Canon Looking at Superzooms Again?

[mimbu]

Every time this subject comes up, I'm reminded of the Olympus/OM Systems 12-100 f/4 lens.

I will absolutely take my Tamron 28-200/2.8-5.6 over this every single time. The new Tamron 25-200/2.8-5.6 (announced but not yet available) with their faster VXD motors promises to be a further improvement. Even the Sigma 20-200/3.5-6.3 is getting surprisingly good reviews. It will be really interesting to see how the Tamron 25-200 compares to the Sigma once both are available.

 

[LPSDOTCOM]

The RF 24-240mm got a bad rap right out of the gate. Even so, I'd put it above the EF 24-105mm mk II. The RF 24-240mm manages to have some impressive bokeh and pop that rivals a 70-200mm 2.8. The main downside of it is that it is slower to focus than an L lens and tends to miss a lot at 240mm. But, the stabilization is really good for photo and video. I used this lens at some weddings for video and thought it was basically a one stop shop for any wedding videographer. The video stabilization is really amazing on the R5. If I had to choose again I'd still pick it over the 24-105mm. Now I think the 24-105 is where Canon is missing the boat and they need to consider a 20-105 f4 or a 20-70 f4. Something with a little bit more wide angle is better than adding a few measely millimeteres to the long end.

 

[G650ER]

The RF 24-240mm got a bad rap right out of the gate. Even so, I'd put it above the EF 24-105mm mk II. The RF 24-240mm manages to have some impressive bokeh and pop that rivals a 70-200mm 2.8. The main downside of it is that it is slower to focus than an L lens and tends to miss a lot at 240mm. But, the stabilization is really good for photo and video. I used this lens at some weddings for video and thought it was basically a one stop shop for any wedding videographer. The video stabilization is really amazing on the R5. If I had to choose again I'd still pick it over the 24-105mm. Now I think the 24-105 is where Canon is missing the boat and they need to consider a 20-105 f4 or a 20-70 f4. Something with a little bit more wide angle is better than adding a few measely millimeteres to the long end.

Canon needs to make the RF 24-105 better. I'd be thrilled with a 20-100mm f/4L as it would truly complement the 14-35 and 100-500. I don't need 105mm on the end when I have the sharp 100-500.

 

[Any Name]

Constant aperture. I hate this crap.

Aperture-preference set to F8. There you go: constant aperture, even on a 3.5-5.6 lens

[Edit: hint to self for next time, read all reactions first, before suggesting the same approach again...]

 

[justaCanonuser]

Such an extreme zoom from wide angle to mid tele will always comes with massive optical compromises. Here is an old thorough lab review of the 28-300 by Klaus Schroff from photozone: https://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/426-canon_28300_3556is_5d

I guess that Canon today would certainly be able to improve such a zoom's optical quality, but still the result wouldn't be the sharpest, what is in particular with the high res cameras of today a downside. That said, to have such a rugged "all in one" RF lens, L quality, in harsh, dusty safari environments would be quite tempting for some wildlife photographers, that's for sure.

 

[justaCanonuser]

When I wrote of that experience on dpreview I was attacked by a few people who were calling the 24-240 a n "L-quality zoom without the L price"

If you write ANYTHING containing "Canon" on DPR you get attacked anyway

 

[AJ]

I have a 24-240 and shoot a lot with it (travel photography). Build is clearly consumer grade, not L. IS is very very good. AF is good too - I can track a skier coming towards me through trees quite easily.
IQ is fair at 24 mm. It's decently sharp in the middle but I don't particularly like the overall rendering. The corners are weak. This is not a serious landscaping lens.
At 35 mm is it quite sharp, and at 50-150 mm it is very sharp. Supposedly it outperforms the RF 24-105/4 L at 105 mm, but I haven't done that comparison myself.
I am also happy with the image quality and rendering at 240 mm. It's not in the same league as a 70-200, but it is quite good. At this focal length it responds well to a bit of sharpening.
240 mm also allows close focus. At the very closest focusing distances I don't like the rendering, but when I back off a bit the performance is very good.
Overall, there are compromises. But this lens is a joy to shoot and allows for capturing fleeting moments that are gone when you putz around with primes.

 

[roby17269]

If you write ANYTHING containing "Canon" on DPR you get attacked anyway

Not really true... and I was in the Canon RF forum for that thread

 

[P-visie]

Such an extreme zoom from wide angle to mid tele will always comes with massive optical compromises.

The first “compromise” is already in the patent application: at the wide end, the image circle (20.40 mm) does not cover a full frame sensor (21.64 mm). This implies digital “streching” to fill the corners. For some forum users this is unacceptable .

 

[EverydayPhotographer]

It's not popular to speak well of the 24-240, but I really think it's a good lens for what it is. Optically, it's generally pretty good across the board, it doesn't weigh an absolute ton, and it's a decent single-carry option for travel and the like. Plus it is faster than the 24-105 and 24-50 stm lenses. I've tested the lens once, and am strongly considering buying one. That being said, a 24-300 or (even better) 24-400 would definitely catch my attention. I imagine it would weigh a fair bit more than the 24-240 (which isn't petite when compared to the likes of the 24-105 or 24-50 lenses, but isn't a brick either) and it's a bit longer as well. But I could see myself leaving the house to go on a trip with only that lens. So color me interested.

 

[roby17269]

I think the 24-240 is great for a superzoom. Modern superzooms are, in general, significantly better than superzooms in the DSLR era.
I found size, weight and build quality to be all great.
But it still is a superzoom and it has a few compromises. After using it for a while, I decided that those compromises were not something I was happy to accept and got rid of it (not a fan of keeping around lenses if I do not use them).

I do not mind at all people speaking well of the 24-240, as long as they do not mind me speaking ill of it

I still miss its convenience, which I think is its strongest plus.
A 24-400 would be interesting but I'd have to assume that it would incur in even steeper optical compromises, not to mention the increase in size and weight

 

[AJ]

It's not popular to speak well of the 24-240, but I really think it's a good lens for what it is. Optically, it's generally pretty good across the board, it doesn't weigh an absolute ton, and it's a decent single-carry option for travel and the like. Plus it is faster than the 24-105 and 24-50 stm lenses. I've tested the lens once, and am strongly considering buying one. That being said, a 24-300 or (even better) 24-400 would definitely catch my attention. I imagine it would weigh a fair bit more than the 24-240 (which isn't petite when compared to the likes of the 24-105 or 24-50 lenses, but isn't a brick either) and it's a bit longer as well. But I could see myself leaving the house to go on a trip with only that lens. So color me interested.

I hear you, but I'd be interested in more range at the short end rather than the long end, to make it more of an all-rounder. Sigma's new 20-200 3.5/6.3 looks interesting, especially since it weighs only 550 grams. But there is no IS and it comes in E and L mount only. If Canon could pull off a capable 20-200, methinks it would sell well.

 

[justaCanonuser]

The first “compromise” is already in the patent application: at the wide end, the image circle (20.40 mm) does not cover a full frame sensor (21.64 mm). This implies digital “streching” to fill the corners. For some forum users this is unacceptable .

Well, we live in a digital world what means that lenses that no one would have bought back in the film days can be massively digitally corrected right in the camera. That mustn't be a bad thing, since it opens up the path to more compact and lighter lens designs. When we use our smartphones for photos and videos, we rely on a heavy implementation of algorithms anyway, because the tiny cameras in smartphones come with a lot of drawbacks and would create awful images w/o any heavy sided processing.

 

[justaCanonuser]

Not really true... and I was in the Canon RF forum for that thread

Ah, so that changed. I said good-bye to DPR some years ago, still in the EF era, because at that time it was unbearable for Canon users like me who just wanted to discuss new tech and exchange their real world experience with their own gear. At that time DPR was mainly a playground for Sony trolls.

 

[justaCanonuser]

I do not mind at all people speaking well of the 24-240, as long as they do not mind me speaking ill of it

That's the freedom of speech here, and I am grateful to CR that this is possible. Have always good light

 

[roby17269]

That's the freedom of speech here, and I am grateful to CR that this is possible. Have always good light

That's an awesome salute!

 

[roby17269]

Ah, so that changed. I said good-bye to DPR some years ago, still in the EF era, because at that time it was unbearable for Canon users like me who just wanted to discuss new tech and exchange their real world experience with their own gear. At that time DPR was mainly a playground for Sony trolls.

I agree that when Sony sensors were more advanced than Canon's, dpreview seemed to have a bias towards Sony that went beyond the pure tech specs. But they feel much more balanced to me now, especially since the R5/6.
I am sad that the near death experience of dpreview has affected their fora a lot (much less traffic)

 

[justaCanonuser]

I am sad that the near death experience of dpreview has affected their fora a lot (much less traffic)

I liked DPR very much in particular in the years before about 2010, because back then it was really important to check lab tests to get a decent camera (for stills). The know-it-alls were kept in check in the Nikon zone, so the Canon forums were great for a friendly exchange about tech issues. With Sony's A ML cameras it became more and more too time consuming to flick through Canon threads and find the posts worth reading.

But I was sorry, too, wenn DPR struggled, and happy to see them recover, since they are the original source of deep lab reviews. I sometimes visit them, too.

Personally, since digital camera tech basically is quite mature since a couple of years I prefer to check real world reviews, text and videos. For wildlife e.g. I like to watch Duade Patons videos that combine information about birds living in his area in Australia with real life insights in the performance of the reviewed gear, e.g. AF performance. That's for me much more informative than Lab tests of e.g. sensors nowadays. But that's my personal approach...

 

[roby17269]

I liked DPR very much in particular in the years before about 2010, because back then it was really important to check lab tests to get a decent camera (for stills). The know-it-alls were kept in check in the Nikon zone, so the Canon forums were great for a friendly exchange about tech issues. With Sony's A ML cameras it became more and more too time consuming to flick through Canon threads and find the posts worth reading.

For a long time DPR was my only photography site. I think every single one of their fora had good and bad people - I remember seeing spats even in the medium format one (which was generally less confrontational than other sections). There were fanbois in the Canon fora as well

But I was sorry, too, wenn DPR struggled, and happy to see them recover, since they are the original source of deep lab reviews. I sometimes visit them, too.

yes the whole debacle could have been handled much better. I blame Amazon

Personally, since digital camera tech basically is quite mature since a couple of years I prefer to check real world reviews, text and videos. For wildlife e.g. I like to watch Duade Patons videos that combine information about birds living in his area in Australia with real life insights in the performance of the reviewed gear, e.g. AF performance. That's for me much more informative than Lab tests of e.g. sensors nowadays. But that's my personal approach...

DPR reviews have declined in quality and there is no one that does them any better now.
Everyone chooses the reviewers they trust. I think a lot of reviewers out there are biased one way or the other. I typically make up my mind on buying something based on specs and desire

 

[justaCanonuser]

DPR reviews have declined in quality and there is no one that does them any better now.
Everyone chooses the reviewers they trust. I think a lot of reviewers out there are biased one way or the other. I typically make up my mind on buying something based on specs and desire

That's right, I am with you, since everyone has different approaches and interests in photography. Personally, when I want to read a thorough and long review, I still prefer Bryan Carnathan's old site the-digital-picture.com, his photo site was amongst of the first ones to cover real world reviews. Many years ago I had a bit communication exchange with him about a then new Canon lens I had problems with, and I experienced him to be a very nice and helpful guy. I do value his work until today. Another valuable source of information is the Lensrentals blog, in particular their statistics about lens repairs etc., that helps if one needs rugged quality gear like me.

Besides wildlife, I still like and sometimes follow the videos of Chris Niccols and Jordan Drake, now with Petapixel. As hosts with DPR and Amazon in the background they didn't seem to enjoy their presentations like before with The Camera Store TV, in particular I missed their funny Xmas shows (the looked stiff and cold). With Petapixel they revived that annual fun. I also had a lot of fun with Kai Wong and his nerdy companion Lok Cheung, but that's over since now about ten years. Afterwards, when they split and Kai W. went to UK, I lost more and more interest... I think it was their special show relationship as antagonists that made these presentations so entertaining.