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

LovePhotography said:

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

Click to expand...

AlanF said:

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.

Click to expand...

AJ said:

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.

Click to expand...

snapshot said:

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.

Click to expand...

AlanF said:

Is that the RF or EF 100-400?

Click to expand...

troppobash said:

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

Click to expand...