If You Get A Good Copy It's AMAZING Locked

ProDude wrote:

bernie r wrote:

The RF 24-240mm is only £899, why are we assuming it's L series quality in optics and build quality? It's surprising it's this good for starters, it's a nice budget option... However, there is the fact that you can buy a Sigma 150-600 5-6.3 for only £770...

Obviously a non L series £899 lens will be soft in places.

Here in the U.S. the RF24-240 has recently been offered for $699 too good to pass up or at least try. That is what I did. The 1st copy had issues (was decentered) and other then the immediate center was not sharp displaying some rather horrid bokeh. The replacement copy as I've said is super sharp through at least 1/2 of the entire frame and frankly the corners are NOT as bad as some seem to feel.

There are no question some Sigma lenses out there that are unreal deals to be sure and well worth trying. For walk around purposes with minimal compromise the RF24-240 is still a great option. If all you want to do is take pictures and whine about corner sharpness at 100% pixel level on a screen take a pass. But then you can take a pass on perhaps as many as 90% of the lenses out there if that's what your criteria is. First take a prime as a choice or a $2300 RF zoom. THEN you may get nice sharp corners.

That frankly that is perhaps 20% or less of photography. Argue if you wish take a poll and I bet you'll find that to be the case. Being in the professional (getting paid to do it) world I can say that I and many of my contemporaries would tend to agree. I know I have this conversation with many of them and it seems to be the well agreed upon way we do things. I've been on this forum since 1999 and it's never been any different. There are always a few that have nothing better to do then analyze to the nth degree matters that have little bearing on the art of photography. Sad but true.

Software correction to the level employed on the 24-240 at 24mm involves the stretching of the entire frame – the stretching is weaker the closer you get to the center, but the loss of microcontrast caused by the stretching affects the entire frame, not just the corners. So it's not only soft corners, it's a noticeable loss of microcontrast in the outer ~1/3 of the frame. But like you said, maybe that's ok for a consumer grade lens. I just still think the price is too high even at the current $699. Recently it was on sale as refurbished for around $475, and I actually ordered it – but it's now showing as backordered, so not sure if it will get fulfilled eventually or not. Anyway, I agree that this lens has a place in the lineup and a purpose for many photographers – my main complaint has been I thought they were asking to much for it at $900 when it was released.