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

[koenkooi]

If the motivations of those showing the capabilities of the lens needs to be considered, it would have been a lot better if they had taken the time to explain those motivations.

From a purely procedural standpoint I find it awkward that cameras and lenses with the option to disable lens corrections get penalized over the ones where you cannot disable them.
For the cameras that do have that option it would be nice to show SOOC jpegs with and without corrections for a similar scene.

 

[melgross]

Thanks for the note. Goes to demonstrate that law of physics hard to defeat. Hence I shoot with 24-70 +70-200 combo instead.
However, I dare to say: I dislike what I see and found some of the images to be revolting in terms of rendition, micro contrast and overall saturation.
Travelling? 24-105/4 would cover me in 90% of all my cases.
Alternative: 24-70/4 + 70-200/4
Yes, a bit more expensive. Around AUD 2000 for a kit used or refurb.

Again, this is a 10:1 zoom for $900. Revolting? Seriously?

 

[Loswr]

If the motivations of those showing the capabilities of the lens needs to be considered, it would have been a lot better if they had taken the time to explain those motivations.

I suspect the motivation in this case was to take a bunch of pictures of various subjects in a limited amount of time.

I’m personally interested in the lens, but I’m reserving judgement until more thorough evaluations are available.

 

[Don Haines]

I suspect the motivation in this case was to take a bunch of pictures of various subjects in a limited amount of time.

I’m personally interested in the lens, but I’m reserving judgement until more thorough evaluations are available.

I agree! Take this lens and an RP and there is nothing that comes close in the bang-for-the-buck! As to quality, I am sure that it will beat the 18-200 crop lens, but how much? I will be very curious to see some of the images on this site after the lens is released.

 

[SecureGSM]

Again, this is a 10:1 zoom for $900. Revolting? Seriously?

It does, to my eyes. 10:1 or not. Sorry.

$450 will buy you a refurb or slightly used 24-70 f4 with extra $450 left in your pocket towards 70-200/4 lens refurb or slightly used currently available brand new at around $500 brand new.

 

[Loswr]

$450 will buy you a refurb or slightly used 24-70 f4 with extra $450 left in your pocket towards 70-200/4 lens refurb or slightly used currently available brand new at around $500 brand new.

That’s twice the weight and twice the bulk, and lots of lens changes. I suspect the target market for this lens is choosing portability and convenience over optimal IQ. That is the motivation for my interest, at least.

On my last trip, juggling the 24-105/4, 70-300L and three kids on an island beach was a PITA. The 24-240 would have been ideal.

For photography-based travel (or solo business travel where photography is an option), even if I end up getting the 24-240, I’d likely still take the RF 24–105, along with the TS-E 17 and possibly the 11-24L.

 

[SecureGSM]

That’s twice the weight and twice the bulk, and lots of lens changes. I suspect the target market for this lens is choosing portability and convenience over optimal IQ. That is the motivation for my interest, at least.

On my last trip, juggling the 24-105/4, 70-300L and three kids on an island beach was a PITA. The 24-240 would have been ideal.

For photography-based travel (or solo business travel where photography is an option), even if I end up getting the 24-240, I’d likely still take the RF 24–105, along with the TS-E 17 and possibly the 11-24L.

I would just go with a M5/6 or MkII when available. at all. plus 15-45 EF-m lens or even 15-85 EF-S adapted or 18-135 of the same. That’s for beach. 24-240 seems to be to much of a compromise. 24-150-ish would of been a nice range to have with hopefully a bit better optical quality offered.
I am personally extremely interested in m5/6 II with 15-45 plus 70-200/4 as a kit.
Potentially Sigma 18-35/1.8 + 50-100/1.8 when that becomes available on EF-m or even adapted immediately. Really really keen to understand how is that going to work out for natural and flashlight photography.

 

[Ozarker]

Two main points should be addressed by this DPR gallery.

1. Canon is doomed.
2. The dynamic range of Canon lenses is so much worse than of Sonies. See point 1 for the rest of details.

OMG! Sonies vs Bronies... are they the same species? I won't post the link, but just go to YouTube and search for Bronies the Musical. It is a real subculture.

 

[Ozarker]

Yes, 24-105/4. What’s your point anyway?

Yup! It isn't a superzoom, but is a fine lens. Got one with my R, but sold it two weeks later to help get a prime. Good lens.

 

[dcm]

I would just go with a M5/6 or MkII when available. at all. plus 15-45 EF-m lens or even 15-85 EF-S adapted or 18-135 of the same. That’s for beach. 24-240 seems to be to much of a compromise. 24-150-ish would of been a nice range to have with hopefully a bit better optical quality offered.
I am personally extremely interested in m5/6 II with 15-45 plus 70-200/4 as a kit.
Potentially Sigma 18-35/1.8 + 50-100/1.8 when that becomes available on EF-m or even adapted immediately. Really really keen to understand how is that going to work out for natural and flashlight photography.

I think the real question for me is M?/18-150 n(29-240 equiv) or R?/24-240 for a general purpose one lens setup? I already have the M setup, along with the 11-22 when I want to go wide, a 70-300 when I want to go long, and primes for low light and macro. Also have 1DX2 with zooms from 11-400 and some primes when I am a bit more serious about what I'm doing and don't mind the weight/bulk.

Still, like Neuro, there are some situations where an R? might be interesting fit between the others. I'll be upgrading an M body and adding an R body before too long. I'm fortunate that I can afford to do both. I also can wait till the next M and R releases to see what makes the best fit. Looks like there are going to be plenty of options.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

That’s twice the weight and twice the bulk, and lots of lens changes. I suspect the target market for this lens is choosing portability and convenience over optimal IQ. That is the motivation for my interest, at least.

On my last trip, juggling the 24-105/4, 70-300L and three kids on an island beach was a PITA. The 24-240 would have been ideal.

For photography-based travel (or solo business travel where photography is an option), even if I end up getting the 24-240, I’d likely still take the RF 24–105, along with the TS-E 17 and possibly the 11-24L.

Exactly, a one lens solution for many applications. A wide and fast lens is still nice to have while traveling, but for most vacation type users, it may be a good choice.

I'm expecting to get one, just waiting to see what respected photographers think. I see a 10% discount already thru the employee discount store. That is about the same as the B&H price after they rebate the sales tax when you use their credit card.

 

[geffy]

disappointing, i will continue with my 35 to 350 or m series 18 150 as a one stop for now, hopefully a better body will come with a super zoom lens as the technology is already there, 35 lenses is quite a collection and mood often accompanies suitability with choice, the future is zooms with a couple of fixed, already the 100 to 400 is a one stop for the physically fit, wheres the granddad lens, in grandma canon?

 

[koenkooi]

DPP 40.10.50 (The Canon Hong Kong site has it) supports DLO for the RF24-240, it shows a moderate improvement e.g. the hairs on the dragonfly in the DPReview gallery look sharper. The BBQ inspector and two-people-walking shots are now free of CA as well.
Reports on the DPReview forum mention heavy focus breathing, at close focus distance the 240mm has the same field of few as the EF70-200. Further away the FoV does seem narrower.

I'm still undecided if I want to get this vs the EF70-200F4L IS II.

 

[Don Haines]

I think the real question for me is M?/18-150 n(29-240 equiv) or R?/24-240 for a general purpose one lens setup? I already have the M setup, along with the 11-22 when I want to go wide, a 70-300 when I want to go long, and primes for low light and macro. Also have 1DX2 with zooms from 11-400 and some primes when I am a bit more serious about what I'm doing and don't mind the weight/bulk.

Still, like Neuro, there are some situations where an R? might be interesting fit between the others. I'll be upgrading an M body and adding an R body before too long. I'm fortunate that I can afford to do both. I also can wait till the next M and R releases to see what makes the best fit. Looks like there are going to be plenty of options.

I think that for me it’s going to be the M6/18-150 as the one lens setup. It is small enough to use almost anywhere and even fits the “snack hatch” in my touring kayak.

 

[Mikehit]

That’s twice the weight and twice the bulk, and lots of lens changes. I suspect the target market for this lens is choosing portability and convenience over optimal IQ. That is the motivation for my interest, at least.

On my last trip, juggling the 24-105/4, 70-300L and three kids on an island beach was a PITA. The 24-240 would have been ideal.

For photography-based travel (or solo business travel where photography is an option), even if I end up getting the 24-240, I’d likely still take the RF 24–105, along with the TS-E 17 and possibly the 11-24L.

This professional seems happy with the compromises.

Testing the New Canon RF 24-240mm Over Three Weeks in Pakistan

I can't even begin to describe how excited I was about trying out the new Canon RF 24-240mm f/4-6.3 IS. Full disclosure: I’m a Canon Ambassador and two

petapixel.com

In my opinion, this lens would be a reason to consider switching to the Canon mirrorless system.

Sometimes I think people look for deficiencies purely because they can and because they know it is a new lens. If we did not know it was a new 24-240, I suspect many people would not be so critical and instead take it as face value and think 'nice shot'.

 

[jeffa4444]

So glad I didn't read these reviews and simply bought the RF 24-240mm. I shot over 200 shots with it at Stowe Gardens last weekend and I have to say I was very pleased with the results used with my EOS R. Sure you have to keep in mind its a £ 899.00 lens and being a 10-1 will always be a bit of a compromise. But as a single walk around lens that doesn't break your back carrying it all afternoon its ideal and will definitely be my vacation package.

 

[BbBbBbBbBb]

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.

 

[Bennymiata]

I also just bought the lens a couple of days ago, together with an R as there are really good promo pricing going on in Sydney.
I've got an EF24-105 and the 28-70 is very appealing to me, except the price, so I thought I'd get the 24-240 as a walk around lens.
I wasn't expecting too much from it, but it really surprises me with its colour and contrast. The images are very similar to my 24-105L and the focus hit rate of this lens compared to my 24-105 on my 5D3 is definitely better.
There is a lot of mechanical vignetting in the 24mm-32mm range, but only in the RAW images and not the jpegs.

Here's some examples. The top shot is from the original RAW and the other one is the jpeg off the card.



Here's a flower I shot today with the 24-240.
Not bad for a walk-around lens.

 

[flip314]

There is a lot of mechanical vignetting in the 24mm-32mm range, but only in the RAW images and not the jpegs.

Wow, usually when people complain about vignetting they're overexaggerating, but you're not kidding... Those corners look BLACK without the correction.

 

[Kit.]

Wow, usually when people complain about vignetting they're overexaggerating, but you're not kidding... Those corners look BLACK without the correction.

They are black. The lens is wider than 24, and 24 is obtained by distortion correction, which involves cropping.