:12
functionality is really dependent on the
5:14
camera body that you're using. On my
5:16
older R5 body, I can only use the
5:19
aperture ring for video use. Um, during
5:22
uh stills, it'll do nothing. And so, I
5:24
have to control the aperture through
5:26
other means. However, in video mode, I
5:28
can control it through the aperture
5:29
ring. It's a little bit frustrating. If
5:31
you have a newer camera body, you'll be
5:33
able to use it for both. And so in the
5:35
meantime, what I can use this for,
5:37
however, is to do smooth aperture racks.
5:40
And so I appreciate that aspect. The one
5:43
thing I don't love is that because this
5:45
aperture ring, it is decllicked and it
5:48
moves quite easily. What I found is that
5:50
when I was hiking with the lens and had
5:53
it on a strap, I almost always would
5:55
find my aperture somewhere over in this
5:57
value where typically I wanted to be
5:59
shooting with it at f2.8. And so when
6:02
I'm hiking, I'm actually more likely to
6:04
lock out of the aperture ring because
6:05
it's not all that useful. In the middle
6:08
here, we have the manual focus ring,
6:10
which moves nice and smoothly. This is
6:12
both an internally focusing and an
6:14
internally zooming design. And so that
6:16
allows you to make those really quick um
6:19
zoom changes. And so that's going to be
6:20
really welcome for those of you that are
6:22
shooting sideline sports or things like
6:24
that. Now, in terms of our other
6:27
controls here, we do have a focus
6:29
limiter. The focus limiter is largely
6:31
just there to exclude close focus. And
6:34
so you can either do full range or your
6:35
second choice is to eliminate anything
6:37
under one meter. And this will go down
6:40
to 45 cmters in terms of minimum focus
6:42
distance. So if you want to eliminate
6:44
close focus possibilities, you can use
6:46
that. There we have an AFMF switch. We
6:49
have an on and off for the stabilizer.
6:51
And then a switch to allow you to switch
6:53
between three stabilizer modes. Number
6:55
one being standard, number two for
6:57
panning, number three being for dynamic.
6:59
In other words, it only stabilizes at
7:01
the moment of capture and allows you to
7:03
move freely in the viewfinder. Outside
7:06
of that, the image stabilization system
7:08
is rated at 5.5 stops if the lens stands
7:12
alone, but it will work in conjunction
7:14
with inbody image stabilization if your
7:16
camera is so equipped, and Canon says
7:18
you can achieve up to eight stops. I was
7:20
able to get this shot at the equivalent
7:22
of about seven stops of handheld
7:24
capability. So, 105 mm at basically 1
7:28
second. I find that to be pretty
7:29
impressive myself. Up front here, we do
7:32
have two custom or function buttons, and
7:35
those are uh designed so you can have
7:38
one whether you're shooting in
7:39
horizontal or vertical modes. And
7:41
obviously, whatever function that is is
7:43
going to be assigned from within the
7:44
camera. A manual focus ring that has a
7:47
nice degree of damping. No concerns
7:49
there. And then Canon's customizable
7:51
control ring works as expected, and you
7:54
can assign whatever value you so desire
7:56
for that. at the moment, not confusing
7:59
at all. That's a joke. In my R5 body,
8:03
this is the aperture ring for video.
8:05
This is the aperture ring when shooting
8:06
stills. And so, I'm either at the back
8:08
of the lens or the front of the lens. I
8:10
don't know why Canon has to do that, but
8:12
I certainly don't love it. So, the Z in
8:14
the name refers to the fact that this is
8:16
equipped for use with Canon's Power Zoom
8:18
accessories. Now, unfortunately, those
8:20
accessories are very expensive. And so
8:23
for the PZ E2, um, it's going to set you
8:27
back $1,149.
8:30
And the more expensive, yes, the more
8:32
expensive option is the PZ E2B, and it
8:35
runs at $1,49
8:38
USD. And it basic difference there is it
8:40
adds a 20 pin connector for professional
8:43
broadcast use. So basically here you'll
8:45
see the electronic contacts and then
8:47
also the mount points there for
8:49
attaching that adapter. It doesn't seem
8:52
from my research that there are many
8:54
people that are adapting or using that
8:56
adapter and thus utilizing the power
8:58
zoom function. Uh people don't love the
9:01
ergonomics of it, the way that it kind
9:03
of sits over here. But what it will
9:05
theoretically allow you to do is to have
9:07
that smooth zooming back and forth you
9:10
might get from a camcorder where it is
9:12
servo driven rather than trying to
9:14
accomplish zoom through this. I suspect
9:16
that many people will uh probably do
9:19
their zooming like this and save
9:21
themselves anywhere between $1,200 and
9:24
$1,500
9:26
cuz that's a lot of money. I will also
9:28
note that while the lens isn't perfectly
9:30
par focal, it pretty much functions as
9:33
par focal if you have autofocus focus
9:35
enabled. And you can see here if we go
9:37
through this clip that it's staying in
9:39
focus all the time. And so I have no
9:41
concerns with that. It all works well. I
9:44
will note on another physical note here.
9:46
If you look at the zoom action here that
9:48
this clearly is not compatible with any
9:51
kind of teleconverter. You can see that
9:53
that rearmost element comes all the way
9:55
to the back of the lens at the 24mm
9:58
position. So don't plan on using
10:00
teleconverters here. The lens does come
10:03
with a hood and a zippered case. My
10:06
loner from Canon Canada didn't come with
10:08
either of those things, but they are
10:09
standard accessories included in the
10:11
box. One other thing worth noting is
10:13
that 105 millimeters, your minimum focus
10:15
distance is just 45 cm, allowing you to
10:18
get a quite high 0.29
10:21
times level of magnification. That's
10:22
obviously going to be really useful
10:24
those of you that are wedding or uh
10:27
particularly wedding photographers or
10:28
portrait photographers, but particularly
10:30
for weddings where you're wanting to
10:31
shoot up close details of rings or
10:34
accessories, things like that. You're
10:36
going to love those close focus
10:37
capabilities, which just adds to the
10:39
versatility of the lens. This is a lens
10:42
that really pretty much does everything
10:43
and does it all quite well. So, let's
10:46
talk autofocus. Canon has equipped this
10:48
lens with dual of their nano USM focus
10:52
motors. Now, nano USM is essentially a
10:54
linear style focus motor and having the
10:57
two motors allows there to be additional
10:59
thrust here to really expand what is
11:02
possible of what you can do with a lens
11:05
like this. Canon understanding that this
11:06
is a great focal length or zoom range
11:09
for those maybe that want to do sideline
11:12
sports photography for basketball or
11:14
volleyball or some other court type
11:16
sport where the ability to quickly go
11:18
between a wide and somewhat of a
11:20
telephoto shot is going to be extremely
11:22
useful. And so this focus motors allow
11:26
you to have very quick focus pulses back
11:28
and forth. As you can see here, you can
11:30
go from a close to a distant subject,
11:32
not if not instantly, very close, too.
11:35
and there's very little sound or drama
11:37
associated with that focus action. That
11:39
means that it's it's easy to keep up
11:40
with action. And if you're wanting to do
11:42
something simpler like shooting a
11:44
wedding or shooting portrait work, there
11:47
is going to be zero problem there as
11:49
you've got all of the thrust that you
11:50
need to successfully capture the moment.
11:52
And of course, Canon's cameras are very,
11:55
very good these days at doing subject
11:57
detection and making sure that results
11:59
are accurately focused. That's true
12:01
whether you are photographing a person
12:03
or an animal or any other type of
12:06
subject. And so throughout the course of
12:07
my review, I had zero problems with
12:09
focus accuracy. I was able to nail focus
12:12
whether it was in a an event type
12:14
setting at the church or whether in a
12:16
portrait session or just in general
12:18
shooting shots of the cats. All of those
12:20
things, no concerns at all when it comes
12:22
to the overall autofocus performance. On
12:25
the video side of things, I was kind of
12:27
interested to see how this dual nano USM
12:31
focus setup compared to some of their
12:32
recent VCM uh equipped lenses.
12:35
Obviously, these are two similar but
12:38
slightly different focus technologies.
12:40
And I would say when it comes to the
12:41
video side of things, I think that
12:42
Canon's VCM motors are probably a little
12:45
bit better. And that primarily comes
12:47
down to the reactiveness of the focus
12:49
motors. Now, when it comes to the focus
12:52
pulls back and forth, you'll see that
12:54
they are relatively smooth, though I did
12:57
see just a little bit of step here and
12:59
there when it came to at least on my
13:02
older R5 body. I also found that
13:04
sometimes there was a bit of a input lag
13:07
delay between when I touched to move to
13:09
another subject and before it actually
13:11
did that. But for the most part, focus
13:13
pools are nicely damped and focus
13:16
breathing is pretty well controlled and
13:18
so no real issue with that. And so that
13:21
certainly is going to be a welcome in a
13:22
lens that is certainly designed to be a
13:25
hybrid both stills and video type lens.
13:28
That slow reactiveness though, it did
13:30
show up a bit when it came to something
13:32
like my hand test where sometimes by the
13:35
time that focus finally got around to
13:37
changing, I was already starting to
13:38
remove my hand or, you know, place it
13:40
there. Likewise, when I approach the
13:42
camera, no problem in tracking up to the
13:44
camera. And obviously in these this
13:46
segment, like right now, you can see
13:48
that it's it's locking on and filming me
13:50
just fine. But when I ducked in and out
13:53
of frame, I found that it was a little
13:56
bit slow to pick me back up. Whereas the
13:59
recent VCM equipped uh prime lenses that
14:02
I have reviewed, they pick me up almost
14:03
instantly. And so it's much just just
14:06
much more reactive a focus motor um in
14:08
those situations. So I, you know, you
14:10
can help to compensate for that a bit by
14:12
turning up speed and reactiveness in
14:15
camera. But in terms of using equal
14:17
settings, I did find that the nano USM
14:20
equipped focus motors here were just a
14:22
little less reactive than what I saw
14:23
with the VCM focus motors. That aside,
14:26
however, I felt like there was good
14:28
stability in shots. I have no real
14:31
concerns. And you can see here, for
14:33
example, that if I move towards the
14:35
camera in this shot, it's having no
14:37
problem, you know, keeping me properly
14:39
locked, keeping me in frame. This is
14:41
going to be a very versatile lens. And
14:43
obviously, if you're using it with the
14:45
power zoom capabilities, it's going to
14:47
allow you to have those nice steady
14:49
linear uh zoom actions back and forth,
14:52
which could be very useful for a
14:54
broadcast style setting. All right,
14:56
let's take a look at the optical design.
14:59
Here you can see looking at the diagram
15:02
from Canon that we have 23 elements in
15:04
18 groups. So as you could expect a lens
15:07
like this is fairly optically
15:08
complicated. There is a variety of
15:11
elements in here including a new replica
15:14
aspheric element not common one that
15:16
we've seen a number of ultra low dispers
15:19
dispersion elements and then a couple of
15:22
glass molded aspherical elements and
15:25
then also some special coatings that
15:27
we'll get to in just a moment. Now, if
15:29
we look at the MTF chart here at 24 mm
15:32
for the lens at the top, you can see
15:33
it's very sharp in the center of the
15:34
frame, we can see that it actually has a
15:38
lowest dip, at least on one axis here,
15:40
and then comes back up. But on the other
15:42
axis, we can see a pretty steady fall.
15:45
And so, by the time we get to the
15:46
corners, there's a lot more a stigmatism
15:48
that we're dealing with at 24 mm. Now,
15:51
at 105 mm, you can see it's a little
15:53
less sharp in the center of the frame.
15:55
However, by the time you get to the
15:56
corners, not quite as much as stigmatism
15:59
there, and so a little bit less
16:01
separation. Now, looking down at the
16:03
bottom, this gives us a comparison to
16:04
the f4 LIS. And you can see that for the
16:08
most part, the uh f/2.8 lens is better
16:11
all across the frame at f2.8 relative to
16:14
what the f4 lens is at f4. And so, it's
16:19
just a stronger lens optically all
16:21
around. Now, obviously, this zoom range
16:23
is tremendously useful, particularly
16:25
having that f/2.8 aperture, allowing us
16:28
to go from this framing at 24
16:29
millimeters into this much, much tighter
16:31
framing at 105 mm. As is so often the
16:36
case on RF mount, however, Canon is
16:39
heavily dependent upon electronic
16:41
corrections to get this result right
16:43
here. If we go without that correction,
16:46
here is what we get instead. And so you
16:48
can see there is a massive amount of
16:51
barrel distortion here and extremely
16:53
heavy vignette. To get the result, the
16:55
manual correction on the right, I had to
16:57
dial in a plus 44, which is a massive
17:00
amount to correct for the barrel
17:02
distortion. And then I had to basically
17:04
maximize the sliders for vignette
17:07
correction to eliminate all of the
17:09
vignette. In fact, in camera, you'll see
17:11
that your ability for JPEGs and videos
17:13
to turn off distortion correction is
17:16
just not available. And you can see that
17:20
actually the lens goes wider than the
17:22
full-frame image circle with these
17:23
mechanical vignettes here to allow Canon
17:26
more room to crop the image and still
17:28
get to 24 mm. As we move on throughout
17:31
the zoom range, you can see that that
17:32
barrel distortion will turn to a pin
17:34
cushion distortion here at 50 mm. and
17:37
then more heavy pin cushion distortion
17:40
by 105 mm and vignette does remain
17:43
heavy. To get this result here, I had to
17:45
dial in a minus9 to correct for the
17:47
distortion and a plus 85 to correct for
17:50
the vignette. So unfortunately, as is so
17:53
often the case, even in their most
17:55
expensive lenses, Canon is relying too
17:57
much on electronic corrections rather
18:00
than doing the optical correction in
18:02
lens. Now moving on to other metrics.
18:04
You can see that this lens is not
18:06
completely free from longitudinal style
18:08
chromatic aberrations. Not much before
18:11
the plane of focus, but definitely a
18:12
little bit after the plane of focus. We
18:14
can see here if we zoom in and we look
18:16
at some of the shiny bits there, there
18:18
definitely is some chromatic aberrations
18:21
that are showing up there. So, not a
18:23
perfect correction in that regard, but
18:25
at the same time, not too bad either.
18:27
Lateral style chromatic aberrations are
18:30
fairly well corrected. What I'm mostly
18:32
seeing is a yellow fringing here.
18:35
Unfortunately, that is often hard to
18:37
detect out in real world images. A
18:39
little bit of magent magenta there as
18:41
well. Purple magenta, but not too bad.
18:44
So, and that fortunately is pretty easy
18:45
to correct for. Now, here is the test
18:47
chart that we'll be looking at. Our our
18:49
overall resolution and contrast levels.
18:51
This is shot on a 45 megapixel uh Canon
18:54
EOS R5. These results are shown at 200%
18:57
magnification. So at 24 mm in the center
19:00
of the frame, even at 200%
19:01
magnification, results are magnificent.
19:04
Very, very high sharpness, very high
19:06
contrast. Likewise, the mid-frame looks
19:09
fantastic. And we see a really good
19:11
consistency as we pan down. And really,
19:14
it's only where you get towards the very
19:16
edges that it starts to fall off, but
19:18
it's still at a usable level. Certainly
19:21
wide open at f2.8. You can see even by
19:24
f4 that we're starting to get more
19:26
resolution and contrast into those
19:28
corners. And by f5.6 they are pretty
19:31
much flawless. Now by f11 you'll see it
19:35
still looks good but it's starting to
19:36
fade a little bit due to defraction. And
19:38
by f-22 which is the minimum aperture
19:41
it's looking fairly soft there. Here's a
19:43
24mm real world landscape shot at f8.
19:47
And you can see that into the
19:48
foreground. Sharp crisp detail all along
19:51
the side. looks really, really good.
19:53
Obviously in the center of the frame
19:55
looking excellent and right off here to
19:57
the edge very very strong. Now this is
19:59
really expensive for a landscape lens.
20:01
However, it certainly does the job. Now
20:04
35 mm is similarly fantastic in the
20:07
middle of the frame and mid-frame and
20:09
maybe even a little bit better in the
20:10
corners. At 50 mm, it's close, but you
20:13
can see it's just not quite as high a
20:16
level up in the mid-frame. However, both
20:18
results look fantastic, though the 35 mm
20:21
stands out as being particularly good.
20:23
If we move up into the corners here, we
20:25
see a fairly equal performance. If
20:28
anything, I would argue that maybe 50 mm
20:30
is a little bit sharper in the corner.
20:32
So, a slightly different uh resolution
20:35
distribution across the frame, but at a
20:37
very, very high level. Remember, this is
20:39
200% magnification. Here's a real world
20:41
portrait shot at or 50 mm and you can
20:45
see that it is fantastically sharp. Uh
20:48
no issues with that. If we move on to 70
20:50
mm and then 85 mm, both marked
20:53
positions, we can see the results are
20:55
largely similar. In the center of the
20:57
frame, I would slightly prefer 85 mm in
21:00
the middle of the frame. They both look
21:02
really quite excellent. And looking up
21:04
into the corners again, really good
21:06
consistency. Maybe here at 70 mm. It
21:09
looks a little bit better than 85 mm,
21:12
but again, both perfectly usable. And
21:14
perhaps the most important position is
21:16
105 mm. It isn't as sharp or high
21:19
contrast as it is at wider focal
21:22
lengths, but you can see it still looks
21:24
quite good here. And we can see that
21:26
it's just a little bit softer in these
21:28
points, but still quite good. And if we
21:31
do a mild stop down to f4, you can see
21:34
some of that contrast and sharpness um
21:36
starting to return. And so even stopping
21:39
down to f4 does make a significant
21:42
difference in terms of just the overall
21:44
pop that the lens can achieve. At the
21:46
same time, it is worth viewing that in
21:48
context. This is at 105 mm f2.8. You can
21:53
see that real world shot. Yeah, that's
21:55
pretty crisp right there. Here's a shot
21:57
of Nala looking down and you can see the
22:00
detail and the fur. It all looks really
22:02
fantastic. And then if we take this shot
22:04
where it is stopped down to f5.6 six at
22:07
105 millimeters. I mean, look at how
22:09
fantastic all of the fine detail is in
22:13
that image. Doesn't that make you just
22:14
want to dive in and go for a swim there?
22:17
So, sharpness is not going to be a
22:18
problem. Now, here's a quick return to
22:20
the minimum focus distance. And you can
22:22
see here that up close looks pretty
22:24
decent. I mean, contrast is not off the
22:26
charts, but again, if you stop that down
22:28
to f4, it's going to look better. Here,
22:30
for example, is a close-up real world
22:33
shot at of a heel of a shoe here. And
22:36
you can see that F at f4. It's really,
22:39
really crisp, high detail. Little bit of
22:41
fringing there. That's something with
22:42
shiny surfaces going to have to watch
22:44
out for. But even right here in the
22:46
bokeh, it looks pretty neutral there.
22:48
The one critique I have of the bokeh is,
22:51
as you can see here, it does exhibit
22:53
some of that onion quality and specular
22:56
highlights that is frankly a little bit
22:58
ugly. Don't love that. As far as the
23:01
geometry, you can see at f2.8, you're
23:03
going to get some of that clipping near
23:05
the edge of the frame. By f4, however,
23:07
it's mostly circular everywhere. In
23:10
f5.6, you can see that it is up
23:12
upholding that very circular shape
23:15
thanks to those 11 rounded aperture
23:16
blades. Bo, when you don't have specular
23:19
highlights, I frankly think looks fairly
23:21
good for a zoom lens. It is fairly
23:23
smooth in the out of focus areas.
23:25
Transition there looks pretty good. Here
23:27
there is some natural specular
23:29
highlights and again I it's a little bit
23:31
of a soap bubble effect but not too bad.
23:33
Moving on to 105 millimeters and of
23:36
course those get bigger and softer and I
23:38
think generally fairly pleasing. Now
23:41
finally we'll talk flare resistance. And
23:43
you can see here that at a certain
23:45
position I am able to get some ghosting
23:48
artifacts. Stopping down to uh f11. You
23:51
can see that that becomes a little bit
23:53
more pronounced. Um, however, in this
23:56
shot where I'm not like searching it
23:58
out, you can see shooting at f8. It
24:01
actually looks quite clean. Um, another
24:03
shot here again, it's right there in the
24:05
frame and there's a little bit of
24:06
ghosting here, but not too bad. I will
24:09
also note that you compose in the right
24:10
way and the 22bladed sunstar I think
24:13
looks fairly good.
24:16
Now, if we take a look at flare panning
24:18
back and forth, first wide open, you can
24:20
see that yeah, there is a a little bit
24:22
of ghosting and then I can do an
24:24
aperture rack and stop the aperture down
24:25
and you can see how that changes it a
24:27
bit. But in general and in real world
24:30
shooting, I felt like the coatings were
24:32
doing a pretty good job. And flare
24:34
resistance, I would say, is better than
24:36
most lenses that fall into this class.
24:39
Overall, it's a very strong optical
24:41
performance outside of relying on those
24:43
digital corrections for the vignette and
24:46
distortion. So, what's my conclusion?
24:48
Well, obviously, this is a lens that is
24:50
going to work for a specific type of
24:53
photographer, namely a photographer that
24:56
has a little bit of money to spend on
24:58
it. So, that's going to probably narrow
25:00
it down to either those who are working
25:01
professionals or those who are just, you
25:04
know, welloff amateurs and have some
25:06
disposable income because the threshold
25:08
of $3,300 means that this is a lens that
25:11
cost you nearly $2,000 more than the F4
25:15
equivalent. If you're just wanting to
25:17
travel or, you know, to shoot landscapes
25:19
and want the focal length, I would say
25:21
stick with the F4 lens because it's it's
25:24
just a much more practical lens on a
25:26
whole lot of levels and certainly far
25:28
more affordable. But if you're the kind
25:30
of person that needs the versatility of
25:32
the zoom range and then the maximum
25:34
aperture to shoot a variety of things,
25:37
be it, you know, sports or as a wedding
25:39
photographer, wedding videographer,
25:42
obviously I think that this is a lens
25:44
that makes a lot of sense for the right
25:46
kind of person. People have been asking
25:49
for this aperture and focal length
25:51
combination for a long time. and the
25:54
fact that Canon was able to deliver and
25:55
not just deliver but do so in a really
25:58
successful fashion. This is not a
26:00
flawless lens as I've tried to point out
26:02
across this review, but it does a lot of
26:04
things really, really well. And outside
26:07
of Canon's over reliance on digital
26:10
corrections, which I'm going to continue
26:11
to rail against, I think that they have
26:14
done really a remarkable job of
26:16
delivering a lens that does what no
26:18
one's really done before and does it
26:21
quite effectively. So, at the end of the
26:23
day, if you can afford the $3,300 for
26:25
this lens, I suspect it's going to be
26:27
the kind of lens that goes on your
26:29
camera and frankly stays on your camera
26:32
because it can do pretty much everything
26:34
very, very well. And I certainly see
26:36
from some of the user reviews that it's
26:38
just that kind of comment that I see a
26:40
lot of people saying, "This is on my
26:42
camera all the time." Others saying that
26:44
they sold multiple other lenses and
26:46
consolidated down to just this one lens.
26:49
And that of course is the kind of
26:50
versatility that the Canon RF 24 to 105
26:54
millimeter f2.8 LISUSMZ
26:58
is able to deliver. If you want more
27:00
information, feel free to check out my
27:02
full text review which is linked in the
27:03
description down below. As always,
27:05
thanks for watching. Have a great day
27:07
and let the light in.

Canon RF 24-105mm F2.8L IS Z Review | Canon Delivers the Dream?

Dustin Abbott

Tamron 16-50mm F2.8 A Review | Your New APS-C Zoom

TTArtisan AF 24mm F3.8 VCM Review | Full Frame $99 Pancake Treat

Sigma 50-120mm F2.8 DC OS Review | It Just Makes Sense!

SongRaw vs Viltrox Pro | 85mm Z-Mount Showdown

Laowa AF 35mm F2.8 APO Macro - A Flawed Macro Gem

7Artisans AF 18mm F2 | An APS C Pancake for $169!

The Best (Affordable) Way to Reach 600mm and 800mm on Sony

SongRaw 85mm F1.2 MS Review | Huge Lens, Huge Performance

Sony FE 600mm F6.3 GM OSS Review | 600mm in Under a Kilo!

Sony FE 400mm F4.5 GM OSS Review | Lightweight Perfection!

Bluetti Elite 100 Mini Review | 1000Wh in a Small Package

Peak Design Roller Pro | A Perfect Bag at an Imperfect Price

Sigma 20-60mm F2.8-4 C Review | Your New Favorite Tiny Zoom Has Arrived

Sigma 85mm F1.2 ART Review | My New Favorite 85mm F1.2

7Artisans AF 10mm F25 MAX Fisheye Review - A Better Fisheye?

Up next in 10

Canon RF 24-105mm F2.8L IS Z Review | Canon Delivers the Dream?

Dustin Abbott