RF 24-240mm f/4-6.3 IS USM

[Quirkz]

Since no one else has done it, I thought I'd start the underrated rf24-240 lens gallery.

It's not as good as I'd hoped, but much better than I'd expected (and better than a superzoom that's under $1k US has any right to be.)






EOS R, RF 24-240 f/4-6.3 IS USM @ 240mm, 1/400s, f9, ISO 100




EOS R, RF 24-240 f/4-6.3 IS USM @ 55mm, 1/800s, f10, ISO 100



EOS R, RF 24-240 f/4-6.3 IS USM @ 240mm, 1/320s, f10, ISO 500



EOS R, RF 24-240 f/4-6.3 IS USM @ 240mm, 1/320s, f10, ISO 125

Since this is an internet forum about cameras, the obligatory cat pic. The versatility of the 24-240 means you don't have to switch lenses to get in close and capture the cat in the middle of deciding whether to finish climbing, or to jump down on what he just spotted.





EOS R, RF 24-240 f/4-6.3 IS USM @ 240mm, 1/250s, f9, ISO 400

Lets get in close to some bees!



EOS R, RF 24-240 f/4-6.3 IS USM @ 240mm, 1/400s, f6.3, ISO 400





EOS R, RF 24-240 f/4-6.3 IS USM @ 40mm, 1/200s, f4.5, ISO 100




EOS R, RF 24-240 f/4-6.3 IS USM @ 240mm, 1/320s, f6.3, ISO 400

These last two images demonstrate what is truely great about this lens: They're the same picture, captured from the same place. One is at 40mm, the other at 240. Look right at the centre of the first of these two images, and you can see the same texture to the clouds. And the first is only 40mm, not even the full 24mm at the wide end. 24-240 means you can zoom in from 100% of the scene in to a small section that is only 1% of the size of the original. The quality is pretty good considering the versatility.

 

[Quirkz]

And a few more!



EOS R, RF 24-240 f/4-6.3 IS USM @ 240mm, 1/240, f6.3, ISO 2500

Not great, but acceptable close focus means I was able to get a reasonable zoom in to these bees while not getting TOO close...




EOS R, RF 24-240 f/4-6.3 IS USM @ 240mm, 1/320s, f6.3, ISO 100

A opportunity shot of these black oystercatchers while wandering around. I only had one lens with me. If it had been the 24-205, I'd not have been able to grab this.




EOS R, RF 24-240 f/4-6.3 IS USM @ 240mm, 1/250s, f7.1, ISO 100



EOS R, RF 24-240 f/4-6.3 IS USM @ 240mm, 1/100s, f6.3, ISO 2000

This last shot was from a recent trip to Alpha Centauri.


Overall, the lens is pretty good, given what it is.
You DO need to enable the optical corrections, it significantly reduces aberrations and improves sharpness.
The online whining about the wide angle 'vignette' is overrated. You lose some resolution on the corners once the distortion correction is enabled, but it's still better than a lot of other lenses, and for most stuff, you won't notice.

As a 1 lens solution, if you only have space in your bag for a small body and single lens, and know you'll want a telephoto on occasion, this is pretty fantastic.

On my next trip where I'm travelling light, it's going to be a struggle to decide whether to bring this vs the 24-105 (which I truely love, I think has a better rendering, but you lose that 240 reach)

 

[Don Haines]

Nice shots.

i agree with you, if you are in the situation where you are limited as to how much gear you can take along with you, a lens like that becomes golden! You don’t see a lot of people on multi day backpacking trips with an array of prime lenses

 

[Czardoom]

Unfortunately for Canon - and possible buyers of this lens - the lens was slammed in so many initial reviews by reviewers who apparently had never seen a mirrorless lens that had automatic in-lens corrections. These reviewers (in some cases ignorant, in other cases the usual Canon bashing gear-head crowd) made sure their reviews appeared everywhere talking about uncorrected images that didn't fit the frame at 24mm and the huge amount of distortion. Hopefully, word will get out in threads like his one to help calm the hysteria and demonstrate that the lens is in all likelihood the best lens of this type with this extreme focal range.

Granted, a lens that relied on in-lens correction was new for Canon, but those familiar with mirrorless lenses have seen numerous examples of this type of lens from Sony, Olympus and probably every other mirrorless ILC brand. As mentioned, it has very good IQ for a lens with this range. If your not a pixel peeper, then you won't notice too much difference between this and the 24-105 (yes, some difference, but not as much as I expected).

 

[HeavyPiper]

Looks like this could be a fun vacation lens. I understand Ligthroom is needed and that's not a problem.

 

[Quirkz]

Looks like this could be a fun vacation lens. I understand Ligthroom is needed and that's not a problem.

It’s a lot of fun, and no lens switching makes it pretty low stress. I noticed that most of my favorite shots were at the long end. Photos I’d not have been able to take if I had my 25-105. Though if I had the 50 1.2 with me, I imagine I’d have been looking for different types of shot, so who knows what I missed because I could be careless about where I stood?

 

[Quirkz]

Unfortunately for Canon - and possible buyers of this lens - the lens was slammed in so many initial reviews by reviewers who apparently had never seen a mirrorless lens that had automatic in-lens corrections.

The odd thing was is that many 0f those reviewers should have known better. Or maybe they did, but just wanted to bash it for the clicks.

 

[koenkooi]

Looks like this could be a fun vacation lens. I understand Ligthroom is needed and that's not a problem.

A recent Lightroom or Canon DPP.

 

[Bert63]

1 - I enjoyed the shots. Man I wish I had seen those Oystercatchers (sad that they both only have one leg) and the sunsets were sweet.

2 - It's mentioned that you need Lightroom - excuse my ignorance, but why is Lightroom a necessity?

3 - While not likely a lens I would ever cherish for myself it looks like it does a good job without really pixel peeping to find something to complain about.

 

[Quirkz]

2 - It's mentioned that you need Lightroom - excuse my ignorance, but why is Lightroom a necessity?

The lens does something that has become common on a few manufacturers, but is a first for a canon interchangeable lens: It *relies* on optical distortion and software correction.

At the wide end, it's actually closer to 22mm, rather than 24, with high distortion. Because it's 22mm, it catches a bit of the lens barrel in the corners, making them black. It's designed to use the optical corrections of modern software to stretch out the edges, effectively cropping it down to a 24mm lens. Center sharpness is still excellent, as it's untouched. The edges suffer for it.

It's not as bad as you think, though. When I compare the edges to my old 28-300L; I think the edges are on par, and perhaps even better. (the edges at 28 on that old L superzoom were pretty poor.)

There's also a reasonable amount of chromatic aberration at various focal points that reduces sharpness - but again the software correction almost eliminates it; and causes a significantly improved image.

Basically, this lens was *designed* with optical corrections in mind, and it's the type of lens you can't create on a DSLR - because in the OVF, you'd see the clipped edges and wrong focal length when shooting at 22mm. With the EVF of a mirrorless, the camera will perform these adjustments on the fly prior to displaying in the viewfinder, so you never even know it's happening.

Sony has been doing it for a while with some of their lenses; and it's how canon could get a 10x zoom with quite reasonable quality in to such a small and light form factor. ( half the weight and size of the old 28-300L)

 

[Quirkz]

It also only matters if you're shooting raw. If you're shooting jpeg, then the corrections are already baked in.


Here's three examples. The first, no corrections.

the second, distortion correction for those edges.

The last also has the chromatic aberration correction applied as well. the sharpness uptick is noticeable at full res, probably not in these downsized version I'm uploading.

Shot @24mm, f9, 1/250s, iso 100

 

[HeavyPiper]

2 - It's mentioned that you need Lightroom - excuse my ignorance, but why is Lightroom a necessity?

Look at this YouTube video which Scott Kelby gives his field report using Canon's new all-in-one 24-240mm f/4-f/6.3 RF-mount lens. He answers the need of using Lightroom.

 

[Bennymiata]

Here's a few shots from my 24-240.
I find it to be an OK lens and very handy for walk around photography.
Not quite as good as my old 24-105L, but quite reasonable.
The shots form the water were on a very hazy day.

 

[JustUs7]

JPEGs posted elsewhere in the forum. Straight from the camera, WiFi to my phone, reduced and cropped. No other editing.

RP using the RF 24-240.

 

[Quirkz]

Here's a few shots from my 24-240.
I find it to be an OK lens and very handy for walk around photography.
Not quite as good as my old 24-105L, but quite reasonable.
The shots form the water were on a very hazy day.

The flower shot is lovely, nice pokey.

 

[Quirkz]

JPEGs posted elsewhere in the forum. Straight from the camera, WiFi to my phone, reduced and cropped. No other editing.

RP using the RF 24-240.

the fireworks came out nicely!

 

[Bennymiata]

Thanks Quirkz.
I know a number of people poo poo this lens but I find it to be very good compared to other walk-around lenses.
I find it to be very versatile and good value.

 

[JustUs7]

the fireworks came out nicely!

Thanks! It was windy. Hard to get timing without a lot of drift in a long exposure. I have a couple keepers.

 

[Quirkz]

Thanks Quirkz.
I know a number of people poo poo this lens but I find it to be very good compared to other walk-around lenses.
I find it to be very versatile and good value.

I think it's about expectations. It's a full frame 10x superzoom starting from a very useful 24mm.(I know I missed 24 when I had the EF28-300L). Of course it's not perfect, but for what it is; I'm finding it impressive. I wonder if other manufacturers have something similar, and how good they are and the weight/size.

From what I can tell, the Sony equivalent was not as highly reviewed in general.

 

[koenkooi]

[..]
2 - It's mentioned that you need Lightroom - excuse my ignorance, but why is Lightroom a necessity?[..]

If you’re shooting raw you’ll need something that can correct the distortion and vignetting. Like DPP4 from Canon or Lightroom.
Personally, I use DPP4 to generate TIFF files that I then import into Lightroom. That gives me proper colours and DLO, while LR shines at editing and cataloging.