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

    By 74 Comments1 Min Read Canon Lens News
    canonrf24240 728x462 - 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

    Some of our articles may include affiliate links. If you purchase through these links, we may earn an affiliate commission at no extra cost to you.

    Go to discussion...

    Share.

    Related Posts

    74 comments

    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    6. Man I love reading the comments on DPReview. Possibly the most ignorant collection of photography enthusiasts on the internet.
      Not photography enthusiasts. Photographic equipment enthusiasts.
    7. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Two main points should be addressed by this DPR gallery.

      1. Canon is *******.
      2. The dynamic range of Canon lenses is so much worse than of Sonies. See point 1 for the rest of details.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. 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..
    18. 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.
    19. 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 ;)

    Leave a comment

    Please log in to your forum account to comment