RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 IS STM vs RF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM

[Mike]

I was looking at cameras today, and I came across a few bundled options for the R6 Mark II. There were two different lens options, with an $800 difference between the two!

Option 1: RF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM
Option 2: RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 IS STM

Option 1 was the more expensive one, costing a whopping $800 more ($1,100) than option 2, which was only $300. My question is, why? It looks to me that the option 2 lens will do the same things that option 1 will do, plus more, right? They have the same focal length range. One has an aperture of f/4, but the other will do f/4-7.1. So, as someone who doesn't know much, or anything, about photography, what makes option 1 so much more expensive than option 2? Is it the USM vs STM? Admittedly, I don't know what either one of those things mean.

 

[Jack Dawe]

I'm vague about this sort of thing too. The glass in the f/4L is probably going to be higher quality than the f/4-7.1. Someone will know. I think the difference in the apertures is that with the f/4-7.1 the minimum (widest) aperture you can get is f.4 at 24mm, but it rises as you zoom so that at 105mm it's f/7.1.

 

[Mike]

I'm vague about this sort of thing too. The glass in the f/4L is probably going to be higher quality than the f/4-7.1. Someone will know. I think the difference in the apertures is that with the f/4-7.1 the minimum (widest) aperture you can get is f.4 at 24mm, but it rises as you zoom so that at 105mm it's f/7.1.

Ahh, so you can't have f/4 through the entire focal length. That would make sense as to why there's such a huge price gap.

 

[inphoto]

I have the RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 IS STM, it's nice and sharp, close focusing, but big and heavy. In low light ISO goes up very easily, so I put on a larger aperture EF lens.

 

[Levina de Ruijter]

I have the RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 IS STM, it's nice and sharp, close focusing, but big and heavy. In low light ISO goes up very easily, so I put on a larger aperture EF lens.

I recently bought the RF 100L Macro. It too is big and heavy. Quite a bit more so than my old EF 100 Macro although that was the non-L version.

 

[inphoto]

Macro
@105mm

@24mm focused manually the minimum focus distance decreases and can go closer than with AF @24mm

@105mm MF

 

[Blackbird]

Macro
@105mm
View attachment 16100

@24mm focused manually the minimum focus distance decreases and can go closer than with AF @24mm
View attachment 16103

@105mm MFView attachment 16102

Nice. Seems to do a good job.