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?

tkbslc wrote:

MikeJ9116 wrote:

tkbslc wrote:

RDM5546 wrote:

MikeJ9116 wrote:

From what I have read, and seen in example photos, the 24-105mm f/4 is sharper in the corners at certain focal lengths and might have slightly better color and contrast. I decided to opt for the 24-240mm from seeing examples of how good it performs considering its massive range advantage over the 24-105mm variety lenses. My copy of this lens is sharp in the center at all focal lengths and the corners are no worse than many other lenses with far less range. Even the lens correction in the corners at 24mm isn't horrible. For a 10x zoom it is an exceptional performing lens. I will be using it a lot as a travel and walk around lens. It is by far the best super zoom lens I have owned and, IMO, it really can be a one lens solution for many people who are casual shooters.

Also, I will add that there really isn't much of a loss in light capture from one lens to the other. The 24-240mm holds a f/5.6 aperture up to 104mm so you only give up a stop and 1.33 stops from 105-240mm. Here is the aperture table for the 24-240mm:

24-26mm = f/4.0
27-43mm = f/4.5
44-69mm = f/5.0
70-104mm = f/5.6
105-240mm = f/6.3

From 27-43mm you lose 1/3 stop and from 44-69mm you lose 2/3 stop. Overall not too bad considering you get an extra 135mm of reach and only give up 1.33 stops through this range compared to f/4.0 at 105mm for the L lens.

Lastly, the IS and AF (Nano USM) for the 24-240mm is very good.

I agree full with Thunderstorm: The L is slightly better for traveling as long as you don't need a long reach. The L f/4.0: 107.3mm length and 695g The 24-240mm: 122.5mm length and 750g But's not a big difference.

However I would add:

The higher vesatility of 240mm reach is a 2X in FL advantage of the 24-240 is provided for with insignificant extra weight and bulk. This is the major advantage other than price of the 24-105.

The 24-105 is weather sealed and the 24-240 is not.

The 24-105 offers video zooms at constant aperature (a big feature for me).

The 24-105mm has that all important "L series" red ring of snob approval.

Versatility comes in many forms.

24-105L lets me take top quality landscapes at the wide end. It lets me take good portraits at the long end. I can zoom in and out without worrying about exposure or ISO changing. I can shoot in worse weather because it's sealed. 105mm is plenty of zoom for the typical walkaround or travel usage. I feel like the things I'd want more zoom for, like wildlife or sports, 240mm 6.3 didn't work well anyway.

For me the real value of the 24-240mm lens is not having to suffer from lost opportunities due to time consuming lens swaps or lack of carrying a longer lens. Being able to go from wide angle to medium telephoto in a split second has huge advantages. Some of the best photos I have taken are a result of having a super zoom on the camera. They might not be perfect technically but they were plenty good enough to capture the moment before it disappeared. The 24-240mm isn't all that far off from the 24-105mmL and is a potent tool for getting a wide range of shots with very good IQ.

So you find focal length versatility to trump the ability to take sharper wide angles, better portraits, and shoot at a stop lower aperture for much of the range. I feel the opposite. Nobody is wrong here. Canon made both lenses for a reason.

I have specific lenses for those occasions where I am doing a specific type of photography.  There isn't that much daylight between these two lenses.  Where I think the 24-240mm has a distinct advantage is that it can do everything the 24-105mm L can do to an 85%-95% level then have all the advantages of 135mm of additional reach with no size and very little weight penalty.  On the other hand the only areas where the L has an advantage is sharper corners to varying degrees depending on focal length, build quality, and a one stop advantage from 70-104mm which reduces down to a 1/3 stop at 43mm and wider.

I never said anyone was wrong for whatever lens they choose.

Speaking of lost opportunities, I felt like the 24-240 was making me miss out on some opportunities as well due to the slower aperture and some optical deficiencies.

One to 1/3 of a stop difference isn't missing all that much, IMO.  If this difference is causing you a lot of problems then you likely need a brighter lens than the 24-105mm L f/4.  As for corner sharpness, if landscapes are your thing then neither lens should be on your camera.  The 24-240mm is a general purpose, walk around/travel lens.  It covers a lot of bases very well.  It is not a specific purpose lens and anyone needing more than this should chose another lens and that other lens probably shouldn't be the 24-105mm f/4.  I think the main deciding factor for choosing one of these lenses over the other is focal range.  The other areas are so close to each other they are nearly inconsequential with the exception of weather proofing.

In the end it all comes down to personal preference.

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