[Brightcolours]

Ok, I see. It's a Canon so it's great per definition. ;-)

I have not said it is "great", have I? I say the lens makes more sense than you give it credit for.... In my view, a low end kit zoom 24-105mm f4-7.1 macro makes a lot more sense than a "Pro" 24-90mm f8.

To be frank, it appears to be the other way around. It is Canon so it is meh according to you...

[JJ_SO]

Ok, I see. It's a Canon so it's great per definition. ;-)

I have not said it is "great", have I? I say the lens makes more sense than you give it credit for.... In my view, a low end kit zoom 24-105mm f4-7.1 macro makes a lot more sense than a "Pro" 24-90mm f8.

To be frank, it appears to be the other way around. It is Canon so it is meh according to you...

24-90/8? "2.8", right?

[Brightcolours]

Ok, I see. It's a Canon so it's great per definition. ;-)

I have not said it is "great", have I? I say the lens makes more sense than you give it credit for.... In my view, a low end kit zoom 24-105mm f4-7.1 macro makes a lot more sense than a "Pro" 24-90mm f8.

To be frank, it appears to be the other way around. It is Canon so it is meh according to you...

24-90/8? "2.8", right?

No, the Olympus Pro 12-45mm f4 (24-90mm f8 FF equivalent) that Klaus likes https://forum.opticallimits.com/showthread.php?tid=4644

A 24-90mm f2.8 Pro lens makes a lot of sense, of course.

[Klaus]

Ok, I see. It's a Canon so it's great per definition. ;-)

I have not said it is "great", have I? I say the lens makes more sense than you give it credit for.... In my view, a low end kit zoom 24-105mm f4-7.1 macro makes a lot more sense than a "Pro" 24-90mm f8.

To be frank, it appears to be the other way around. It is Canon so it is meh according to you...

Which is probably why I mentioned a couple of times that they have the best optical designs in the industry.
But that doesn't stop them from releasing something very weird now.

[Rover]

f4-7.1 is a bit much if you ask me. Could they have made it a shorter range instead? (Kinda like the 24-85/3.5-4.5 of old, one of which I have, and it also has the 67mm filter thread)

[Klaus]

Ouch ....

[Brightcolours]

Ouch ....

You found the RF 24-105mm f4 L pretty good for the type of lens, when you reviewed it.

When you compare the cheap new one with that lens' Canon MTF charts, there is not a huge difference, the corners at 105mm wide open at f7.1 better than the f4 L wide open most obviously, and looking at the OL review, it is the corners that got better with the f4 L when stopping down.

To me, it seems this lens is not that "ouch" after all, if we just look at these MTF charts?

[Klaus]

Ouch ....

You found the RF 24-105mm f4 L pretty good for the type of lens, when you reviewed it.

When you compare the cheap new one with that lens' Canon MTF charts, there is not a huge difference, the corners at 105mm wide open at f7.1 better than the f4 L wide open most obviously, and looking at the OL review, it is the corners that got better with the f4 L when stopping down.

To me, it seems this lens is not that "ouch" after all, if we just look at these MTF charts?

Well, at 24mm the L is certainly better and at it's surely also better at 105mm at the same aperture.

[Brightcolours]

Ouch ....

You found the RF 24-105mm f4 L pretty good for the type of lens, when you reviewed it.

When you compare the cheap new one with that lens' Canon MTF charts, there is not a huge difference, the corners at 105mm wide open at f7.1 better than the f4 L wide open most obviously, and looking at the OL review, it is the corners that got better with the f4 L when stopping down.

To me, it seems this lens is not that "ouch" after all, if we just look at these MTF charts?

Well, at 24mm the L is certainly better and at it's surely also better at 105mm at the same aperture.

Yes, both are true, but the difference is not huge. It would be "whoa" instead of "ouch" if this $400 would perform equally to the $1099 24-105mm f4 L, wouldn't it?

To me, these MTFs look really decent for the type of lens this is, am I reading them wrong?