Is there a better full frame, one-lens solution available for a mirrorless system?
Upvote
0
Canon RF 24-240mm f/4-6.3 IS USM sample gallery
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
Is there a better full frame, one-lens solution available for a mirrorless system?
1/3 of a stop brighter and 4 years older, but not much to brag about re: image quality.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
I think they look pretty good for a lens with this range. The price will come down. Personally, I'll pass because of the tight aperture at the long end; I'd rather sacrifice the length even when travelling and go with the 24-105mm for a one-lens solution.
Upvote
0
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?
Upvote
0
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."
Upvote
0
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).
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
The G5X II gallery looks good.
Because overexposure not only leads to loss of details in highlights, but also makes lens deficiencies (flare, ugly bokeh, color fringing...) more pronounced?
Upvote
0
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.
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.
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
I see you point: Other pluses for a 24-240mm:
Reaches much further, cheaper, and lighter (big plus for travel)
Fair enough
no comments.
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
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.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
