RF 24-240 f/4-6.3 IS USM

Bert63

EOS RP
CR Pro
Dec 3, 2017
762
1,537
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.

Thanks man. I use DxO myself - it was just odd the way I was reading it - it made it seem as though Lightroom was the only answer.

I despise subscription models but for some it's the best way. For professionals I can really see the appeal.

One look at my photos and it's obvious I'm not a professional.

:)
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
1,596
1,444
Maybe it's in the difference between using APS-C and full frame, but I have a Tamron 18-400 that does not require any in-camera corrections--which is good because it wasn't for mirrorless. I can't quite fathom why Canon had to do this.
 

Quirkz

EOS RP
CR Pro
Oct 30, 2014
263
191
Maybe it's in the difference between using APS-C and full frame, but I have a Tamron 18-400 that does not require any in-camera corrections--which is good because it wasn't for mirrorless. I can't quite fathom why Canon had to do this.
This might help clarify this a little bit, I hope"

https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=1

Over most the zoom range, the RF is better. Even at 24, where you need to apply the optical corrects, the RF is no worse, and perhaps a little sharper, and wider, than the tamron.
These images on the digital picture also have not had the chromatic aberration corrections applied. It make a noticeable difference, improving the sharpness quite a bit more. the lens itself has been designed with these corrections in mind.

It's pretty compact for a full frame lens of that zoom range (much like the tamron is pretty compact for it's insane range), with very good performance across that range.
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
1,596
1,444
This might help clarify this a little bit, I hope"

https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=1

Over most the zoom range, the RF is better. Even at 24, where you need to apply the optical corrects, the RF is no worse, and perhaps a little sharper, and wider, than the tamron.
These images on the digital picture also have not had the chromatic aberration corrections applied. It make a noticeable difference, improving the sharpness quite a bit more. the lens itself has been designed with these corrections in mind.

It's pretty compact for a full frame lens of that zoom range (much like the tamron is pretty compact for it's insane range), with very good performance across that range.
If I recall correctly, one can avoid the 24-240 in-camera corrections by not going below something like 35(?)mm? So Canon could market it as an "honest' 35-240, or go for the 10x wooohooo! factor with in-camera correction. (If 35 is the wrong number, please substitute appropriately.)

Maybe I'm just old-fashioned but I'd rather have an optic that can do the job without a shortcoming so huge it needs to be in-camera corrected. When you process an image in that manner you ALWAYS lose something. (Yes, I know under normal circumstances you won't see the difference.)
 

Quirkz

EOS RP
CR Pro
Oct 30, 2014
263
191
If I recall correctly, one can avoid the 24-240 in-camera corrections by not going below something like 35(?)mm? So Canon could market it as an "honest' 35-240, or go for the 10x wooohooo! factor with in-camera correction. (If 35 is the wrong number, please substitute appropriately.)

Maybe I'm just old-fashioned but I'd rather have an optic that can do the job without a shortcoming so huge it needs to be in-camera corrected. When you process an image in that manner you ALWAYS lose something. (Yes, I know under normal circumstances you won't see the difference.)
it IS an 'honest' 24mm, just one with bad distortion.
When you shoot at 24mm, it's actually taking the shot at around 22mm equivalent, which shows the barrel slightly on the corners, along with bad distortion. The correction then crops a little, and stretches out the corners a little. The far corners are thus fairly average (but by no means poor), but the rest of the frame is sharp.

Even with the digital correction, it's still sharper than my old 28-300L in the far corners when it was open wide at 28mm


At the end of the day, the lens, even with corrections, is at least as good, and sometimes better, than other similar superzooms. By use of these optical corrections, canon were able to improve other elements of it's performance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stevelee

FamilyGuy

EOS 90D
Feb 5, 2020
120
169
I think photography forums attract photographers who lose sight of the fact that this is an all arounder for hobbyists. No one is making a case for this as a work lens.

The Tamron is a crop sensor lens, not a full frame lens. As such, it’s 18mm is between 27mm and 29mm (Nikon crop vs Canon crop). I’m guessing this wouldn’t get near the negativity if it was 28-240. The circle would cover the sensor. For my uses, the extra 4 on the wide end is nice when needed, but not my primary use. For what it delivers the rest of the range vs the correction at its widest (which I would never notice if not for reviews), totally worth it. If I’m at 24, it’s usually optically blurred foreground and the sky in the corners anyway. I don’t often put my subject in the corners.

Like it more than our Sigma 18-250 that we had for our Rebel. This is our outdoor lens. We have the RF 35 for indoors. Super happy with both.
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
1,596
1,444
The Tamron is a crop sensor lens, not a full frame lens. As such, it’s 18mm is between 27mm and 29mm (Nikon crop vs Canon crop). I’m guessing this wouldn’t get near the negativity if it was 28-240. The circle would cover the sensor. For my uses, the extra 4 on the wide end is nice when needed, but not my primary use. For what it delivers the rest of the range vs the correction at its widest (which I would never notice if not for reviews), totally worth it. If I’m at 24, it’s usually optically blurred foreground and the sky in the corners anyway. I don’t often put my subject in the corners.
Nasty optical distortion for 4mm of the range--you're right, if it were a 28-200 it wouldn't have received nearly as much crap.

So the Tamron may be roughly equivalent on the low end...but on the high end it's equivalent to a 640mm zoom, and the 240 can't touch that. (Of course the f stop is going to be worse on the Tamron as a simple matter of course. I don't know what it does at 240mm.)
 

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
1,685
552
Davidson, NC
I have used S and now G cameras for travel for many years. Long ago they decided that they could make rather good cameras that would fit in your pocket if they relied on software corrections, in camera for JPEGs and in computer for Raw, rather than adding six pounds of correcting lens elements.

So I don‘t see the problem with using the same principle in interchangeable lenses. Yes, they could add a few pounds of glass and a couple thousand dollars in price, and maybe cut back a bit on the zoom range, and got glowing reviews that also might ask whom this expensive lens was made for.
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
1,596
1,444
I have used S and now G cameras for travel for many years. Long ago they decided that they could make rather good cameras that would fit in your pocket if they relied on software corrections, in camera for JPEGs and in computer for Raw, rather than adding six pounds of correcting lens elements.

So I don‘t see the problem with using the same principle in interchangeable lenses. Yes, they could add a few pounds of glass and a couple thousand dollars in price, and maybe cut back a bit on the zoom range, and got glowing reviews that also might ask whom this expensive lens was made for.
Alternatively, they could simply have marketed it as a 28-240mm and avoided all of the controversy. That would still be a killer superzoom range.
 

Quirkz

EOS RP
CR Pro
Oct 30, 2014
263
191
Alternatively, they could simply have marketed it as a 28-240mm and avoided all of the controversy. That would still be a killer superzoom range.
Here's the thing: I'm really glad it's 24, and not 28. The quality is really quite fine! Check the link I sent earlier comparing it to that tamron.
People seem to be really worked up over something that is actually not a problem in reality. It's better than a lot of kit glass. (It had better be, it's still a $900 lens, after all)

A really nice travel lens when combined with the RP.
 

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
1,685
552
Davidson, NC
Alternatively, they could simply have marketed it as a 28-240mm and avoided all of the controversy. That would still be a killer superzoom range.
But that would have been a shame. 24mm is very useful. They were’t going to call it one thing but let you sneak and zoom out farther. Almost 50 years ago when I had only primes, the 28mm lens was almost always with me. Now it doesn’t seem so wide any more. Even back then, when I could, I bought a used 19mm lens. I thought it was amazing.

I‘m still not into superzooms, but then I can and was willing to spend a lot more to have a variety of lenses rather than try for Jack of all trades. For my “default” lens, I’m comfortable with the 24-105mm on my 6D2. For traveling, my G5X II has an equivalent of 24-120mm. I miss not being able to go wider more than going longer (which made the Sony not be my choice, besides being slower). Shooting interiors and scenic vistas leads me to shoot for stitching back home or do a quick iPhone panorama.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Quirkz

FamilyGuy

EOS 90D
Feb 5, 2020
120
169
A couple 24 mm shots with this lens. I think the went okay. Note that lack of sharpness in the lower corners is driven by the depth of the scene as much as anything. Those corners fall outside the Depth of Field. Upper corners, well, these are long exposure shots. The first was 4 minutes plus with a 10 stop leading to some movement in the foliage with the leaves. The second was 52 seconds long. Same issue.

B7E11773-61AE-4727-88DA-625CDC40BD68.jpeg

968A1810-6385-47D1-9D56-72587E5F9041.jpeg
 
Last edited:

Quirkz

EOS RP
CR Pro
Oct 30, 2014
263
191
A couple 24 mm shots with this lens. I think the went okay. Note that lack of sharpness in the lower corners is driven by the depth of the scene as much as anything. Those corners fall outside the Depth of Field. Upper corners, well, these are long exposure shots. The first was 4 minutes plus with a 10 stop leading to some movement in the foliage with the leaves. The second was 52 seconds long. Same issue.
Better than 'okay'. Good example of why the howls of outrage over its 24mm are a little overdone. (vs the versatility of a 24-240 in a forest hike.)

thanks for sharing!
 
  • Like
Reactions: stevelee

PCM-madison

EOS 90D
CR Pro
Dec 9, 2013
125
79
The IS of this lens also works really well with most hand-held 0.5sec exposures and some 1sec exposures acceptable This is at Amnicon Falls, WI, 24mm, 0.5sec, f22, iso 50.
Amnicon Falls 01 DPP4 L sm.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: HeavyPiper