Canon RF 24-240- I expected it to be pretty bad, but....

[LovePhotography]

IT WASN'T. Not even close...
I bought every other lens first, available thinking that, "My R5 walk around lens is my iPhone Pro Max".
So, I bought a 24-240 last, just so I could use the same editing software, and half out of curiosity. And I was pleasantly surprised. And I mean "almost shocked", (especially when considering the price and weight differentials).

I compared it to my 14-35 at 24 mm with shots on my secretary's little snowman in the center of the frame and at far left edge.
I also compared it to my 100-500 at 240mm with the snowman in the center and the left edge.

And, really, if you let the camera do it's thing, the images are pretty hard to tell apart.

I bought two R5 bodies, one for a 24-105 f/4 and the other for a 70-200 f/2.8 or 100-500 f/4.5-7.1 so I wouldn't have to change lenses all the time and risk dropping one, and slowing everything down and taking the fun out of it. Now, except for the most hard core pixel peeping sessions, I'm wondering if that was worth it.

Note: all images cropped very hard, just down to the snow man alone. Auto exposure. Hand held. Crappy office overhead florescent tube lighting.
8 photos

 

[HeavyPiper]

Thanks for your thought's

 

[AlanF]

The 24-240mm seems a pretty good lens for what it is that looks OK in the TDP tests. If you shoot subjects that lack fine detail, sharp edges that need to be defined or areas of low contrast that need to be seen, just like your secretary's little snowman, then most lenses will give similar results. I have an RF 18-150mm for a carry around for such situations. But, if I need to push detail and contrast, it would not be my first choice.

 

[Del Paso]

IT WASN'T. Not even close...
I bought every other lens first, available thinking that, "My R5 walk around lens is my iPhone Pro Max".
So, I bought a 24-240 last, just so I could use the same editing software, and half out of curiosity. And I was pleasantly surprised. And I mean "almost shocked", (especially when considering the price and weight differentials).

I compared it to my 14-35 at 24 mm with shots on my secretary's little snow man in the center of the frame and at far left edge.
I also compared it to my 100-500 at 240mm with the snow man in the center and the left edge.

And, really, if you let the camera do it's thing, the images are pretty hard to tell apart.

I bought two R5 bodies, one for a 24-105 f/4 and the other for a 70-200 f/2.8 or 100-500 f/4.5-7.1 so I wouldn't have to change lenses all the time and risk dropping one, and slowing everything down and taking the fun out of it. Now, except for the most hard core pixel peeping sessions, I'm wondering if that was worth it.

Note: all images cropped very hard, just down to the snow man alone. Auto exposure. Hand held. Crappy office overhead florescent tube lighting.
8 photos

Were you satisfied with corner sharpness as well ?

 

[AlanF]

The centre sharpness is pretty good and close to the RF100-400 and RF100-500 according to Canon's own MTFs.

 

[LovePhotography]

Were you satisfied with corner sharpness as well ?

It does fall off noticeably. But most of my photos have a subject that is at or nearer the center of the frame, and everything else is expected (planned) to be out of focus anyway. So, with that in mind, yes, I am quite satisfied. Especially for a walking around lens that I bought (like new) for $650, and light weight and quite small in my bag (and one lens instead of 2). If I am going to photograph a painting in a museum I'll use my 50 1.2 or 100 2.8.

 

[LovePhotography]

If they made a weather-sealed "L"-glass quality of this lens (in f/2.8-5.6?), it would be the most amazing lens on the market. Just imho.

 

[AJ]

I've owned a 24-240 for close to a year, and I'm quite happy with it. It is very sharp from 35 to 200 mm. AF and IS are top-notch. 24 mm does have its deficiencies, especially in the corners. At 24 mm in the corners there some blur, and vignetting is so strong that it is difficult to correct it in post to the point where it is unnoticeable (e.g. blue sky). At 240 mm the lens loses a bit of contrast, but with a bit of processing very good results can be had. One more thing about this lens is that bokeh isn't the prettiest at some focal lengths.
This is the compromise. I bought the 24-240 as a walk-around and travel lens, and it works really, really well for these purposes. For example, I will not hesitate to grab a people-shot at 24 mm, but for more serious landscaping I now have a 24/1.8. Again, if you use this lens with its weaknesses in mind, then excellent results are to be had. By excellent I mean critically sharp at 6k and beyond - we're talking miles beyond cell phones.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The 24-240mm seems a pretty good lens for what it is that looks OK in the TDP tests. If you shoot subjects that lack fine detail, sharp edges that need to be defined or areas of low contrast that need to be seen, just like your secretary's little snowman, then most lenses will give similar results. I have an RF 18-150mm for a carry around for such situations. But, if I need to push detail and contrast, it would not be my first choice.

I bought one, its fine for casual shots, but when editing at 100% like I often do, the reduced image detail is obvious. I use one of my L lenses whenever possible, but for walking around with a single lens, its fine.

 

[snapshot]

I've owned a 24-240 for close to a year, and I'm quite happy with it. It is very sharp from 35 to 200 mm. AF and IS are top-notch. 24 mm does have its deficiencies, especially in the corners. At 24 mm in the corners there some blur, and vignetting is so strong that it is difficult to correct it in post to the point where it is unnoticeable (e.g. blue sky). At 240 mm the lens loses a bit of contrast, but with a bit of processing very good results can be had. One more thing about this lens is that bokeh isn't the prettiest at some focal lengths.
This is the compromise. I bought the 24-240 as a walk-around and travel lens, and it works really, really well for these purposes. For example, I will not hesitate to grab a people-shot at 24 mm, but for more serious landscaping I now have a 24/1.8. Again, if you use this lens with its weaknesses in mind, then excellent results are to be had. By excellent I mean critically sharp at 6k and beyond - we're talking miles beyond cell phones.

i have it and i like it, but i dont compare it to my 28-70 or my 100-400. i compare it against another travel lens the tamron 28-300. I think it is better.

 

[AlanF]

i have it and i like it, but i dont compare it to my 28-70 or my 100-400. i compare it against another travel lens the tamron 28-300. I think it is better.

Is that the RF or EF 100-400?

 

[snapshot]

Is that the RF or EF 100-400?

i quite like the ef 100-400 LIS II, sharp and fast auto-focus. Actually the ef 100-400 L IS and the 28-70 f/2.8 replaced the kit lens on my old rebel 2000. Great stuff!

 

[Powder Portraits]

I held on to this lens to use with a R7, didn't love on my R5. Now its my R7 lens of choice for most work. Its a super crop camera lens.

 

[troppobash]

Hi
I have bought an RF 24-240mmn for travelling when I wish a light kit. I have some time to test it out and change it if needed. May I please request suggestions on how would I test it on an R6 to find out if it is a good copy within the limitations of this super zoom.

Do I use charts and if so which ones as there are so many on the web or do I use it with real objects set up or in nature? What do I compare it with - my EF 24-105mm L and then my Tamron 100-400mm? Should I use the distance in metres between the camera and the test chart/object(s) of 50x focal length for both the wide end and the tele-end?

Thank-you

 

[AlanF]

Hi
I have bought an RF 24-240mmn for travelling when I wish a light kit. I have some time to test it out and change it if needed. May I please request suggestions on how would I test it on an R6 to find out if it is a good copy within the limitations of this super zoom.

Do I use charts and if so which ones as there are so many on the web or do I use it with real objects set up or in nature? What do I compare it with - my EF 24-105mm L and then my Tamron 100-400mm? Should I use the distance in metres between the camera and the test chart/object(s) of 50x focal length for both the wide end and the tele-end?

Thank-you

This is a good tutorial with downloadable charts http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/lens_sharpness.html
I would test at 24mm and 240mm at a minimum and 105mm as well if you want and compare with the lenses you have. As for distance, you are constrained by where you can place the charts and be close enough to use the lines on them, 50x the f is probably about right, maybe 100x is what I used recently to test a 24-105mm.

 

[troppobash]

Thank-you Alan. I will give it a go.

 

[HeavyPiper]

I rented this lens for our short trip to the coast. I wanted to like it but found myself not sure that I would be happy with it in the long run, found most of my shots are under 100mm anyway. Most of my photos look good for traveling type lens which is what i'm looking for. Next up is renting the 24-105mm f4L

 

[neuroanatomist]

Next up is renting the 24-105mm f4L

The RF 24-105/4L is my main travel lens, very useful focal range, not too large or heavy, very good IQ.

 

[HeavyPiper]

very useful focal range, not too large or heavy, very good IQ.

Thanks, this is what I'm looking for.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Thanks, this is what I'm looking for.

I admit to being tempted a few times by the RF 24-240 for travel. I'll further admit that I'm a bit tempted to order one before I leave for my trip next week.

However, I will resist the temptation. I know from past experience that most of my travel shots are at 100mm or less, as you state above. When I need longer, it's usually much longer and for that I will be bringing the RF 100-400. The wider end is more important for me, thus the RF 14-35/4 is part of my core travel kit as well. I will be indoors part of the time, and while I bought and will be bringing the RF 24/1.8 mainly for that use case, with DxO RAW conversion and the ability to shoot comfortably at ISO 25600, f/4 will often work indoors whereas the stop lost above 70mm with the 24-240 will push it over the edge.

So, my 'walkaround' kit will be the R8 with the RF 14-35/4, RF 24-105/4 and RF 24/1.8 in a Think Tank Retrospective v2. I'll also bring the TS-E 17 and the RF 100-400, for selected outings during the trip.