[Klaus]

Standard zoom lens design is the most difficult there is. If it was as simple as re-releasing the 24-85mm USM, Canon would have done it.

The EF 24-105mm STM IS (kit-zoom) was also ... meh ... and the EF 24-105mm f/4 USM L IS wasn't all that impressive either.

There aren't too many cheap and cheerful FF standard zoom lenses out there.
- the Sony FE 28-70mm is terrible as well
- the Panasonic 20-60mm is acceptable at best it seems
- Nikon has the 24-50mm ... if that even counts
- the Sony 28-60mm is also supposed to be ... hmmmpf

The thing is - if you purchase a 30mp mirrorless FF body - don't even look at these.

However, I reckon 90+% of the FF users are surely in the 24mp class anyway.

[Brightcolours]

Since I'm not using the 24-85 on FF, I don't have to worry about the outermost image field. Maybe (probably) it's going to suck there, but does it matter for me? It was pretty good on 8MP APS-C (just checked the old review here), and I have no complaints even now. Maybe I have an exceptional copy, but then again, my first copy was also very good and I only got rid of it because I gave it away for free to a good friend in need of a standard lens.

Speaking of native options, well, I guess I would've wanted to go native where possible if switching to mirrorless, especially since some ML lenses are unique and offer advantages over their SLR counterparts (say, this 14-35 vs. a 16-35). Otherwise I might have just as well retained my full EF kit and only used it, adapted, but then what's the point of even switching the bodies?

No, your copy is normal.

The issue with the 24-85mm is the border/corner performance, which you are cropping out.

You can see how much the 24-105mm f4-7.1 would trounce the old EF 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 by just looking at the MTFs.

The EF 24-85mm MTFs are on the bottom, and they are of the time that Canon published wide open and stopped down to f8 MTFs in one graph. The worst, lower black line pair corresponds to the 24-105mm black line pair,  same as with the worst lower blue line pair.

The old MTFs look a bit better than they should in comparison, things have changed a little bit with Canon MTFs over the decades too (they get closer to "1.0" than they would nowadays).

Of course, nothing wrong with picking the best lens if that is a native lens. But saying "I want to just go native" and also saying "With the bodies of different formats, you're getting even more possible combos." are two competing and incompatible viewpoints, that beg for a bit more nuanced approach.

[Rover]

Well, no, there isn't a contradiction in practice, because I'm not switching to mirrorless, and even in the off chance that I did, I'd probably choose a system other than Canon RF. As it is, I'm not changing anything in my kit, and I'll keep enjoying the benefits the accumulated system (which, admittedly, is pretty patchy, a mishmash of different classes of gear) allows me. Of course eight lenses might be overkill but all of them are finding more or less frequent use, so I'm not quite ready to downsize either.

But still if the 24-105/4-7.1 is that decent, why does Klaus keep referring to it as coke bottle.

[Brightcolours]

Well, no, there isn't a contradiction in practice, because I'm not switching to mirrorless, and even in the off chance that I did, I'd probably choose a system other than Canon RF. As it is, I'm not changing anything in my kit, and I'll keep enjoying the benefits the accumulated system (which, admittedly, is pretty patchy, a mishmash of different classes of gear) allows me. Of course eight lenses might be overkill but all of them are finding more or less frequent use, so I'm not quite ready to downsize either.

But still if the 24-105/4-7.1 is that decent, why does Klaus keep referring to it as coke bottle.

Because Klaus. Like I said before (I think), Klaus would not find the 24-85mm decent nowadays.

And patchy, my system is even more patchy. And I even use an EF 35-70mm f3.5-4.5 A at times, which can't even hope to reach the resolution and contrast your EF 24-85mm can reach (can't find MTF curves for that lens to illustrate). Just because I can, and it was too cheap to pass. And I'd even consider the RF 24-240mm lens as "standard zoom". 

My point kinda is: if you find that 24-85mm lens to be good enough on your APS-H, you will find that you can get good enough results with that RF 24-105mm f4-7.1 on RP, R or R6 or R3 too. Klaus' perspective is from a reviewer, but people can get good (enough) images with just about any modern lens (although there always are a few exceptions).

Sure, Klaus likes to stir the pot ("coke bottle"), but this is what the lens (24-105mm) does even at 24mm: 
https://www.magezinepublishing.com/equipment/images/equipment/RF-24105mm-f471-IS-STM-7540/highres/canon_rf_24-105mm_IS_STM_old_door_1592302929.jpg

That image is more than usable.
From: https://www.ephotozine.com/article/canon-rf-24-105mm-f-4-7-1-is-stm-review-34793/performance

[thxbb12]

Standard zoom lens design is the most difficult there is. If it was as simple as re-releasing the 24-85mm USM, Canon would have done it.

The EF 24-105mm STM IS (kit-zoom) was also ... meh ... and the EF 24-105mm f/4 USM L IS wasn't all that impressive either.

There aren't too many cheap and cheerful FF standard zoom lenses out there.
- the Sony FE 28-70mm is terrible as well
- the Panasonic 20-60mm is acceptable at best it seems
- Nikon has the 24-50mm ... if that even counts
- the Sony 28-60mm is also supposed to be ... hmmmpf

The thing is - if you purchase a 30mp mirrorless FF body - don't even look at these.

However, I reckon 90+% of the FF users are surely in the 24mp class anyway.

The Sony FE 24-105 f4 and Canon RF 24-105 f4 are both good standard lenses.
The new Sigma 28-70 f2.8 DG GN seems pretty good (and compact) albeit with a limited range.
It also looks like the Nikkor Z 24-200 f4-6.3 superzoom is quite descent actually.
Finally, it seems that quite a few Sony users are happy with the Tamron 28-200 f2.8-4 lens.
It seems like modern designs are much better than old ones  (obviously) and quite descent.

[Rover]

Actually I entertained the thought of starting to test stuff in the vein of Photozone and I thought that the first lens I would've put on a 5DSR (after establishing a reference level, of course, using a 300/2.8 IS II that I knew where to procure ) would have been the 24-85, just for the heck of it. I know Klaus is too busy to do any more tests than absolutely necessary, but I would've tried all of my lenses as well as borrowing some EF-mount stuff from the colleagues... before they all switch to mirrorless lol.

[Brightcolours]

Sample images from the RF 14-35mm f4 L IS USM:
14mm f8 on R5
https://cweb.canon.jp/eos/rf/lineup/rf14-35-f4l/image/image-sample/image-sample-media-img-popup.jpg
14mm f5.6 on R5
https://cweb.canon.jp/eos/rf/lineup/rf14-35-f4l/image/image-sample/image-sample-media-img-02-popup.jpg
14mm f11 on R5
https://cweb.canon.jp/eos/rf/lineup/rf14-35-f4l/image/image-sample/image-sample-media-img-03-popup.jpg
14mm f4 ISO4000 on R6
https://downloads.canon.com/nw/lens/rf14-35mm-f4-l-is-usm/Original_sample_1.JPG
14mm f8 on R5
https://downloads.canon.com/nw/lens/rf14-35mm-f4-l-is-usm/Original_sample_2.JPG
35mm f11 on R5
https://downloads.canon.com/nw/lens/rf14-35mm-f4-l-is-usm/Original_sample_3.jpg


Lems construction diagram:
https://cweb.canon.jp/eos/rf/lineup/rf14-35-f4l/image/spec/spec-lens-construction.png

MTF RF 14-35mm:
https://cweb.canon.jp/eos/rf/lineup/rf14-35-f4l/image/spec/spec-mtf.png
To compare to the (not too shabby) EF 16-35mm f4 L IS USM:
https://cweb.canon.jp/ef/lineup/wide-zoom/ef16-35-f4l-is-usm/image/spec/mtf.png

[wim]

Sample images from the RF 14-35mm f4 L IS USM:
14mm f8 on R5
https://cweb.canon.jp/eos/rf/lineup/rf14-35-f4l/image/image-sample/image-sample-media-img-popup.jpg
14mm f5.6 on R5
https://cweb.canon.jp/eos/rf/lineup/rf14-35-f4l/image/image-sample/image-sample-media-img-02-popup.jpg
14mm f11 on R5
https://cweb.canon.jp/eos/rf/lineup/rf14-35-f4l/image/image-sample/image-sample-media-img-03-popup.jpg
14mm f4 ISO4000 on R6
https://downloads.canon.com/nw/lens/rf14-35mm-f4-l-is-usm/Original_sample_1.JPG
14mm f8 on R5
https://downloads.canon.com/nw/lens/rf14-35mm-f4-l-is-usm/Original_sample_2.JPG
35mm f11 on R5
https://downloads.canon.com/nw/lens/rf14-35mm-f4-l-is-usm/Original_sample_3.jpg


Lems construction diagram:
https://cweb.canon.jp/eos/rf/lineup/rf14-35-f4l/image/spec/spec-lens-construction.png

MTF RF 14-35mm:
https://cweb.canon.jp/eos/rf/lineup/rf14-35-f4l/image/spec/spec-mtf.png
To compare to the (not too shabby) EF 16-35mm f4 L IS USM:
https://cweb.canon.jp/ef/lineup/wide-zoom/ef16-35-f4l-is-usm/image/spec/mtf.png

Looking rather good ....

[Rover]

None of these open for me, but I'll take your word for it.

[Brightcolours]

None of these open for me, but I'll take your word for it.

They don't want you to open the files when you are not on their website. So, open a tab with this link for the .jp files:
https://canon.jp/corporate/newsrelease/2021/2021-06/pr-rf14-35-f4
For the .com files, open a tab with this link first: https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/details/lenses/ef/ultra-wide-zoom/rf14-35mm-f4-l-is-usm