I have had the RF 24-240 for a few weeks now. It’s a good lens. I enjoy it. Here are the pros and cons:
Pros:
1. Long range with consistent sharp shots.
2. Quick and quiet auto focus.
3. Build quality. It may not be an L series lens, but it has a nice tight barrel. It maybe a lot of plastic, but it doesn’t feel cheap. It’s pretty light. Good for the back when traveling.
4. 5 stop Image Stabilization is incredible. I tested it out by going on a ride similar to Dumbo at Disneyland with my kid and seeing if I could get shots of my wife eating while my daughter bounced me up and down. While the shots weren’t perfect, they were still somewhat in focus. It’s far more forgiving than any of my prior lenses. Works great with video. Nearly every shot is in focus hand held. If it’s not it’s usually user error. Can’t say that about any of my other lenses.
5. Between 35-200 I can get shots that really captures the clarity and sharpness I look for in most shots. 200-240 can create some decent portraits while losing the background. In terms of sharpness I would put it far ahead of non L zoom lenses, but behind some of the shorter focal L series zooms. The EF 50mm F/1.8 is a perfect companion to bring along as a two lens travel pack.
Cons:
1. Heavy vignetting at 24-30. They have profile corrections for the lens, but distortion corrections can make photos look a bit flat if it’s not a minor adjustment. Some might not mind, but I keep my lens at 35 and above when possible.
2. It’s not the RF 24-70 2.8 IS or the RF 70-200 2.8 IS. It takes great shots, but sometimes it’s missing that special factor that makes you drool. This is why a good prime lens needs to be in the bag. Every once in a while you need to just take a jaw dropping shot and this lens will get you a really good gourmet pizza instead of the steak you were looking for.
3. Slow. 4.0 on the low end that quickly goes to 5.0 and eventually over 6.0 by about 180. It’s a different kind of lens than most. If you are looking for consistent shots it might be best to stick the aperture at 5.5 and above. The EOS R frame can do well up to 12800 with noise levels with this lens, but it is strangely dark. It captures a lot of detail with noise corrections take off the frame, but photo editing software is a must unless you stick with JPEGs and turn on all the corrections. A unique lens to be sure.
4. This should have been a 35-240 lens. The 240 end doesn’t bother me at all. It’s great for scoping out my kid from across the play yard or catching a family member in a moment without being noticed. It keeps pretty good clarity at that end as well. The wide side is a fish eye being stretched. It is easily adjusted in Lightroom, but then you get all the issues of distortion corrections.
Final thoughts: I compared the lens against EF-s lenses such as the 17-55 2.8, 10-18, and EF lenses such as the EF 50mm 1.8 EF 24-70mm L II and the 100mm L IS. Also compared it with the RF 24-105. The 100 mm by far had the best shots and it wasn’t close. The 24-70 was sharper to a lesser degree. Has the it factor missing from the 24-240. The 50 mm still surprises me with how sharp it is. Required companion for 24-240. EF-s lenses just looked like they didn’t belong in the same group. Selling them the first chance I get. The RF 24-105 is more consistent in its range. Brighter and faster, but also shorter range. I didn’t see a significant difference between the two lenses from about 35-105 in sharpness. The 24-105 was slightly sharper, but it’s not in an overtly obvious way. I bought the lens for 400 as part of a package with the EOS R and at that price I got more value than what I paid. At 900 it becomes a value trade off between the RF 24-105. If you need range 24-240 is great. If you want weather sealing, more speed, and and a more consistent aperture the 24-105 is the better deal.