Canon 24-105mm f/4 'L', vs 18-150mm kit lens, on the R7?

Is it really worth it? Let's take a look.

Find it here (Amazon affiliate link - thank you for your support):

All pictures taken by me on a Canon EOS R7 camera.

Equipment I use to make my videos (Amazon affiliate links):

[MrDonuts]

How on earth you find time to do all the great work you do with these videos is beyond me.
You have probably saved a lot of people some serious 💰 and at the same time given us some crucial knowledge/information which would be hard to get without this kind of dedication!
Thank you!

[luf-produkttests]

This Kit Lens is absolute impressive!
Everyone thinks that this 18-150 lens is not worth mentioning, because it's only a kit lens. But this lens is the best lens for my R7 and better than every EF-L Lens i own (for sharpness).

[georgefabian]

18-150mm kit lens aperture is 3.5-6.3. Its 18-45 kit which has aperture of 4.5-6.3 I believe.

[RedshiftDougal]

Thank you for this objective video, Christopher! As a happy R7 owner who is currently being tempted by some interesting end-of-season offers, including for the RF 24-105mm f/4L, you've just saved me from spending on a less-than optimal lens for my situation. Keep up the great work!

[JuanCarlosRivasPerrettaOboe]

Interesting comparison! We always forget the advantage of use native APSC Lens on APSC cameras… very important !!

[_smprian_]

Chris it would also be cool to see how the Sigma 50-100 does on the R7 with its high resolution!

[tbgtom]

I had the 18-150 still sitting in the box all this time because I really just wanted the R7 body but could only get the kit. I didn't drag it out of the box until just now after watching this video because your tests looked pretty impressive. Holy cow... this little lens is actually pretty slick!

[Aariahjames]

I absolutely love my RF 24-70 on my R7. Hope for a review of this lens with this body one day.

[fonsopr]

Please keep the R7 content coming! I would love a video with the RF 100-500z

[alexeinosov]

Thank you for a great and helpful review! It would be even more helpful to see a comparison of the performance in lower light, more examples of DOF use, and a comparison of AF performance of the two lenses with R7.

I now have more than a year of experience using 18-150mm lens, first on R10 and now on R7 and I can tell that it performs poorly in low light conditions. It demands raising ISO pretty high, adding a lot of noise, losing color and sharpness in process. And I'm talking about 'golden hour' conditions here, not the dark of the night. Autofocus performs quite a bit worse in a low light as well, just more erratic overall. Finally, the bokeh on 18-150mm is just not great throughout its entire range of apertures and focal lengths. I often struggle to separate the background nicely even with wide open apertures and longer focal distances.

I've been looking at RF 24-105 f/4 L as an alternative for anything indoors, contrasty (e.g., shooting in deep, but patchy shadows on a sunny day), fast action, objects, and portraiture (for when I don't have RF 50mm f1.8 STM with me). Just to get a more versatile and slightly more professional setup out of my R7. I got it primarily because of IBIS and high linear resolution because I do a lot of sports and wildlife shooting for fun. But I also want to try and make the most out of my R7 for other photography genres, without carrying a ton of prime lenses. Unfortunately, there's just not much to choose from for an R7 owner at the moment in terms of standard zooms. EF-S lenses usually don't have image stabilization and require a converter, making the whole setup heavier and bulkier, and carrying lots of prime lenses is just not an option for let's say an occasional event photographer.

It also would be great to add Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS USM into such a comparison, just to see if that one is any sharper on R7 than RF 24-105 f/4 L. Although, I understand that most people who can buy a f/2.8 standard zoom won't be interested in using R7 for anything else but sports and wildlife.

[tom_k_d]

Thanks Christopher, I was waiting for this comparison, too. I'd still go with the L version for it's bokeh, weather sealing, nano USM focus motor and full frame compatibility. Or, other way round, if one possesses the 24-105 F4L, there seems little need for the APS-C lens. I welcome the 77mm filter thread, as it is shared by the RF70-200 2.8L, RF50 1.2L and EF85 1.4L.

[NobleEndeavours]

Another great review and timely for me because I've been considering the 24-105 L. I am surprised that you didn't compare it with the 24-105 kit lens that comes with the canon r6 mark ii. I have that as well and so far I am not that impressed with it especially when compared to the kit lens that came with the R7. I need to check your video list but if you haven't performed a comparison of the RF 100-400 versus the RF 100-500L you might want to consider it!

[mb-watches]

Thanks for this one Chris. Was thinking about getting that L lens. Will Safe that money as i already have the 18-150🙏🏻

[JaySilva]

In my opinion the constant f4 aperture is worth the money.
You also have a lens that will work when you upgrade to a full frame camera, contrary to the 18-150.
You could also get the EF version second hand and adapt it to RF and save allot of money buying RF new.

[jremi]

Oh man, you just saved me lots of money. I was looking to buy the L version of the 24-105 mm lens for my R7, but after watching this, why would I do that? Thanks a lot!

[christof]

Thank you for this video! I was considering buying the RF 24-105 F4 L as a "high quality always on" lens. But i think i´ll stick with the 18-150 kit lens for now or use my EF-S 17-55 F2.8 IS USM with the ef-rf adapter. I would love to see an updated RF version of this lens, which is a really awesome lens.

[barrycoleman]

Great video Chris! The 24-105L feels a bit strange on an APC-C camera anyway. I'd appreciate looking at some telephoto EF lenses on the R7. My experience is that the 100-400ii and 70-200 2.8ii are still very sharp on my R7, so your opinion would be interesting.

[victorbastos]

Hi Chris....please try the other FF kit lens with the R7....the variable aperture RF 24-105mm. Cheers!!

[tampatrainguy]

Great comparison. I'm a big fan of this channel, but I found it quite surprising that the max aperture of the 18-150 was continually shown and discussed in this video as being f4.5, when it is actually f3.5. f4.5 was even mentioned in the verbal comparison as a disadvantage of the 18-150 when in reality its f3.5 is slightly better than the f4 of the 24-105. An earlier comprehensive review of this lens on the same channel has the max aperture correct, so it's odd that it wouldn't be correct here. Is there another version of this lens out there that is an RF-S 18-150mm f4.5-6.3?

[mikeriley]

Dang, wish I'd seen this before I bought. I skipped the kit lens on my R7, and picked up a used EF 24-105 L off of craigslist. The cost was the same as if I'd gotten the kit, but looks like I didn't gain anything in terms of image quality but I did lose some portability with it. I will say though, the constant F4 is pretty nice for pictures of friends/family so it's not all negative. I sure wouldn't have minded the reduced bulk however.