If You Get A Good Copy It's AMAZING Locked

SonyX wrote:

RDM5546 wrote:

You do not have count on reviewers. Just compare the RF lens with a 24mm Canon prime lens like I did.

I have taken a picture of a brick wall with EF 24mmf1.4L II lens and the RF 24-240mm at the same time using the lenses on a tripod mounted EOS R and compared the the raw images the RF 24-240 at the 24 mm marking covers a field 8% bigger than the EF 24mm lens. Roughly 22.5mm FL. When you look at the SOOC JPEG Image of the RF lens when doing this it nearly identical to the image the EF lens makes, i.e. 24mm. Below are the SOOC Corrected JPEG image from EOS R and a screen shot the the RAW image of the same uncorrected RAW file (see the corners and the amount of edges cut off by the correction as well are the removal of the distortions):

thank you for you time to do the test.
Will be glad to see raw files of 24 vr 24-240 at infinity

I justed test indoors my RF24-240mm (it is raining outside) using my EOS R which my common default for this body.   I manually focused from minimum to maximum and too three pictures at MFD, six feet away and infinity.   The focus breathing is very small the coverage using 24mm FL varies  only 1-2% at most in the SOOC JPEGs. So the 24mm setting is varying at most .1mm.  If you were thinking this is why my brick wall RAW and JPEG images show 22.5mm in RAW and 24mm in SOOC JPEG will have a significant difference at infinity I can tell you the focus effect and infinity would be no significant difference.  When sun is shining I might be able to do your infinity outside test if I hear a plauseable benefit of what I will learn from that experiment.