Canon RF 24-105/F4 versus RF 24-240/F4-6.3?

Started 3 months ago | Discussions thread
tkbslc Forum Pro • Posts: 15,560
Re: Canon RF 24-105/F4 versus RF 24-240/F4-6.3?

RobDMB wrote:


Wondering what everyone's thoughts are on the Canon RF 24-105/F4 versus the RF 24-240/F4-6.3. Obviously the latter is a superzoom and a bit slower. However, I currently have the RF24-105 and am somewhat tempted to trade is for the 24-240 for increased versatility as a travel/walk around lens. Thought being, neither are particularly fast for indoor use but the superzoom gives so much extra range. However, would I be given up significant image quality (sharpness, etc) of with the non-L lens?

For reference, I typically shoot outdoor lanscape/family/dogs. Other lenses I own for are the RF 15-35/2.8 which I would use for outdoor landscapes often and the RF35/1.8 which could give some increased light indoors. If I went that route maybe I'd consider picking up another prime for indoor/portrait.

Anyone else considered such a switch? Any thoughts are appreciated. Thanks!

I've owned both the 24-240 and 24-105L.

24-105L has better build and is a little bit smaller and lighter.  Not by a lot, but it's noticeable holding them side by side.  The 24-240 extend a lot in use so it can feel like a pretty big lens.  But compared to any other telephoto option, it is pretty compact.

24-105 is much better at the wider end, 24-40mm or so.   Maybe that doesn't matter as you have the 15-35mm.  But if planning to use the 24-240 as a one-lens solution for travel it means you are giving up quality for landscape and scenery shots vs the L.

24-105mm is a stop faster through the shared telephoto range.   For me, this means the 24-105 can be a portrait lens.  I find 80-105mm f4 on FF is just enough to give some bg blur for nice portraits.   f5.6 is not quite there.    This adds to the versatility of the 24-105 for my usage.

The 24-240 is outstandingly sharp in the 50-105 range.  It may even be a little sharper than the 24-105 at 105mm.  As you get closer to 240mm, the quality drops and it's merely decent.   So in terms of sharpness, I'd say it's L quality in the middle and kit lens quality at either end.

24-240mm has terrible CA through most of the range.  It has shocking distortion and vignetting at wide angle.    It absolutely needs a lens profile to correct these or you will be disappointed.   Shoot JPEG with the corrections enabled, or shoot RAW and process with a  lens profile (DPP, LR, DxO have them) and you'll get good images.

I feel the 24-105 has better color and contrast.

In the end, I felt the 24-105 was better for my needs due to the sharpness at the wide end and the faster 105mm end for portraits.   And given the whole appeal of the 24-240 is that it goes to 240, it was a little disappointing at full zoom.   There is no denying the versatility of the 24-240, though.  As now I have to carry a second lens for telephoto shots.

24-240 is not a lens that will often "wow" you, but it is also one that has good enough image quality that it won't ever ruin a shot for you.

The 24-240 is pretty cheap second-hand.  It might be worth picking up a used copy and then comparing them yourself.  And then selling on the one you decide not to keep.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow