Which lens for a new R user?

LeftAndRight · Apr 9, 2021

Hello,

I'm sure this has been asked time and again but I was wondering what lens would you recommend for someone on a 1000eur budget for walk around/night/landscape /travel photography?

I am torn between 24-70 f/4-7.1 RF and 24-240 and later a EF/RF 50 f/1.8 (I will be buying used)

I have read a lot of reviews for 24-240 and most say it's a good lens(but not great)

I don't see reviews for 24-70 f/4-7.1 (Watched a few videos and it seems to be okay like 24-240)

Since I will be carrying just one body, I try to avoid lens changes so a more versatile mm is desirable.

Since canon is discontinuing a lot of EF glass, it should be a good place to look for some (relatively) cheap glass but there're so many options! It's a bit overwhelming esp V I, II, III of some lenses, newer versions tend to be better but do they justify the price difference?

Thomas A Anderson · Apr 9, 2021

LeftAndRight said:
Hello,

I'm sure this has been asked time and again but I was wondering what lens would you recommend for someone on a 1000eur budget for walk around/night/landscape /travel photography?

I am torn between 24-70 f/4-7.1 RF and 24-240 and later a EF/RF 50 f/1.8 (I will be buying used)

I have read a lot of reviews for 24-240 and most say it's a good lens(but not great)

I don't see reviews for 24-70 f/4-7.1 (Watched a few videos and it seems to be okay like 24-240)

Since I will be carrying just one body, I try to avoid lens changes so a more versatile mm is desirable.

If this is your criteria then why not consider the RF 24-105 f/4? Cheaper in the kit, too.

LeftAndRight said:
Since canon is discontinuing a lot of EF glass, it should be a good place to look for some (relatively) cheap glass but there're so many options! It's a bit overwhelming esp V I, II, III of some lenses, newer versions tend to be better but do they justify the price difference?

shadowlands · Apr 9, 2021

Thomas A Anderson said:
LeftAndRight said:

Hello,

I'm sure this has been asked time and again but I was wondering what lens would you recommend for someone on a 1000eur budget for walk around/night/landscape /travel photography?

I am torn between 24-70 f/4-7.1 RF and 24-240 and later a EF/RF 50 f/1.8 (I will be buying used)

I have read a lot of reviews for 24-240 and most say it's a good lens(but not great)

I don't see reviews for 24-70 f/4-7.1 (Watched a few videos and it seems to be okay like 24-240)

Since I will be carrying just one body, I try to avoid lens changes so a more versatile mm is desirable.

Click to expand...

If this is your criteria then why not consider the RF 24-105 f/4? Cheaper in the kit, too.

Thomas A Anderson said:

Since canon is discontinuing a lot of EF glass, it should be a good place to look for some (relatively) cheap glass but there're so many options! It's a bit overwhelming esp V I, II, III of some lenses, newer versions tend to be better but do they justify the price difference?

Click to expand...

Agreed. The 24-105mm F4 L is awesome!!! I added the 50mm as well because it's super affordable.

--
Canon EOS R
Canon RF 50mm F1.8 STM
Canon RF 24-105mm F4 L IS USM
Canon Speedlite EL-100
DJI Mavic Mini & GoPro Hero 8 Black
https://www.flickr.com/photos/darrenwb/

thunder storm · Apr 9, 2021

LeftAndRight said:
Hello,

I'm sure this has been asked time and again but I was wondering what lens would you recommend for someone on a 1000eur budget for walk around/night/landscape /travel photography?

I am torn between 24-70 f/4-7.1 RF and 24-240 and later a EF/RF 50 f/1.8 (I will be buying used)

I have read a lot of reviews for 24-240 and most say it's a good lens(but not great)

I don't see reviews for 24-70 f/4-7.1 (Watched a few videos and it seems to be okay like 24-240)

Skip the 24-70 f/4-7.1. The RF 24-240 is a bit better. But it's just good. Not great.

Go for a great lens. The RF 24-105mm f/4.0 is great.

LeftAndRight said:
Since I will be carrying just one body, I try to avoid lens changes so a more versatile mm is desirable.

Since canon is discontinuing a lot of EF glass, it should be a good place to look for some (relatively) cheap glass but there're so many options! It's a bit overwhelming esp V I, II, III of some lenses, newer versions tend to be better but do they justify the price difference?

Terry Danks · Apr 9, 2021

I am so pleased with the RF24-105, I am selling my old EF16-35 f/2.8. Just don't need the 16mm as I once did on crop bodies.

The RF24-105 is sort of a "no brainer."

tkbslc · Apr 9, 2021

RF 24-105 f4 L. Get it used if it is outside your budget new.

Good for landscapes, scenery, portraits, video, etc. Really anything but wildlife and field sports. 24-105 is an extremely useful range. 105mm at f4 gives nice bg blur for portraits.

Tried the 24-240 and 24-105 7.1 and 24-105L definitely wins on all-around use and image quality.

If you feel you also need a faster prime in the kit, it won't take most people too long to save up and add the $200 50mm f1.8 next.

johncal · Apr 9, 2021

I would definitely go for the largest focal range I could. I have a TAMROM EF MOUNT 28-300 which is a very good but not great lens. But its a great walkabout lens that I always leave on my camera when I'm putting the camera away. This is because when the unexpected happens, I don't have to worry about changing lenses quickly and possibly losing a shot. I can just grab the camera in an instant and shoot. If I have time, or know in advance what I'm shooting, I can switch to a specialized prime. Also, when walking around on vacation you really don't want to be hauling around a ton of gear, especially if you don't want to tick off your spouse or family , so a Jack of all trades master of none lens is perfect for those occasions.

I have a fair amount of Prime Lenses, and they are indeed better but they are also specialized. I did a small amount of paid work with the Tamron and never got any complaints. I know a lot of people would call that heretical, but if you have to make choices, then you have to make choices. So even since I bought 5 primes since the Tamron, I still use it all the time.

So I'd get the lens that will cover 70-80% of what you might need and work towards the rest at a more comfortable pace.

davel33 · Apr 9, 2021

I would go with the 24-240 or 14-105L f4. I have both and there is not a lot of difference besides the range and speed. I have to pixel peep at 100% to see the difference

You did not say which R your going to use it with, it can make a recommendation a bit harder

If your main need is a good walk around lens get the 24-240 if not get the RF 24-105 f4 L.

I have both the R and R6. Canon sort of forced me into getting the RF 24-105L

When I got the call my preorder R was in, I made a beeline to Pro-photo to get my R. I wrongly made the assumption that an adapter would be available and I was so wrong

I had to get the RF 24-105 f4 L to be able to use my new R.

So to make a long story short, I came home with a new R and RF 24-105 f4 L

Now I have and use the RF 24-240 on my R for landscapes/portraits and the R6 for everything else . I really like to shoot Auto Cross, cars racing around cones on a huge empty parking lot. My son in law, niece and daughter all do this and I enjoy watching and shooting. The R was not up to the job. Now that I have the equipment to do the job "RF 70-200 f4L and R6, They have not been to one race yet this year, SOON I hope SOON

My daughter also does Iron man events and some Spartan races that are a lot of fun to watch and shoot.

The finish line of her last Spartan race, and yes the flames are real. Look at the brush behind them

--
"Just one more Lens, I promise....."
Dave

RDM5546 · Apr 9, 2021

LeftAndRight said:
Hello,

I'm sure this has been asked time and again but I was wondering what lens would you recommend for someone on a 1000eur budget for walk around/night/landscape /travel photography?

I am torn between 24-70 f/4-7.1 RF and 24-240 and later a EF/RF 50 f/1.8 (I will be buying used)

I have read a lot of reviews for 24-240 and most say it's a good lens(but not great)

I don't see reviews for 24-70 f/4-7.1 (Watched a few videos and it seems to be okay like 24-240)

Since I will be carrying just one body, I try to avoid lens changes so a more versatile mm is desirable.

Since canon is discontinuing a lot of EF glass, it should be a good place to look for some (relatively) cheap glass but there're so many options! It's a bit overwhelming esp V I, II, III of some lenses, newer versions tend to be better but do they justify the price difference?

Get the 24-240mm. It better than good! For what it does and what cost it is a great lens. Others think so too!!

Loading…

www.slrlounge.com

JustUs7 · Apr 9, 2021

There is no RF 24-70 f/4-7.1. It’s a RF 24-105 f/4.5-7.1 for the budget zoom.

I have to agree, with $1,000 to spend (assuming this is just on glass), get the 24-240 and the 50 f/1.8.

Karl_Guttag · Apr 9, 2021

I think it is unanimous to NOT get the 24-105 STM. The debate comes down to the RF24-105f4 or the RF24-240.

I'm a big fan of the RF24-240 as a walk-around lens. You will also be gaining about 1 stop of light through much of the range with the 24-105f4. See the table below from The Digital Picture

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

The 24-240 is very good in terms of sharpness from about 70mm through 105 even wide open and keeps going to 240. I expect that the 24-105f4 will be a good bit higher resolution at 24mm and a bit better from 35 to 70mm.

Both the 24-105f4 and the 24-240 have USM focusing (the 24-105 STM is slower STM focusing) and great stabilization.

My choice was to go for the 24-240 for my walk-about lens and I don't regret it. It was not a matter of money. (In the Canon US store the 24-240 regularly is on sale refurbished for less than $800 - right now it is selling for $718 ).

I'm not as happy with the RF50f1.8 (clearly the least good of the RF lenses) and the RF85f2 (good sharpness but not the best at focusing). If I have the 24-240 on my camera I would not take it off to put the RF50f1.8 on UNLESS I absolutely needed a wider aperture. Wide-open at f5, the 24-240 will do almost as well at 50mmf5 as the RF50f1.8 at f5 (and the RF50f1.8 does not have stabilization).

In the end, do you want more focal length versatility or slightly sharper images (sometimes) with about 1 more f-stop?

LeftAndRight said:
Hello,

I'm sure this has been asked time and again but I was wondering what lens would you recommend for someone on a 1000eur budget for walk around/night/landscape /travel photography?

I am torn between 24-70 f/4-7.1 RF and 24-240 and later a EF/RF 50 f/1.8 (I will be buying used)

I have read a lot of reviews for 24-240 and most say it's a good lens(but not great)

I don't see reviews for 24-70 f/4-7.1 (Watched a few videos and it seems to be okay like 24-240)

Since I will be carrying just one body, I try to avoid lens changes so a more versatile mm is desirable.

Since canon is discontinuing a lot of EF glass, it should be a good place to look for some (relatively) cheap glass but there're so many options! It's a bit overwhelming esp V I, II, III of some lenses, newer versions tend to be better but do they justify the price difference?

RDM5546 · Apr 9, 2021

Karl_Guttag said:
I think it is unanimous to NOT get the 24-105 STM. The debate comes down to the RF24-105f4 or the RF24-240.

I'm a big fan of the RF24-240 as a walk-around lens. You will also be gaining about 1 stop of light through much of the range with the 24-105f4. See the table below from The Digital Picture

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

The 24-240 is very good in terms of sharpness from about 70mm through 105 even wide open and keeps going to 240. I expect that the 24-105f4 will be a good bit higher resolution at 24mm and a bit better from 35 to 70mm.

Both the 24-105f4 and the 24-240 have USM focusing (the 24-105 STM is slower STM focusing) and great stabilization.

My choice was to go for the 24-240 for my walk-about lens and I don't regret it. It was not a matter of money. (In the Canon US store the 24-240 regularly is on sale refurbished for less than $800 - right now it is selling for $718 ).

I'm not as happy with the RF50f1.8 (clearly the least good of the RF lenses) and the RF85f2 (good sharpness but not the best at focusing). If I have the 24-240 on my camera I would not take it off to put the RF50f1.8 on UNLESS I absolutely needed a wider aperture. Wide-open at f5, the 24-240 will do almost as well at 50mmf5 as the RF50f1.8 at f5 (and the RF50f1.8 does not have stabilization).

In the end, do you want more focal length versatility or slightly sharper images (sometimes) with about 1 more f-stop?

LeftAndRight said:

Hello,

I'm sure this has been asked time and again but I was wondering what lens would you recommend for someone on a 1000eur budget for walk around/night/landscape /travel photography?

I am torn between 24-70 f/4-7.1 RF and 24-240 and later a EF/RF 50 f/1.8 (I will be buying used)

I have read a lot of reviews for 24-240 and most say it's a good lens(but not great)

I don't see reviews for 24-70 f/4-7.1 (Watched a few videos and it seems to be okay like 24-240)

Since I will be carrying just one body, I try to avoid lens changes so a more versatile mm is desirable.

Since canon is discontinuing a lot of EF glass, it should be a good place to look for some (relatively) cheap glass but there're so many options! It's a bit overwhelming esp V I, II, III of some lenses, newer versions tend to be better but do they justify the price difference?

Click to expand...

The stabilization is very good with the 24-240 for shooting in dim light. If you have enough room to back up you can get pretty good blurring using the longer focal lengths. I would start with this lens and wait and see if you need the 50mmf1.8. I have the the 50mmf1.8 and like it for backup because it is small and light for travel and a backup for the 24-240mm in a pinch if something goes wrong. However I do not think I have ever decided to use it in actual shooting over the 24-240 which is incredible versatile. I have the RF 24-105mmf4 but I use that lens primarily only for video since it zooms with constant aperture and it not a versatile as a 10X zoom for travel stills.

SteveinLouisville · Apr 9, 2021

It does everything well. Not the best at any one thing, but is very solid across its 10X zoom range. The lens to have when you are just taking one. I have never been disappointed with it. Here is one shot at 24mm and one at 218mm to give you an idea of its versatility.

My daughter in her cosplay outfit at a local park

Ali · Apr 9, 2021

I second the comments about choosing the 24-240 - it's a surprisingly good lens, and for general walk about and travel it's pretty versatile. Also a bit cheaper than the 24-105.

Before I bought the R5 I rented it, along with the 24-240, and that combo sold me on it.

johncal · Apr 9, 2021

SteveinLouisville said:
It does everything well. Not the best at any one thing, but is very solid across its 10X zoom range. The lens to have when you are just taking one. I have never been disappointed with it. Here is one shot at 24mm and one at 218mm to give you an idea of its versatility.

My daughter in her cosplay outfit at a local park

I would say that picture of your daughter shows more than acceptable image quality. My Tamron 28-300's happy spot is F8. Superzooms can be a bit soft in certain ranges of their zooms, but a little stopping down straightens them out nicely.

Every lens I have behaves differently and that's to be expected. So just learn the lens and work within the limits. The other thing is post-processing software. My Tamron looks WAY better once I run it through DXO. It sorts it out very well in all zoom ranges, yet without the software it would not be impressive at all.

LeftAndRight · Apr 10, 2021

Thank you for the wisdom and a great picture.! I liked how you're so enthusiatic about photography

To answer your question, I was gonna get a used R body and prob get a 24-240 as others have mentioned. I have used 18-135 USM on a friend's 90D for a few weeks and that mm is quite versatile.

I mean quality wise, f/4L wins hands down but currently I am not getting a used copy less than 1100eur which makes me think, is it that great than its EF L counterpart which can be had between 350-400eur.

LeftAndRight · Apr 10, 2021

Thanks for the feedback and images, it really helped me choose one over another. Have a great day!

shadowlands · Apr 12, 2021

tkbslc said:
RF 24-105 f4 L. Get it used if it is outside your budget new.

Good for landscapes, scenery, portraits, video, etc. Really anything but wildlife and field sports. 24-105 is an extremely useful range. 105mm at f4 gives nice bg blur for portraits.

Tried the 24-240 and 24-105 7.1 and 24-105L definitely wins on all-around use and image quality.

If you feel you also need a faster prime in the kit, it won't take most people too long to save up and add the $200 50mm f1.8 next.

Exactly what I did! Boom!

tkbslc · Apr 12, 2021

Ali said:
I second the comments about choosing the 24-240 - it's a surprisingly good lens, and for general walk about and travel it's pretty versatile. Also a bit cheaper than the 24-105.

Before I bought the R5 I rented it, along with the 24-240, and that combo sold me on it.

24-240 is just OK. IMO if you want a lens like that, get an EOS M50 and 18-150 and you'll be half the weight.

There is a mid range where the 24-240 is very good (50-135mm) but it is kit lens quality at either end. It also requires software supporting a lens profile or the CA and vignetting is atrocious.

In my opinion it is less versatile than the 24-105L because it's not as useful for landscapes and scenery at the wide end due to optical flaws. And it is not as useful for portraits because the aperture is much slower in the portrait range. The only place it has more versatility is for longer zoom. But it has very weak edges at full zoom. And a very slow aperture.

This is just my opinion after trying both lenses. If you like the 24-240, that is great.

JustUs7 · Apr 12, 2021

tkbslc said:
Ali said:

I second the comments about choosing the 24-240 - it's a surprisingly good lens, and for general walk about and travel it's pretty versatile. Also a bit cheaper than the 24-105.

Before I bought the R5 I rented it, along with the 24-240, and that combo sold me on it.

Click to expand...

24-240 is just OK. IMO if you want a lens like that, get an EOS M50 and 18-150 and you'll be half the weight.

There is a mid range where the 24-240 is very good (50-135mm) but it is kit lens quality at either end. It also requires software supporting a lens profile or the CA and vignetting is atrocious.

In my opinion it is less versatile than the 24-105L because it's not as useful for landscapes and scenery at the wide end due to optical flaws. And it is not as useful for portraits because the aperture is much slower in the portrait range. The only place it has more versatility is for longer zoom. But it has very weak edges at full zoom. And a very slow aperture.

This is just my opinion after trying both lenses. If you like the 24-240, that is great.

I find it rather useful. Perhaps not to pixel peeping standard, I don’t know.

Which lens for a new R user?

Active member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Active member

Active member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Keyboard shortcuts