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

RexTremendae wrote:

tkbslc wrote:

RexTremendae wrote:

tkbslc wrote:

RexTremendae wrote:

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.

I can agree it's quite good in the middle. Comparing with my 70-200 F4 L IS the 24-240 there is really no difference in sharpness from about 70-135mm. I actually think it is better than the 24-105L from 85-105.

My main issues are the massive corrections it requires. My preferred software is ACDSee, but there are no RF lens profiles. So the 24-240 is basically unusable with that software as a result. Also I find that with lower contrast targets it gives up at the long end really quickly. Have to manual focus or zoom out to acquire focus.

It's also got pretty weak corners at 240mm, but I often centrally frame at that focal length. If I was doing landscapes, I'd probably stop in the mid 100s for corner sharpness.

I always stop down to f/7.1 at the long end. It's sharp at f/6.3 but tends to just miss focus, maybe it's the extra DoF but f/7.1 works most of the time for static subjects.

I will try that, good tip.

If they made an upgraded version of this lens, I think rather than a larger aperture, I'd want it to be better corrected and cover the whole sensor at wide angle. Nikon's 24-200 and Tamron's 28-200 both seem better optically, so maybe cutting a little off the telephoto is a good idea.

Are they better optically? You tell me:

They seem to be a bit better at both ends. They definitely don't need so much correction. .

Maybe I just got a good copy but I think the image quality is more than good enough. This was shot by my girlfriend from our car.

Nice image! I'm definitely not saying it's a bad lens at all. But it's definitely got room for improvement.

Let's be honest, we have no idea what the truth of the image is anymore. I don't trust lenses that are excessively corrected looking yet have a wide zoom range and low price... I just don't buy it.

But you bought the 24-240?  It looks like a fisheye and doesn't cover the sensor at 24mm unless you let Canon work it's magic with DLO.

At least with this Canon lens it appears you get what you pay for whereas the other lenses are probably employing digital manipulation to make them look better than they are. No offense but I don't want the wool pulled over my eyes. I want to see the real lens image...

Again, the Canon employs MASSIVE digital manipulation just to make it look decent.

The corrections don't bother me much at this price point, but that's just me. I also have other L lenses so someone who just has this lens may feel more strongly about the image quality it offers.

Realistically speaking the only way anyone will beat the image I posted is with a prime lens. And if you think you can find a better quality image taken with the Nikon or Tamron lenses, I would love to see them but I know they don't exist...

Now you are just being silly.   I like my 24-240, but I'm not going to pretend it's god-like.