I currently own the RF 24-240 and though I don't think it's a bad lens, I don't find it very good. I am considering selling the lens and purchasing the RF 24-105 F4L and 70-200 F4L I am not an extreme pixel peeper, but I do appreciate quality lenses. I do not mind lens changing so convenience is not an issue. I guess what I want to know is will I see a noticeable image quality difference if I make the switch?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Opinions on RF 24-240...
- Thread starter jcr67
- Start date
Occams Razor
Senior Member
I have owned the RF 24-105 f/4 and it has been my primary travel lens I purchased the RF 24-240 a few months ago but have not shot extensively with it You will find that the 2 lenses you are considering will have better edge sharpness, lower distortion, less CA, less vignetting and faster AF The main benefit of the 24-240 is the great range with a single lens that weighs less and is smaller than the f/4 lenses Choosing lenses is always a compromise and you need to determine what is most important to you
I totally agree that choosing is about compromises, true for a lot of things. In your opinion, since you have used at least 2 of the lenses I asked about. Is there a noticeable difference in overall image quality. I previously used the EF 24-70 F4LIS and 70-200 F4LIS and both delivered nice images without a lot of post processing work. I also like the constant aperture. I am not insinuating the 24-240 is a horrible lens, my own shortcomings far outweigh any of my photo equipment's shortcomings.
In what way do you find it lacking? If you aren’t making large prints, cropping heavily, or viewing critically at 100% on screen, it will probably be fine. The two L lenses you are looking at are excellent, however I’d be inclined to keep the 24-240 as well. Sometimes portability beats excellence - I have the RF 24-105L and 70-200/4L for my R5 but often use my RP and 24-105STM as a lightweight option, and often it’s hard to tell the difference.
Last edited:
I find the images just look a little flat I guess I would call it. I have the R7 with the 18-135 as a lightweight option so I am looking at getting better overall image quality. I purchased the R6 first and got the 24-240 as my first RF lens. Then wound up getting the R7 for reach for sports and there was no body only option when I purchased it. So I think it doesn't make sense to have the 24-240 on the R6 if I have the 18-135 on the R7 for convenience. So I figured the 24-105 and 70-200 f4 combo would be a good option. I just wanted peoples opinions on over all image quality comparisons between the 24-240 and the 2 F4L lenses.
$1299 RF 24-105 L hardly entry level, best 24-105 ever made -- they particularly made the 24 mm so much better than the prior two models
your superzoom is fine outside for hiking, but doesn't have a foot in the door for indoor shots, whereas the f4L's do
There isn't a night and day difference between the EF and RF versions. At $1,299 its way overpriced, IMO. For that matter, most of the RF L lenses are way overpriced. Actually, the RF 24-240mm isn't all that far off the 24-105L over its zoom range. The f stop table shows it the same to 26mm, 1/3 stop slower to 43mm, 2/3 of a stop slower to 68mm and a stop slower from 70mm-104mm. Then it is just 1.3 stops slower out to 240mm. If this difference is critically important then the person probably should be using a f/2.8, or wider, lens. In the vast majority of shooting situations the f stop differences between these two lenses from 24-104mm isn't all that noteworthy if relevant at all.
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
Last edited:
“the RF 24-105 L is Professional, premium, one of the most important lenses, better in almost every metric to its EF counterparts, can be used indoors, colors great, jack of all trades, not a better choice for a one lens setup”
as reviewed by one of the best reviewers on the net
If a reviewer on the net says its so then who are we to question it. You do know that the RF 24-240mm can simulate wider aperture bokeh better than than a 24-105mm lens through the use of compression. In reality there is little practical difference between these two lenses and as I stated earlier, if these differences are that important then the person should be using a different zoom lens that is likely way more expensive than either of these two.
disparaging comments against one of the best reviewers on the net doesn't help your bias case - once again, you defend what you have, that is a heavy outdoor hiking lens and don't know light gathering and L quality. I'd use the apsc 18-150 instead for reach and lighter setup which is what the Op is talking about doing -- to stay on topic
Where i go, I would never take your super zoom indoors without sufficient light. As Dustin shows, he uses RF 24-105 L indoors at events, which I do also, since the F4L has its foot in the door, and your superzoom needs twice the light
davel33
Senior Member
WOW I could not agree more, the RF 24-105 stm is glued to my R, its my new GP low weight lens.
Occams Razor
Senior Member
There is more to a lens than f stop. If you take photos where distortion, CA , focus speed and edge sharpness are critical than the f/4 lenses will provide greater performance than the super zooms and budget lenses. Everyone has there own shooting requirements that goes well beyond the f stops. Yes some of the above can be corrected via software but that is also a consideration based on the photographer's requirements.
Occams Razor
Senior Member
Noticeable difference are really subjective. Where some photographers may find a lens produces nice images, others may find that same lens unacceptable. If you liked images that the f/4 EF versions produced than the RF equivalents will produce similar results. I agree that the 24-240 is not a bad lens but the f/4 lenses will always out perform the super zooms at equivalent focal lengths.
Abbott does decent reviews but he is far from perfect. None of them are perfect.
If one is shooting indoors in poor light then f/4 is not going to do miracles. Been there, done that and the results aren't great. A person had better have f/2.8 lenses at a minimum for this use. As I said, the f stop table for the 24-240mm isn't far off the 24-105mmL for a good bit of the range they share. The 24-105mmL is better but the gap between it and the 24-240mm is minimal in most shooting situations. Plus, the big equalizer between these two lenses is the extra 135mm of reach for the 24-240mm. The 24-105mmL has nothing in its bag of tricks to nullify this huge advantage of the 24-240mm.
I own a good copy of the EF 24-105mmL and the differences between it and the 24-240mm are minimal. At some focal lengths the 24-240mm is better. You must not be familiar with the AF of the 24-240mm because it has Canon's best AF system which is Nano USM. The same that is found in the RF L lenses. The IS is five stops which is up with the best RF L lenses. CA can be dealt with in PP and isn't an issue with this lens. The edge sharpness advantage for the 24-105mmL is limited to the 24-25mm focal lengths. Beyond this the 24-240mm holds its own against the 24-105mmL through their common focal length. Where the 24-105mmL falls way short is it has nothing to compete with the extra 135mm reach of the 24-240mm.
Last edited:
I came very close to buying this lens when it was on sale for $119. I kind of regret not buying it to use as a small, very lightweight walk around lens. I like the 24-240mm but it is a bit on the heavy side for those days I will be carrying it for 8-10 hours.
Last edited:
yeah right, you used 17-55 f2.8 on crop for years indoors which is FF equivalent of f4.5
and you continually talk about wanting an RF-s f2.8 zoom for an R7 - which would be the FF equivalent of f4.5 - but Canon will not give it to you
I have f1.4, f2, f2.8 lenses - the f4 lens on FF gets by sometimes indoors - as I said, it has its foot in the door needing just twice the light of my f2.8 lenses which as Dustin says and he shows an example that I also have real event shots like he is talking about and showing, can be handled with FF and modern NR software (like dxo PL6) by increasing the iso by a stop - Dustin shows it and you discount his and my points claiming it doesn't matter compared to your stellar 24-240
your 24-240 lens at f5.6 would need four times the light of a f2.8 lens at Dustin's 100 mm focal length he took the shot in his video
and your f6.3 long setting is useless for movement indoors without light - you'd need a whooping 8 times the light indoors of an f2.8 lens
for outdoors in good light, as I've said, for some the RF 24-240 makes sense as a hiking lens - I get that for this outdoor hiking application
for me though the RF 24 - 105 F4L + RF 100-400 combo makes more sense for both foot in the door and hiking applications.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum