If You Get A Good Copy It's AMAZING Locked

ProDude wrote:

MikeJ9116 wrote:

tkbslc wrote:

JustUs7 wrote:

tkbslc wrote:

I think AMAZING is a bit of an exaggeration. If we use AMAZING in all caps for the 24-240, what do we call the 28-70 f2 or 50L?

A couple more A’s, Z’s, and a string of G’s at the end.

I like the 24-240, but let's be honest. It's a slow, utilitarian lens. It's like a minivan. Very useful to a lot of people, but nobody I have met is excited to drive one. OP needs to let his confirmation bias settle a bit before he starts throwing out superlatives like AMAZING.

I think most 24-240 users who are honest would say things like "it's one of the better superzoom lenses I've used" or "it's pretty good". No caps needed.

I think one has to consider the context of the comment. I doubt anyone here thought the OP was comparing a 10X $600 super zoom to $2k-$3k shorter range lenses and certainly not high end primes. In the context comparing it to other super zooms and many mid level lesser range zooms (which is how I took the OP's comment) the RF 24-240mm is amazing, IMO, due to the range it covers.

For people who can't, or want to, carry multiple lenses for any number of reasons, the 24-240mm is an amazing lens. I think it is amazing for what IT does. Not for what is does as compared to other lenses. The performance regarding IQ, range, IS & AF ability it provides from just one lens is not close to being duplicated by any other single lens I can think of at the moment. Especially at its size and weight. This is why I think the 24-240mm is AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!!!

OK so let me temper this post just a bit. Consider the 1st copy I got was decentered so I was naturally very disappointed and concerned about this model lens. My other lenses are top pro level faster lenses so indeed I'm NOT trying to compare it to them. Never said I was.

I was simply surprised at the capability of this lens, let alone as a "walk around" lens that could produce a file that would easily produce an astounding print beyond a 13x19, which I consider very good indeed. Too many people love to slam this lens and at this point, assuming a good copy as I said, that is NOT fair. Critical reviewers such as a Dustin Abbott revealed it's strengths and weaknesses and STILL stated he intended to keep one in his bag..........and that guy is way picky. So am I! Frankly I'm beginning to feel to some degree the criticisms thrown out there on all posted shots claiming CA, and worse are unfounded enough considering a mere upload with it's compression is enough to lose the shear clarity often found in the native file. So I'll just write this off to those who have nothing better to do then try to pick things apart for fun. I still stand on the ground that the RF24-240 is fully capable of some wonderful images that will NOT stand out with having issues but rather possess much of the character that a quality Canon lens is capable of.

Every lens has an umbrella of capability it operates under. Every lens's capabilities come with benefits and drawbacks and not just from an IQ perspective. The considerations evaluated when designing lenses range from price, size, weight, durability, range, sharpness, brightness, color rendition, AF performance, IS capability etc. The capabilities of many lenses is very narrow such as primes. The capabilities of other lenses is far broader and this increases the complexity of their designs the number of considerations that have to be taken into account during their development. A lens like the 24-240mm has a huge number of variables to consider. It is like working a Rubic's Cube of design constraints and parameters. I can see where the engineers working on this lens at times must have been incredibly frustrated because of all the constraints they were working under. Not just constraints of physics but also the constraints of the bean counters and the marketing department.

The reason I find the 24-240mm to be amazing is just how well the engineers working on it navigated through this incredibly complex process to create a lens that performs as well as it does. I have owned a few super zooms and I wasn't expect much from this one. Certainly not close to what it actually delivers. It really defies what I thought could be accomplished with lens design of this nature. IMO, it is as impressive for its broad umbrella of capability as the $2k-$3k RF lenses. I am not saying it provides better IQ than they do but the umbrella of overall capability and design constraints of these lenses are not nearly as broad either.

If someone told me I could only have one lens to use on an R camera, and no others, to shoot everything I like to shoot, then it would be the 24-240mm. This type of lens is not for everyone but I think most would find it to be a very useful tool to have at their disposal. Dustin Abbott's review indicates the uniqueness and capability of this lens. He can have any lens he desires and he still sees the value of having the 24-240mm in his stable of lenses.