Canon R5 Lens Choice: 24-70 2.8L vs. 24-105 F4L: I'm getting serious about purchasing an R5. I do technology product photography - so want the best sharpness/resolution. I currently...

dandev Loc: Enumclaw, WA

I'm getting serious about purchasing an R5. I do technology product photography - so want the best sharpness/resolution. I currently use a 24-105L on my 5D3 - and I think the results are "OK." I use my 70-200 2.8L for portrait work, and will keep using that with an adapter for a while. My 5D3 will become my backup camera. (I don't currently have a backup camera.)

I'm looking for a comparison of the RF 24-70 F2.8L and the RF 24-105 F4L. I don't see anything on DXO-Mark. I don't care that much about 2.8 vs. 4.0 - It's the "sharpness" I'm looking for. (I know the EF 24-70 F2.8L is supposed to be sharper than the EF 24-105 F4L, and wondered if that was the case for the RF series.)

I'm also looking for feedback from anyone who's currently using the R5 for photos. I don't shoot videos - as I know people who are much better at it than I would ever be. And they don't want to shoot stills.

Thanks for the help.

bleirer

These are both on the Canon R, but the 24-70 looks a clear winner to my eye. https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1415&Camera=1221&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=3&LensComp=1222&CameraComp=1221&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=2

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

dandev wrote:

I'm getting serious about purchasing an R5. I do ... (show quote)

I have not used either one.
I looked at both the EF 24-70 2.8 and the 24-105. Chose the 24-105.
Not giving a darn about pixel peeping I found the versatility of the 24-105 far out weighs any slight difference in pixel peeping.
So if you look at photos in the real world as pixels do the 24-70 or if you take real world photos and look at them normally then the much greater versatility of the 24-105 is far superior to the 24-70 with one exception if you are doing night sports in dark gyms.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Do you do any low light high ISO shooting? It’s the extra step of aperture vs the extra 35mm that would be key for me - the sharpness of either should be more than adequate. I’ve struggled with this exact question with EF lenses. I chose the 24-105L for the versatility, but that may not be the correct choice for you.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

TriX wrote:

Do you do any low light high ISO shooting? It’s the extra step of aperture vs the extra 35mm that would be key for me - the sharpness of either should be more than adequate. I’ve struggled with this exact question with EF lenses. I chose the 24-105L for the versatility, but that may not be the correct choice for you.

dandev Loc: Enumclaw, WA

I occasionally do some low light stuff - but it's more about IQ.
I might be taking photos of a circuit board - and want to see the legs on each of the chips.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

dandev wrote:

I occasionally do some low light stuff - but it's more about IQ.
I might be taking photos of a circuit board - and want to see the legs on each of the chips.

Then get a macro lens.
Neither are suited for precision high resolution macro work.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Architect1776 wrote:

Then get a macro lens.
Neither are suited for precision high resolution macro work.

👍👍 I agree.

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

You may want to check out Jeff Cable’s blog. He has been testing the R5 and R6 for the past 5 weeks.

http://blog.jeffcable.com/2020/08/more-real-world-testing-of-canon-r5-and.html?m=1

Jeff’s conclusions suggest that you will not use your 5D3 again...

dandev wrote:

I'm getting serious about purchasing an R5. I do ... (show quote)

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

dandev wrote:

I'm getting serious about purchasing an R5. I do ... (show quote)

I have an R and one of my RF lenses is the RF 24-105 f/4 L. I never did a pixel-to-pixel comparison with my 5DIV and EF lenses, including the EF 24-105 f/4 L, before I sold them but the results with my current combo are outstanding. Plus, the 24-105 is an excellent all-around lens. The R5 should open a whole new world. However, if the focal lengths work for you and if your budget allows it, for real sharpness, especially with the R5, either the RF 50 f/1.2 L or the RF 85 f/1.2 L are the way to go. I have both and they are unlike anything else I have ever used. Detail is incredible and, when you want it, the bokeh is excellent.

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

dandev wrote:

I occasionally do some low light stuff - but it's more about IQ.
I might be taking photos of a circuit board - and want to see the legs on each of the chips.

Here is a quick JPEG shot I just took handheld that may help answer your question. That is a Micro SD to SD adapter, BTW.
R with RF 24-105 f/4 L

(Download)

bleirer

The 24-70 holds up quite well against the 50 in these test shots. Maybe a slight edge to the 24-70 to my eye. It's hard to judge because the R5 has a lot more pixels than the R used here to challenge a lens.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1225&Camera=1221&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=5&LensComp=1415&CameraComp=1221&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=3

For the 85 vs the 24-70 I give it to the 85.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1418&Camera=1221&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=5&LensComp=1415&CameraComp=1221&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=3

I have the RF 24-105L on my RP and I'm very happy with it in real world situations. At $2600 the 85 is a drooler.

dandev Loc: Enumclaw, WA

Thanks for all the inputs. I haven't seen one of the R5s yet - my local camera store says it will be a while. So I don't have to decide just yet on the lens.
The 85 does looks nice - and has the nice price tag to go with it.

BobHartung Loc: Bettendorf, IA

dandev wrote:

I'm getting serious about purchasing an R5. I do ... (show quote)

Since you haven't given any hint of what you generally photograph, you question cannot be answered.

Although a Nikon Z7 user, my go to lens is still a 24-120mm f/4 lens with the FTZ adapter. Since I am mainly shooting landscapes and rarely use any aperture less than f/11 (90%+ of all my images are at F/11 & f/16) I don't need a wide aperture.

Now think about your photography and the answer to your question will become apparent. Remember you are the photographer.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

BobHartung wrote:

Since you haven't given any hint of what you generally photograph, you question cannot be answered.

Although a Nikon Z7 user, my go to lens is still a 24-120mm f/4 lens with the FTZ adapter. Since I am mainly shooting landscapes and rarely use any aperture less than f/11 (90%+ of all my images are at F/11 & f/16) I don't need a wide aperture.

Now think about your photography and the answer to your question will become apparent. Remember you are the photographer.