24-240 / 24-105 7.1 / 24mm IS comparison

tkbslc wrote:

Quick comparison of the 24-105 4-7.1, 24-240 and an EF 24mm f2.8 IS prime all at 24mm. Wanted to see if the 24-105 is as bad at 24mm as they say.

The centers are all pretty close. Close enough I didn't bother showing the crops. Nothing really to see. All are great in the center.

The edges, there was quite a difference. 24-105 is pretty bad, even at f8. The 24-240 gets quite good at f8. Prime still wins, as it should. I didn't show it, but the 24mm prime is better at f2.8 edges than 24-105 is at f8. (Easiest to see the differences in the fire hydrant)

Surprised the 24-240 is so much better given it need much more distortion/vignetting correction than the 24-105 and it has more than double the range.

I've not noticed such a large disparity between 24-105 and 24-240 except at the wide and. 24-105 is very good from 35-105. But certainly can't recommend it for WA landscapes.

100% crops at f4 and f8 of just the top right edge/corner (view full screen). Shot JPEG with in camera corrections.

The RF 24-240 is excellent as you can see from these images. My two issues with it are pretty minor, but still a problem. First, the zoom ring is stiff and jerky, forget about doing smooth zooms in videos. Second, the video servo AF tends to hunt on the EOS R/RP. All in all the AF tends to miss a little too much to reach "pro" level for photo or video. Optically, it's quite good as you noticed. I would classify it as ridiculously good for the price and range. It's actually prime like from 35mm to 105mm IMHO. If it had a nice smooth zoom and dual AF motors like the RF 70-200 I don't know if most people would ever need another lens. Canon should do an L version of this lens with a larger aperture and better build quality and AF.