ajamils1 wrote:
Nice images!
Since you carry RF 100-500, wouldn't it be better to replace 24-240 with RF 24-105 F4? Then you will have less overlap.
Thank you
I have bought the 24-240 with the idea of using it as a 1-lens-only casual outing solution. I wanted to test it and the 100-500 better plus I needed both wide and tele so I took them both on the Curacao trip. But in the future, for (semi)serious traveling, I hope the rumored wide RF L primes will appear and I will use them (with the 100-500 if wildlife is on the "menu").
I am really a prime lens snob at heart I got the 100-500 since I cannot justify the cost of big whites for the amount of wildlife shooting I do. I bought the 24-240 for convenience, the overlap is kind of a deliberate choice.
I have considered the 24-105 but my reasoning for not getting it is that I could fairly easily do with a couple of primes instead of it, while the 24-240 would take 3 primes at least to effectively substitute. I am sure that the 24-105 is better than the 24-240 in terms of image quality, but if I had it I'd feel the need to carry something longer and that would defeat the 1-lens-to-rule-them-all philosophy.
Incidentally, I did have the EF 24-105 f/4L (used with a 5D mkI and mkII) and I liked the convenience but I found the 105 limiting on the tele side and more importantly I was not a fan of its image quality... which ultimately led me into prime land... well before the dawn of RF. Before people jump on me, this is not an indictment of the RF 24-105 f/4L, which I haven't personally used but I read is quite well considered. If I had plenty of disposable cash I might even get one, but I have already preordered the new 100mm macro and will preorder the rumored 35mm L when it will be possible... so need to save for that