DPReview.com is closing April 10th - Find out more

Good but not great

Started Apr 20, 2020 | User reviews thread
RLight Senior Member • Posts: 4,426
Re: Good but not great

RDM5546 wrote:

RLight wrote:

Something like the 24-105 f/4-7.1 IS STM sounds more up your alley at 395 grams.

Likewise, I might even suggest you look at the M system and it's EF-M 18-150 and EF-M 22mm f/2. Those will give you something more powerful than your D5500 (if doing the M6 Mark II) and more reach, and probably sharper too as it's a modern mirrorless optimized optic, and even smaller, lighter still in terms of whole package. One can shoot those two lenses alone and cover alot.

I've got an RF 24-240 on the way arriving Wednesday. It would appear to clock in around the same size as the former (adapted) EF 70-300 DO I had but didn't care for it's image quality, but a bit lighter due to no adapter being required. I can live with that especially with both 240mm on the long end and 24mm on the wide end. AF (and IS) is a big one. From having shot the 70-300 IS USM II, I'm curious how it'll do on the long end of things with the newer 1.6 firmware on my EOS R. If both the AF and IS live up to expectations, this could be a winner for my needs anyways. However I'm falling back on a G5X Mark II for my portable needs and eschewing APS-C entirely, and aside from the RF 35mm which I have a soft spot, eschewing primes too with the RF 28-70 f/2L. Essentially between the RF 24-240, RF 28-70, RF 35 and G5X II, these are no lens swap answers. The former for things like the zoo or other outdoor outings with the family where I want to be prepared for the unexpected but not have to deal with bags or lens swaps, the RF 28-70 covers events and special occasions (unless the 24-240 supplants it), the RF 35 covers indoors and the G5X II covers hiking (where I don't want the RF 24-240 as to your point, it may be light for what it is, but it's not light or compact at all per se) or other pocket-needs like glovebox duty, going to general things like the park (if it'll ever re-open), etc.

Great writeup though, seems to confirm what I've noticed from the existing online reviews of the lens, which it's not terrible, but not cheap, and also not heavy/huge, but not light/small either. I think you've got it correct though, it's not going to replace an APS-C superzoom in size and weight. It's just not that small/light. But, then again your APS-C superzoom isn't going to have the same "punch" as the RF 24-240 does either, which I want that punch and versatility that if I want to cover a wedding with it, I could (though I'd do the RF 28-70 f/2L for that truth told).

I also use the RF 24-70, RF 24-240, RF 35 with the EOS R and the G5XII collection as a full travelling core with adding the RF15-35mm at times. Each have pros and cons depending on he expected subjects. Travelling light for me might be the G5XII or the EOS R with 24-240mm.

Interesting. That's the other lens I'm debating adding (RF 15-35). And that's also the intent (traveling light = G5XII or R+RF 24-240).

I'm not a big landscape person, but when I want an ultra wide, I want an ultra wide...

The question is, do I want to add that to the mix, or save my $2k for something else?

 RLight's gear list:RLight's gear list
Canon EOS M6 II Canon EOS R3 Canon EOS R50 Canon EF-M 55-200mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM Canon EF-M 15-45mm F3.5-6.3 IS STM +3 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow