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

koenkooi

EOS 7D MK II
Feb 25, 2015
437
262
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

EOS RP
Nov 2, 2016
360
161
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?
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,569
2,004
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sharlin

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,097
1,576
Canada
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

EOS 6D MK II
Feb 26, 2017
1,160
194
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.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,569
2,004
$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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: flip314

SecureGSM

EOS 6D MK II
Feb 26, 2017
1,160
194
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.
 
Last edited:

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D SR
Jan 28, 2015
3,757
1,315
Irving, Texas
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? :ROFLMAO: I won't post the link, but just go to YouTube and search for Bronies the Musical. It is a real subculture.
 
Last edited:

dcm

Good or bad - it's not the gear.
Apr 18, 2013
727
56
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

I post too Much on Here!!
Mar 25, 2011
15,423
675
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.
 
Jun 24, 2019
5
3
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

EOS 7D MK II
Feb 25, 2015
437
262
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

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,097
1,576
Canada
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Act444

Mikehit

EOS 5D MK IV
Jul 28, 2015
3,210
395
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.


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'.