The 24-70mm f/2.8 lens is the workhorse of choice for a wide range of photographers in many different genres, but if you do not need the extra stop of aperture, you can save a lot of money and gain some extra reach by opting for a 24-105mm f/4 lens. For Canon mirrorless shooters, there is the RF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, and this excellent video review takes a look at the kind of performance and image quality you can expect from it in practice.
Coming to you from Jacek Sopotnicki, this great video review takes a look at the Canon RF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM lens. I had the original EF version of this lens for a long time, and it was by far my favorite walkaround lens. It was not clinically sharp, but it certainly produced serviceable results, and I much preferred having the extra reach at the long end when I was traveling, as 70mm always seemed just a little too short. The RF version looks to have made some good improvements in image quality that will make it an even more appealing option, and of course, you are saving a lot of money over the 24-70mm f/2.8 or 28-70mm f/2. Check out the video above for Sopotnicki's full thoughts on the lens.
As a long time Nikon shooter, I had to go over to the dark side and get this lens for my RED Komodo. I love the images so far from the lens. I may also have to get the 100-500mm RF lens for an upcoming trip.
"70mm always seemed just a little too short" and f/4 always seemed just a little to dark ;)
I'm wondering why nobody is making a 24-105 f/2.8??? Yes, it will be bigger, but probably not much bigger than the 28-70/2. Canon engineers love to make exotic lenses, so hopefully one day...
Well, optics only get worse if you try too hard to get all the goodies. Compare the 28-70/2 with the 24-70/2.8. Going for quality increases the weight significantly, and they had to shorten the focal range to 28mm.
You want IS? Add a little weight. You want AF? Add a little weight.
It would be much bigger than the 28-70, as the range is increased in both directions, and if you want to get rid of the downsides, even more glass is needed. I don't want to carry such a beast.
It would be likely comparable to two lenses in terms of weight, but with one big benefit - no need to change lenses. I don't mind carrying the 200/2, and I wouldn't hesitate to carry this lens neither :)
Ok, I guess your training's better than mine. ^^ I reduce weight where I can, my shoulders don't like that heavy stuff any longer.
This is what I'm using to carry heavy stuff: https://www.cottoncarrier.com/collections/camera-harnesses/products/g3-c...
It won't work for long telephotos like 400/2.8 or 600/4 but for everything heavy and not very long works great.
I had a very bad experience with this one. It was just the Fourth time I used it and it fell from my tripod, but it fell on a carpeted floor and it wasn't very high. The lens totally damaged, it doesn't have any scratch but on the inside motor broken, diaphragm needs to be replaced and some other pieces that cost same as new lens. Would definitely not recommend a RF lens they seem very fragile.
I've been on this for almost years and I've had worst accidents with equipment and never a camera or lens got so damaged.
Same experience for me, it fell with a gorillapod from 2 feet from the ground and broke at the mount. Sent it to repair an the cost of the repair was more than new.