Image quality RF 24-105 f/4-7.1 vs. RF 24-105 f/4

[justadude]

Quick question for anyone here that has used BOTH the RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 and the RF 24-105mm f/4 L lenses...

I own the f/4-7.1 version of this lens, and really like it. I have a relative who is selling off their gear, and one item is the f/4 L version of this lens. While I would like to test it out to see the difference in image quality, she lives halfway across the country - so that's not an option.

I am aware of the obvious differences - aperture, build quality, weather sealing. My main question has to do with "Will I see a difference in image quality, especially on prints 20"x30" and larger?" If anyone has hands on experience with both, what can you tell me?

Thanks!

[March411]

Hey Gary, I don't own both but rented for an extended period of time because the 24-105mm will be the next lens I add, probably with the 24-70mm being traded. To jump right to the end, I will be picking up the f4. 

I thought the f4 was a bit sharper side by and the constant aperture across the entire focal range was a definite advantage. Low light wasn't a problem for either lens but the f/4-7.1 did have noise that had to be cleaned up but DXO did it's job and in the end you couldn't tell the difference. 

Personally if the f4 price is right I would grab it, if you don't want it grab it for me ;o)

[justadude]

Well, overall image quality was my main concern, and hearing it's a bit sharper is nice to know. 

I've read some reviews online, but you never know with some of these YouTube reviews how legit they are, and couldn't find much on comparing the two... although one reviewer said the f/4 version seemed to have a bit more punch to color and contrast. Did you notice any of that at all?

[ebiggs1]

I don't have either but I can say in real world use there is probably not a hill of beans of difference. All Canon lenses perform admirably for their aimed and intended goal. However for me I would always go for the better built lens, so yes I would like to see you with the RF 24-105mm f/4L. Now whether you will see a huge impact on IQ who knows?

Do you pixel peep? I used to until I finally grew up and realized it doesn't matter since most people that view your photos don't pixel peep. Buy the RF 24-105mm f/4L and sell yours. IMHO, of course.

Take Marc from the above post, he seems to get the best form just about any lens.

[March411]

---

@justadude wrote:

Well, overall image quality was my main concern, and hearing it's a bit sharper is nice to know. 

I've read some reviews online, but you never know with some of these YouTube reviews how legit they are, and couldn't find much on comparing the two... although one reviewer said the f/4 version seemed to have a bit more punch to color and contrast. Did you notice any of that at all?

---

I ran them both on the R6 MkII and shot RAW, contrast was a bit better on the f4 but my goal was to look at the sharpness. Running the images through PS I didn't see much difference in color but that was to be expected, you can tweak it to get what you saw through the EVF. 

You and I followed the same path, I looked for reviews and really didn't get much information so I went hands on, lucky to have someone close to the house where I could get both on a rental. 

Personally the extra stops gained across the range @ f4 and the sharpness are what sold me. I'm not sure if you had the same challenges but the f/4-7.1 struggled a bit in low light @ f7.1 especially if I didn't have good contrast to separate the subject from the background.

I don't know if you do much post but shooting RAW and having the ability to work with color and contrast in PS really had me focusing on the sharpness and low light performance. The f/4-7.1, it would grab focus but it wasn't as quick as the f4.

[justadude]

I don’t expect a huge improvement in IQ, but some would be nice. You listen to reviews, most say the L version is a lot better, some say the other is actually sharper around the edges. Who knows how much these guys exaggerate.

While I really like the thought of constant f/4 aperture, and weather sealing, I have been doing a lot more large prints for clients the past few years (between 48” wide, and up to 84” wide) so pixel peep? Not really, but better quality is nice for large prints - and that is my main concern. 

[justadude]

The amount of post I do on most work is minimal, but for some things, it’s fairly heavy, especially on work for picky clients who want a specific look.  And like you, I’m constantly looking at sharpness in PS and LR when I edit. Some of my work with the f/4-7.1 is very sharp (even in low light) and other times even in nice light it seems it should be sharper. I feel this lens is actually very underrated, but there are times I feel I need a little better IQ on some prints, or I’ll skip using that particular lens because it’s raining - hence me looking at the f/4… and because it’s lightly used, and at the “cousin’s discount” lol. Nice to know it’s a bit faster on focus too. Thanks, Marc!

[ebiggs1]

"You listen to reviews, most say ..."

I never listen to or read or watch reviews. I found out too many times over the past decades that too many are just not accurate. I can't say that I don't entirely though because when you see something with five stars or 1 star, it does play with your psyche.

[justadude]

"I never listen to or read or watch reviews. I found out too many times over the past decades that too many are just not accurate."


In general, I agree 100%. There are some reviewers however, like Dustin Abbott, who do a lot of reviews for magazines, and have been doing it for years AND (most importantly) are very detailed and honest on pros and cons. I learned to like him years ago after reading a number of reviews he wrote on gear that I already owned, and realizing how accurate he was with everything. On the other hand you get guys of similar stature, like Ken Rockwell, who write reviews like every product is the best thing since sliced bread. I avoid those guys. 

Next you have the YouTube reviewers, and about 90% of these I don't trust in the least. But there are folks who do some that seem pretty good, so I'll watch a few of these, and see how many things they say in common (good and bad) about a piece of gear. I figure if enough are praising the same exact things, or critiquing the same things, there must be a grain of truth to it - but still, at this point I talk to some of the sales people I know well at the two local camera stores, and bring up these things, and get their feedback.

But in the end, I never let the reviewers decide for me. It's just nice to get some feedback before making my final decision to buy or not.

[March411]

Dustin Abbott is one of the only decent resources, he is painfully truthful. He is normally the first reviewer I look to when researching gear.

I just wish that he had better energy, he really pretty monotone, sometimes I feel like I'm going to nod off. But he is one of the best.