RF 24-240mm Optical Limits Review

[Jon_T]

Canon RF 24-240mm f/4-6.3 USM IS - Review / Test Report

"... This lens was certainly never meant to be used without image auto-correction, and this provides the framework in which we'll have to rate it. ...

... Fully corrected, the Canon RF 24-240mm f/4-6.3 USM IS can deliver very decent, maybe even surprisingly good, results. Typical for many lenses of this class, it achieves its best quality in the lower half of the zoom range. The resolution is decent at (the heavily corrected) 24mm setting with a very high center quality and a very respectable sharpness in the outer image field. There is a bit of field curvature, though. The quality is very even across the image field at 50mm and 100mm. Unsurprisingly the quality tanks a bit at 240mm. However, the critical center quality remains very usable, whereas the borders/corners suffer without being poor. If you are using a Canon camera with a 20-26mp sensor, the lens will be plenty sharp at all settings... "



The 'Price/ Performance" can be improved lf one purchases the lens from the Canon Refurbished site. I paid $739.00 awhile back.

I agree with the RF 24-240mm reviews by:
Dustin Abbott
Scott Kelby

 

[hovland]

Canon RF 24-240mm f/4-6.3 USM IS - Review / Test Report

"... This lens was certainly never meant to be used without image auto-correction, and this provides the framework in which we'll have to rate it. ...

... Fully corrected, the Canon RF 24-240mm f/4-6.3 USM IS can deliver very decent, maybe even surprisingly good, results. Typical for many lenses of this class, it achieves its best quality in the lower half of the zoom range. The resolution is decent at (the heavily corrected) 24mm setting with a very high center quality and a very respectable sharpness in the outer image field. There is a bit of field curvature, though. The quality is very even across the image field at 50mm and 100mm. Unsurprisingly the quality tanks a bit at 240mm. However, the critical center quality remains very usable, whereas the borders/corners suffer without being poor. If you are using a Canon camera with a 20-26mp sensor, the lens will be plenty sharp at all settings... "



The 'Price/ Performance" can be improved lf one purchases the lens from the Canon Refurbished site. I paid $739.00 awhile back.

I agree with the RF 24-240mm reviews by:
Dustin Abbott
Scott Kelby

Thanks.
quite a good review.

this quote is interesting. "The Sony FE 24-240mm f/3.5-6.3 OSS isn't any cheaper but quite a bit worse optically." Manny reviewers tend to forget that this is a non L 10x super zoom lens. and making a 10x super zoom will involve some compromises.
And its also optically better than the Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM according to the lens comparison tool on the digital picture site.

Personally, I think the rf 24-240 IQ and sharpness are better than my old ef 24-105mm f/4 L, even if the chromatic aberrations are slightly worse, but that is correctable.

Personally, I like it a lot and use it quite often, as it is a fun lens to use.

Gordon Laing also has some interesting videos of this lens:
eg this: Canon RF 24-105mm f4-7.1 review BEST RF kit zoom vs f4L vs 24-240!

 

[dmanthree]

I tried one a couple of years ago and was disappointed. But after hearing other shooter's opinions it seemed I had a bad copy. I did. I bought one a few months ago and it's a really nice lens. Couple with a 14-35 it makes a really nice two lens travel kit.

No regrets purchasing this lens.

 

[robgendreau]

This jibes with my experience. For such a range it is very good, although worse at the far end. But is a great value.

Other bonuses are the lightness, and the relatively close focus. I've been very happy with it; makes a good hiking lens when I don't want to carry more and I'm not sure if I'd shoot some wildlife or wide scenics.

 

[L a r s]

This lens is on my camera 90% of the time.

 

[Jon_T]

... Personally, I think the rf 24-240 IQ and sharpness are better than my old ef 24-105mm f/4 L, even if the chromatic aberrations are slightly worse, but that is correctable.

At 24mm my old EF 24-105mm f/4 L was better IQ overall; though at 70mm - 105mm the 24-240mm had the better IQ.

... Personally, I like it a lot and use it quite often, as it is a fun lens to use. ...

Agree. ;-)

... Gordon Laing also has some interesting videos of this lens:
eg this: Canon RF 24-105mm f4-7.1 review BEST RF kit zoom vs f4L vs 24-240!

Thanks, I been reading Gordon Lang's reviews for years.

I like his simple hands-on, real life shots reviews.

Cheers,
Jon

 

[Jon_T]

I tried one a couple of years ago and was disappointed. But after hearing other shooter's opinions it seemed I had a bad copy. ...

I also had reservations due the 10X zoom range for FF; and read some not-so-good reviews on the old EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 L IS USM.

Likewise after reading the "If You Get A Good Copy It's AMAZING" topic in this forum, and downloading/ PP several dozen JPG+RAW image from different online reviews, I was quite satisfied with the len's IQ.

The Dustin Abbott and Scott Kelby reviews confirmed my experiences.

... I bought one a few months ago and it's a really nice lens. Couple with a 14-35 it makes a really nice two lens travel kit. ...

I'll continuing using my EF 16-35mm f/4 L for awhile for WA zoom.

... No regrets purchasing this lens.

Ditto. ;-)

Cheers,
Jon

 

[MikeJ9116]

For the most part, this review pretty much aligns with my experience using the lens over the past 3-4 years.

 

[dshombert]

I'm pretty new to Canon and not knowledgable about what all is included in the camera's processing. As I watched Kelby's discussion, I kept wondering (a) whether the R5 & R6 cameras have in-body lens correction for JPEGs, and (b) if they do, is he saying they're ineffective? Eventually, he did mention this topic but in a pretty dismissive way - something like "if you're one of these people who brags about how you never shoot RAW, this doesn't matter". Or words to that effect. With all his experience and his prolific writings, Scott Kelby should know by now that there are plenty of people who are satisfied with the JPEGs that their cameras produce. It's their photos; if JPEGs are good enough for them, what's his beef with that? Seems like good old-fashioned snobbery to me.

 

[gscotten]

I'm pretty new to Canon and not knowledgable about what all is included in the camera's processing. As I watched Kelby's discussion, I kept wondering (a) whether the R5 & R6 cameras have in-body lens correction for JPEGs, and (b) if they do, is he saying they're ineffective? Eventually, he did mention this topic but in a pretty dismissive way - something like "if you're one of these people who brags about how you never shoot RAW, this doesn't matter". Or words to that effect. With all his experience and his prolific writings, Scott Kelby should know by now that there are plenty of people who are satisfied with the JPEGs that their cameras produce. It's their photos; if JPEGs are good enough for them, what's his beef with that? Seems like good old-fashioned snobbery to me.

Yes, Canon cameras automatically apply lens corrections to the JPG images. When he made that video, the lens was brand new. He probably hadn't updated his camera with the new lens info.

I have that lens and I love it!

As for not shooting raw: If you are happy with the JPGs, that is all that really matters. But you should know that you are leaving something on the table,

 

[dshombert]

Thanks. I wasn't saying that I don't shoot RAW - I often do, but it depends on what I'm taking a shot of and what I intend to do with the photo. Many times, a JPEG will be good enough. So I shoot both; I was attempting to speak for those who shoot only JPEGs.

 

[MikeJ9116]

I'm pretty new to Canon and not knowledgable about what all is included in the camera's processing. As I watched Kelby's discussion, I kept wondering (a) whether the R5 & R6 cameras have in-body lens correction for JPEGs, and (b) if they do, is he saying they're ineffective? Eventually, he did mention this topic but in a pretty dismissive way - something like "if you're one of these people who brags about how you never shoot RAW, this doesn't matter". Or words to that effect. With all his experience and his prolific writings, Scott Kelby should know by now that there are plenty of people who are satisfied with the JPEGs that their cameras produce. It's their photos; if JPEGs are good enough for them, what's his beef with that? Seems like good old-fashioned snobbery to me.

There are a lot of snobs in the camera hobby but their are a lot of "live and let live" people too.

 

[dshombert]

I'm pretty new to Canon and not knowledgable about what all is included in the camera's processing. As I watched Kelby's discussion, I kept wondering (a) whether the R5 & R6 cameras have in-body lens correction for JPEGs, and (b) if they do, is he saying they're ineffective? Eventually, he did mention this topic but in a pretty dismissive way - something like "if you're one of these people who brags about how you never shoot RAW, this doesn't matter". Or words to that effect. With all his experience and his prolific writings, Scott Kelby should know by now that there are plenty of people who are satisfied with the JPEGs that their cameras produce. It's their photos; if JPEGs are good enough for them, what's his beef with that? Seems like good old-fashioned snobbery to me.

There are a lot of snobs in the camera hobby but their are a lot of "live and let live" people too.

Agreed. And a lot more of the latter than the former, in my experience.

 

[palombian]

I made quite sharp macro and bird shots at 240mm, so I suppose I have a good copy.

In the corners, in particular at the wide end you can see it is not an L-lens? but I am very pleased over all.

 

[tdbmd]

Best general purpose lens I have for my R6. I have even used it for a few cross country races.

 

[Jon_T]

... I kept wondering (a) whether the R5 & R6 cameras have in-body lens correction for JPEGs,

... more than easy enough to find that out by quickly looking at R5 or R6 reviews, or RF 24-240mm lens reviews on this forum—been discussed many times.

and (b) if they do, is he saying they're ineffective? Eventually, he did mention this topic but in a pretty dismissive way - something like "if you're one of these people who brags about how you never shoot RAW, this doesn't matter". Or words to that effect. ..

If you had thoroughly read page of the link I provided would had seen review was shorty after lens was released. The lens and cameras have received firmware updates dates since Scott's review.

The last "Comment" to article was "... 4 years ago", and clearly noted:
"... BTW, if someone doesn't use Lightroom for post-processing, then presumably they're just using the JPG files. In this case, the camera makes all the lens corrections you're talking about." (BOLD added by me)

,,, With all his experience and his prolific writings, Scott Kelby should know by now that there are plenty of people who are satisfied with the JPEGs that their cameras produce. It's their photos; if JPEGs are good enough for them, what's his beef with that? Seems like good old-fashioned snobbery to me. ...

Yep exactly that "Seems like good old-fashioned snobbery to me."

Been reading Scott Kelby for many years; disagree Scott was being "snobby" in any way.

For the time you spent writing your rant could have easily found out the facts; or posting a "Comment" directly to the article, or simply clicking on the "Contact Us" at top of page to express your opinions.

I posted link to the article cause "I" thought (though old), still be beneficial for those that "shoot RAW". Did not think I needed to post a "disclaimer" with the link.

I've posted the review link in around half-dozen posts; you are the ONLY one who has posted negative unsubstantiated comments. ;-)

 

[TwoMetreBill]

Modern software makes all lenses significantly better. For best results this does require shooting in RAW and purchasing something like DxO, Lightroom or Topaz. Furthermore we also get about 2 EV better IQ.



Hence I see the 24-240 as my first lens purchase when I get the R5.



The improvements for L lenses are dramatic as well. I downloaded some R5 images. After modest processing in Lightroom (Denoise-100, Sharpening-100), they could be enlarged 400% (2000 mm equivalent) and are excellent when viewed at 100% on 4K monitors and TVs. So no need to accept the 4x light reduction of a 2x teleconverter that only gets to 1,000mm.

 

[Tmjc]

... Personally, I think the rf 24-240 IQ and sharpness are better than my old ef 24-105mm f/4 L, even if the chromatic aberrations are slightly worse, but that is correctable.

At 24mm my old EF 24-105mm f/4 L was better IQ overall; though at 70mm - 105mm the 24-240mm had the better IQ.

I just rented the 24-240 and did comparison shots against my 24-105 F4 L. Surprisingly at 24mm it's kind of a wash with my copies, on one side the corners are better with the 24-105, on the other the 24-240 is better.

35 and 50 mm are definitely better on the 24-105, but then it flips and at 70 and 100mm the 24-240 has the advantage.

So in my experience they are pretty equal across the range.

... Personally, I like it a lot and use it quite often, as it is a fun lens to use. ...

Agree. ;-)

It's a super convenient lens for sure. I'm not 100% decided if I like all that convinience or if it would make me a lazy photographer down the line.

 

[Ferenc MOGOR]

Another happy camper chiming in. Yep, love this lens to the brim, never take it off the camera.

FYR, here's a shot from Lisbon, Portugal taken last year:

Canon EOS R6 MK1 + RF 24-240mm F4-6.3 IS USM

1/125s, f13, 24mm, ISO400




Lisbon tram...





--
Cheers, Feri
'I can look at a fine photograph and sometimes I can hear music. Ansel Adams.'

 

[William Woodruff]

I am generally not a fan of under-designed optical formulas that require a high degree of digital correction.

That said, I do have a 24-240, and it is a very usable, flexible, lightweight lens. And there is a way to get around the worst of the optical distortions -- mount it on a crop sensor camera. This lens is seeing a bit of use on my new R7 as a very light 38-380 lens. As such, it works quite well from mild wide angle to medium-long telephoto. I am quite happy with it in this application.