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

navastronia

EOS RP + 5D Classic
Aug 31, 2018
713
845
Yes, 24-105/4. What’s your point anyway?

More expensive and half the focal length range. My point, in regard to your first reply, is that if you want more out of a kit lens, you're not really talking about kit lenses anymore.

You claim this lens doesn't impress you. Why should it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mark D5 TEAM II

bitcars

5D mark II
Apr 24, 2019
35
51
One of the many pictures that look overexposed.

Not sure why exposure is dragged into a lens discussion? Are we also going to talk about ISO and dynamic range too? Because there are a lot left to be desired in that department as well..

Doesn't matter the style used or how amateurish the photographer look, we are looking at lens performance here. Harsh light actually helps expose issues in sharpness, detail, chromatic aberration. If everything is soft and well lid, posed and framed all artsy fartsy, then people are going to say "Oh now DP review just try to pick some easy scenes, of course the lens can perform well."
 

bitcars

5D mark II
Apr 24, 2019
35
51
The Sony FE 24-240 ?
Sorry but the Sony lens does not seem to match the IQ in what we see from the RF 24-240. Its images are much softer throughout the entire zoom range, but offered at the same price.

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

Looking at sample pictures from DP review, at around 100mm I feel RF 24-240 looks better than RF 24-105/4. They have about the same sharpness but AC is controlled better from 24-240 mm.

Other pluses for a 24-240mm:
Reaches much further, cheaper, and lighter (big plus for travel).
 
  • Like
Reactions: navastronia

Kit.

EOS 5D Mark IV
Apr 25, 2011
2,125
1,461
The whole point of DPReview's galleries is that they're amateurish; the photos are never great, and certainly show off the equipment more than any photographer's abilities.
The G5X II gallery looks good.

Not sure why exposure is dragged into a lens discussion?
Because overexposure not only leads to loss of details in highlights, but also makes lens deficiencies (flare, ugly bokeh, color fringing...) more pronounced?
 
  • Like
Reactions: bitcars

Dantana

EOS RP
Jan 29, 2013
322
169
Los Angeles, CA
www.flickr.com
It looked like a gallery of vacation snaps to me, which is how I would expect a lot of people would use this lens. I'm not sure what people on this board expect sometimes.

The dragonfly looks proper on my work monitor, though the surroundings might be a bit over. More of a bad composition thing in my opinion.

Hard to really tell a whole lot except that it's not horrible. I think we'd see that if it was.

I hope it's a nice bit of glass for what it is. I had the 18-200 when I was on crop and I was never in love with it even though it was convenient.
 

koenkooi

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
1,678
1,552
[..]

The dragonfly looks proper on my work monitor, though the surroundings might be a bit over. More of a bad composition thing in my opinion.
[..]

My issue with the dragonfly shot it that it's shot at 1/1000s at f/6.3, instead of say f/11 and slower shutter speed. It makes it hard to judge if something is slightly outside the DoF or just plain soft.

Having said that, running it through DPP with all corrections enabled (except DLO, no profile for download yet) makes it look quite good. I haven't tried LR with the new adobe lens profile yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bitcars

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
2,376
1,246
More expensive and half the focal length range. My point, in regard to your first reply, is that if you want more out of a kit lens, you're not really talking about kit lenses anymore.

You claim this lens doesn't impress you. Why should it?
24-105/4 is a kit lens as well but a really good one instead.
Yes, x10 zoom is a difficult one.
The point in case though: I don’t see this lens being a good value at all.
 

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
2,376
1,246
Sorry but the Sony lens does not seem to match the IQ in what we see from the RF 24-240. Its images are much softer throughout the entire zoom range, but offered at the same price.



Looking at sample pictures from DP review, at around 100mm I feel RF 24-240 looks better than RF 24-105/4. They have about the same sharpness but AC is controlled better from 24-240 mm.

Other pluses for a 24-240mm:
Reaches much further, cheaper, and lighter (big plus for travel).
I see you point: Other pluses for a 24-240mm:
Reaches much further, cheaper, and lighter (big plus for travel)
Fair enough :) no comments.
 

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
2,376
1,246
This is a 10:1 lens for $900. It seems that people don’t want to keep that in mind. It’s actually fairly cheap for what it is. And it seems to be pretty good for what it is. Not everybody makes a big deal out bokeh. In fact, most people would never notice so called good bokeh from bad.
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.
 

Mt Spokane Photography

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Mar 25, 2011
16,652
1,603
This is a 10:1 lens for $900. It seems that people don’t want to keep that in mind. It’s actually fairly cheap for what it is. And it seems to be pretty good for what it is. Not everybody makes a big deal out bokeh. In fact, most people would never notice so called good bokeh from bad.
I'm one of the latter, which is why I was suprised that it seemed to jump out at me. Of course, a photographer learns to work within the limitations of his equipment and would not publish a photo where the intended subject was not what caught your eye.

However, in defense of DPR, they are right to show us what the lens can and can't do. Its not supposed to be anything more than reporting. The bad bokeh does not disqualify the lens from use, I've seen much worse, its just something to be aware of when composing.

A image from my Canon EF 35-350. Bokeh is not great, but by darkening the background, the worst of it is hidden.

A used 35-350 L goes on ebay for $500-700 in good condition, but its not a carry around lens for sure.

untitled-2001-XL.jpg
 
Last edited:

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,265
1,935
Canada
Perhaps the motivations of those showing the capabilities of the lens should be considered.
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.