Canon Lens News

Canon RF 24-240mm f/4-6.3 IS USM sample gallery

DPReview has posted a sample gallery of images from the upcoming RF 24-240mm f/4-6.3 IS USM, a lens that will likely be quite popular with EOS R shooters.

The sample gallery over at DPReview shows this new superzoom is quite capable and should become a favourite amongst travel shooters and folks that want one affordable lens to do it all. Check out the images at DPReview.

Preorder the Canon RF 24-240mm f/4-6.3 IS USM at Adorama

Mt Spokane Photography

I post too Much on Here!!
Mar 25, 2011
15,421
674
The first thing that caught my eye was how uncomfortable the out of focus areas were. They grabbed my attention more than the areas that were sharply in focus. This is a lens that requires you to be careful with compositions and not allow foreground or background out of focus objects to dominate.

I have, like many other R users been waiting to see exactly what the lens can do. A 10:1 zoom is definitely a compromise, I've had the two "L" 10:1 zooms and was generally pleased with the image quality including out of focus areas. Those lenses were huge and expensive, so I wondered what I'd get for a popularly priced lens.

Right now, my 24-70 L II has been on my camera almost permanently. It is very good, but seems to lack something compared to using it with my 5D MK IV.
 

Jethro

EOS R
Jul 14, 2018
206
92
The first two picture are interesting: the first one does have a harsh (out of focus) background, although the close up (out of focus) background in the second I personally would be happy with. I'm not really in the market for it, but I think I'd be a bit equivocal if I was.
 
Jul 12, 2013
238
69
The first thing that caught my eye was how uncomfortable the out of focus areas were. They grabbed my attention more than the areas that were sharply in focus. This is a lens that requires you to be careful with compositions and not allow foreground or background out of focus objects to dominate.

I have, like many other R users been waiting to see exactly what the lens can do. A 10:1 zoom is definitely a compromise, I've had the two "L" 10:1 zooms and was generally pleased with the image quality including out of focus areas. Those lenses were huge and expensive, so I wondered what I'd get for a popularly priced lens.

Right now, my 24-70 L II has been on my camera almost permanently. It is very good, but seems to lack something compared to using it with my 5D MK IV.
no snark intended: Can you elaborate a bit on "Right now, my 24-70 L II has been on my camera almost permanently. It is very good, but seems to lack something compared to using it with my 5D MK IV."

Thanks.
 

Kit.

EOS 6D MK II
Apr 25, 2011
1,151
564
The first thing that caught my eye was how uncomfortable the out of focus areas were. They grabbed my attention more than the areas that were sharply in focus.
Not enough cats in focus.

Bokeh is ugly, but many pictures seem to be a bit overexposed.
 

unfocused

EOS 5D SR
Jul 20, 2010
4,887
1,163
65
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
Perhaps the motivations of those showing the capabilities of the lens should be considered.
Your bias is showing. I wouldn't read too much into this. "We need to fill a sample gallery with a bunch of shots using this lens, let's hit the usual spots and subjects: musicians, street portraits, water, scenery, etc." Probably shot them all in an afternoon focusing on whatever caught their attention. Not great photography, but also representative of the types of subjects and skill set of the target audience.

Frankly, all these sample galleries tend to be useless.
 

bitcars

5D mark II
Apr 24, 2019
12
19
I can see the lens being quite versatile, with useful telephoto/wide angle in a pinch. Paired with a RP, it could easily outperform IQ of anything at this price range.

Chromatic aberration seems pretty good overall from 40mm - 180mm. To me the pictures within 50mm - 150mm look the best. Very little color fringing, sharp from edge to edge, and a lot of details.

However, on both the widest (24-32mm) and narrowest (200-240mm) ends, CA becomes pretty noticeable, especially towards the edges of the lens. Sometimes the fringing green/magenta lines are wide enough to see without zoom in. I think this may be the biggest issue of this super zoom lens.

In-body processing seems to remove quite a bit of the color fringing (at least for some pictures at 24mm), though it is not perfect.

I know someone will complaint about the bokeh quality. Surely it isn't as buttery as a RF 80mm at 1.2, but most of these pictures are shot at F5 and higher anyway, at such aperture who would expect the background to melt away? With that said, subject separation looks very natural to me. e.g. The dragonfly picture (shot at 240mm) looks quite pleasant at a glance. The issue is when you zoom in, the color fringing is eating away the micro details.
 
Last edited:

ozturert

EOS T7i
Jan 16, 2019
91
74
Pictures at 240mm f6.3 look horrible in the gallery but I downloaded RAW files of some of those and processesed in ACR, now they look A LOT better than OOC Jpegs. I mean, a lot. The latest ACR also has a profile for the 24-240mm.
 
Last edited:

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,092
1,571
Canada
Perhaps the motivations of those showing the capabilities of the lens should be considered.
It looks like they only had the lens for a very short time and rushed around to get the pictures. Shooting action through a chain link fence says more about the photographer (and venue restrictions) than it does about the lens. You can take bad images with the finest equipment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YuengLinger

Kit.

EOS 6D MK II
Apr 25, 2011
1,151
564
I know someone will complaint about the bokeh quality. Surely it isn't as buttery as a RF 80mm at 1.2, but most of these pictures are shot at F5 and higher anyway, at such aperture who would expect the background to melt away?
The problem is that the bokeh balls have a noticeable unpleasant structure.

The dragonfly picture (shot at 240mm) looks quite pleasant at a glance.
One of the many pictures that look overexposed.
 

navastronia

5D Classic
Aug 31, 2018
148
174
Bokeh is unremarkable, but definitely not horrible or even worth mentioning, IMO.

Images appear less sharp and CA becomes overwhelming around 150mm or so.

Overall, this seems like a perfect kit lens.
 

SecureGSM

EOS 6D MK II
Feb 26, 2017
1,155
189
Bokeh is unremarkable, but definitely not horrible or even worth mentioning, IMO.

Images appear less sharp and CA becomes overwhelming around 150mm or so.

Overall, this seems like a perfect kit lens.
for a $900.00 lens? uhm, I am going to catch some serious flames over this, but I am thoroughly unimpressed. this is a kit lens? Yes. A perfect one? Hell, no..
 

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,092
1,571
Canada
for a $900.00 lens? uhm, I am going to catch some serious flames over this, but I am thoroughly unimpressed. this is a kit lens? Yes. A perfect one? Hell, no..
I would not take this as a good example of the capabilities of the lens. It looks like things were rushed and processing may not have been optimal. Wait till the lens makes it out into the real world and you start seeing sample images on this (and other) forums. I have seen better images taken with crop cameras and the 18-200, a lens that nobody has described as stellar...… I can't imagine this combo not being better.
 

navastronia

5D Classic
Aug 31, 2018
148
174
I would not take this as a good example of the capabilities of the lens. It looks like things were rushed and processing may not have been optimal. Wait till the lens makes it out into the real world and you start seeing sample images on this (and other) forums. I have seen better images taken with crop cameras and the 18-200, a lens that nobody has described as stellar...… I can't imagine this combo not being better.
Your bias is showing. I wouldn't read too much into this. "We need to fill a sample gallery with a bunch of shots using this lens, let's hit the usual spots and subjects: musicians, street portraits, water, scenery, etc." Probably shot them all in an afternoon focusing on whatever caught their attention. Not great photography, but also representative of the types of subjects and skill set of the target audience.

Frankly, all these sample galleries tend to be useless.
The whole point of DPReview's galleries is that they're amateurish; the photos are never great, and certainly show off the equipment more than any photographer's abilities. The majority of the time, an experienced shooter will make better images than those found on DPR ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mark D5 TEAM II