DPReview.com is closing April 10th - Find out more

Talk up (or down) the RF 24–240mm F4-6.3

Started 10 months ago | Discussions thread
roby17269
roby17269 Senior Member • Posts: 2,395
Re: Talk up (or down) the RF 24–240mm F4-6.3
1

ProDude wrote:

roby17269 wrote:

In terms of image quality on a R5, I find it lackluster. Admittedly I set a high bar for it, being used to the RF 1.2 primes and the 100-500. I am not bothered in the least by the need for software corrections. The lens can deliver acceptable images for sure, but they lack the detail and crispiness of the images captured with better (and yes, bigger, heavier and more expensive) lenses.

YMMV maybe my copy is not a top one or maybe if you use it on a R6 the lower resolution will reduce the issues.

Some examples (not meant to illustrate any point! )

Personally I think you're missing the boat. I have to assume you do NOT have a copy of Topaz Sharpen AI. I took your images and ran them through a mild run of Sharpen AI and they freaking came to life with detail. In NO way lacking one bit of it even compared to the more expensive glass. I own several lenses far beyond the cost and are L RF lenses, but still just a pinch of post processing through the likes of Sharpen AI and it's incomparable with no issues whatsoever. I would certainly recommend you get it if you don't have it. I wouldn't want to believe you have it and didn't use it on these images as they need NO apologies when processed accordingly.

Oh well.

I do hope we won't go into a loop like the last time.

You and I have a different opinion about this lens. That's fine with me. Why can't you accept that. There is no law that says that I have to love it like you do.

3 things: 1) when I use my L lenses I get better results that satisfy me without the need of additional processing on top of what I normally do. 2) I have used Topaz in the past and did not like the results (too over the top for my taste)... if I need Topaz then for me that's a drawback... and so no I do not have it. And finally 3) I am not the only one that finds this lens so-so

Now, why would the latter (the lens being so-so) be a strange thing, considering it is, after all, a non-L superzoom, is frankly beyond me. It is better than other consumer superzooms? Yes certainly for what I've seen. Is it a miracle L-quality-for-non-L-price lens? No I'd not agree with that.

-- hide signature --

Ciao!
Roberto
My photos: http://rdmfashionphoto.com/
IG: @rdmfashionphoto

 roby17269's gear list:roby17269's gear list
Canon EOS R5 Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.5 1-5x Macro Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II Canon RF 50mm F1.2L USM +20 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow