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

Started 4 months ago | Discussions thread
MikeJ9116 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,786
Re: Canon RF 24-105/F4 versus RF 24-240/F4-6.3?

ProDude wrote:

Swerky wrote:

If you plan on keeping the lens for a long time, several years, I hear that superzooms don't age well. At least not as well as higher quality lenses. Can't know if it's the same for this lens with supposed newer architecture. I hear that the optical quality will degrade over time as there are a lot of elements in play. Not so for an L lens with moderate focal length range. It's a thing to at least take into consideration.

I couldn't disagree more. Longevity has nearly NOTHING to do with pure age. It has to do with EVERYTHING regarding how the lens has been treated. I had one Canon non L lens for over 20 years that remained in new perfect condition. If you're going to be banging it around at events and hiking and such then sure, that may be. I feel the build of the RF24-240 is solid as heck and I wouldn't be the least bit worried it will likely outlive me.

I agree.  I have owned a Sigma 18-250mm macro lens for about eight years.  I rarely use it these days but have quite a bit in the past.  It still works like new.  I don't think they are any better or worse than other lenses.  Some do tend to suffer from barrel creep over time but many non super zoom lenses do the same. The build quality of the RF 24-240mm is very good, IMO, and I doubt it will have any issues moving forward.

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