[Klaus]

https://opticallimits.com/images/8reviews/lenses/canon_rf24105_471/ohmygod.jpg

BTW, this is a lens most youtubers rave about ...

Here's the sample gallery ... https://photozone.smugmug.com/Canon-RF-24-105mm-f4-71-IS-STM

I've yet to verify whether this is a valid sample. It's surely a stretch on the R5 but I can't believe that Canon releases such a piece of crap.

[Rover]

You ain't seen nuthin' yet... The 24-200 is reported to be that and much more.

But then again, auto correction should mask most of that.

[Klaus]

Based on what I can see under lab conditions, it is a valid sample.

Brace for an "interesting" rating ...

[faint]

That post makes me donate to the site

What an unusual way to bring Nikon audience back

(BTW I like Canon, especially their printers)

[wim]

The sample gallery looks quite good ....

Kind regards, Wim

---

You ain't seen nuthin' yet... The 24-200 is reported to be that and much more.

But then again, auto correction should mask most of that.

You mean the 24-240 I assume?

If so, according to the tests I have seen, ity actually is slightly better than the RF 24-105 IS STM.

Kind regards, Wim

[goran h]

A good lens for those who like soft borders and corners.

[wim]

A good lens for those who like soft borders and corners.

Actually better than the old EF version, based on the tests I have seen so far.

[toni-a]

Well at the end of the day, what is important is a happy user rather than a happy reviewer.
if the lens doesn't break records yet it has a acceptable performance and is reliable that's the most important.
IMHO the big DONTs for a lens in my book are frequent failure and unreliable focus all the remaining flaws are acceptable to a certain degree.
Canon 17-85 was a very bad lens with a lot of distortions and CA yet plenty were happy with it

[faint]

A good lens for those who like soft borders and corners.

Fuji-X users, willing to go FF, should feel at home then

[wim]

Well at the end of the day, what is important is a happy user rather than a happy reviewer.
if the lens doesn't break records yet it has a acceptable performance and is reliable that's the most important.
IMHO the big DONTs for a lens in my book are frequent failure and unreliable focus all the remaining flaws are acceptable to a certain degree.
Canon 17-85 was a very bad lens with a lot of distortions and CA yet plenty were happy with it

The question of the matter is indeed whether an end user is happy with it.
Considering the price of the RF non-L lenses considering they are new designs and all that, I think they are still good value for money.

And as to the dark corners Klaus documented, what I find strange is that I have seen no lens reviews yet which have shown this at all, and that includes a bunch of testers who did indeed switch of in-camera correction.

I nonestly do think there is something wrong with this specimen.

As to remarks about the "24-200", which I assume is the 24-240: that actually is quite a good lens based on reviews and SOOC photographs I have seen so far. In tests it appears slightly better than the 24-105 IS STM. I actually got a specimen of the 24-240, to experience how it felt to have a more than acceptable good superzoom, as a general run-around lens.

So far no complaints for the intended purpose, although my other RF lenses are better when you look at larger magnifications . And neither can it do F/1.2 or F/2 .

Kind regards,Wim