The normal zoom

RLight · Aug 8, 2023

My R8 needs a compact zoom to go with it, one more capable than the 24-50.

.
Request to the public: Votes from the peanut gallery and why.

Hint, I’m already familiar with them, but am curious on other people’s thoughts.

The 24-240 goes great for zoo duty.

The 24-105 (not L) is more low key, no red ring

24-105L, is L, has f/4 constant, coatings and nano USM, but is heavier, more pricey of the bunch.

Not gonna lie right now it’s in that order.

Curious what other people do or “pair” with. Example, I used to pair the 24-240 with the 35 1.8, not bad, but the AF on the R with 24-240 was iffy, and it was a touch bulky.

Hiking, park, throw in car.

Again I’d say 24-50, but I’m finding it’s just ok. More barely ok. CA drives me nuts and I would like more reach.

Some examples of train of thoughts…

24-105s could “pair” with the 100-400. Or not. 24-105 (not L) is awesome for these reasons… *insert reasons*
Ill be studying benchmarks on these shortly…

Gam3r01 · Aug 8, 2023

Id vote for the 24-240.

I liked it on my RP, and I love it on my R6. I think its the ideal pairing for a body like the R8 (for general use and the price). I think in the 3 years Ive had it the focus has maybe missed a dozen times at most out of tens of thousands of shots.

Optically, its far better than it has any business being (especially on the long end). The lens profiles handle the software correction well enough on the wide end.

Only thing I would wish for is weather sealing, but on the R8 its not as big of a deal since the body does not have as robust weather sealing.

Fjzk · Aug 8, 2023

RLight said:
My R8 needs a compact zoom to go with it, one more capable than the 24-50.

.
Request to the public: Votes from the peanut gallery and why.

Hint, I’m already familiar with them, but am curious on other people’s thoughts.

The 24-240 goes great for zoo duty.

The 24-105 (not L) is more low key, no red ring

24-105L, is L, has f/4 constant, coatings and nano USM, but is heavier, more pricey of the bunch.

Not gonna lie right now it’s in that order.

Curious what other people do or “pair” with. Example, I used to pair the 24-240 with the 35 1.8, not bad, but the AF on the R with 24-240 was iffy, and it was a touch bulky.

Hiking, park, throw in car.

Again I’d say 24-50, but I’m finding it’s just ok. More barely ok. CA drives me nuts and I would like more reach.

Some examples of train of thoughts…

24-105s could “pair” with the 100-400. Or not. 24-105 (not L) is awesome for these reasons… *insert reasons*
Ill be studying benchmarks on these shortly…

Think the 24-105 stm is a no brainer to pair with the R8… for not a lot of extra weight and length you double your reach. Then software (kind of) closes the IQ gap versus the L.

For me portability is king so I tend to leave my RP + 24-105L at home in favor of my M cameras with the 18-150 and 11-22. If Canon comes up with the RF-S version of the latter I will take a serious look at a future R10II.

--
All-in-One zoom and just PureRaw it!

Fjzk on VERO™

Nature and Travel Photography #snap_community_member

vero.co

drsnoopy · Aug 9, 2023

RLight said:
My R8 needs a compact zoom to go with it, one more capable than the 24-50.

.
Request to the public: Votes from the peanut gallery and why.

Hint, I’m already familiar with them, but am curious on other people’s thoughts.

The 24-240 goes great for zoo duty.

The 24-105 (not L) is more low key, no red ring

24-105L, is L, has f/4 constant, coatings and nano USM, but is heavier, more pricey of the bunch.

Not gonna lie right now it’s in that order.

Curious what other people do or “pair” with. Example, I used to pair the 24-240 with the 35 1.8, not bad, but the AF on the R with 24-240 was iffy, and it was a touch bulky.

Hiking, park, throw in car.

Again I’d say 24-50, but I’m finding it’s just ok. More barely ok. CA drives me nuts and I would like more reach.

Some examples of train of thoughts…

24-105s could “pair” with the 100-400. Or not. 24-105 (not L) is awesome for these reasons… *insert reasons*
Ill be studying benchmarks on these shortly…

I have both RF 24-105 versions, L and STM. The STM is surprisingly good, and it lived on my R then RP (both since sold). The L is better, but yes it’s bigger and heavier, no surprise. Personally I didn’t like the 100-400 (inconsistent AF, not as sharp as expected, busy bokeh - same on 3 copies), so I wouldn’t pair it with anything. My 70-200/4 works as a pair. The 24-240 is as big as the 24-105L and less good at both ends. If I do get an R8 body it will wear the 24-105 STM with the 16mm in my pocket.

PS I would love an RF 24-70/4.

m100 · Aug 9, 2023

RLight said:
My R8 needs a compact zoom to go with it, one more capable than the 24-50.

.
Request to the public: Votes from the peanut gallery and why.

Hint, I’m already familiar with them, but am curious on other people’s thoughts.

The 24-240 goes great for zoo duty.

The 24-105 (not L) is more low key, no red ring

24-105L, is L, has f/4 constant, coatings and nano USM, but is heavier, more pricey of the bunch.

Not gonna lie right now it’s in that order.

Curious what other people do or “pair” with. Example, I used to pair the 24-240 with the 35 1.8, not bad, but the AF on the R with 24-240 was iffy, and it was a touch bulky.

Hiking, park, throw in car.

Again I’d say 24-50, but I’m finding it’s just ok. More barely ok. CA drives me nuts and I would like more reach.

Some examples of train of thoughts…

24-105s could “pair” with the 100-400. Or not. 24-105 (not L) is awesome for these reasons… *insert reasons*
Ill be studying benchmarks on these shortly…

Of your choices I am thinking the RF 24-105mm L will in most cases make the best SOOC JPEGs on your R8.

The little DIGIC X computer will see you have a L lens on it and that you are serious about IQ and will get L lens busy.

DIGIC X will switch to L lens mode.

--
Dr. says listen to this every morning.

Borami · Aug 9, 2023

RLight said:
My R8 needs a compact zoom to go with it, one more capable than the 24-50.

.
Request to the public: Votes from the peanut gallery and why.

Hint, I’m already familiar with them, but am curious on other people’s thoughts.

The 24-240 goes great for zoo duty.

The 24-105 (not L) is more low key, no red ring

24-105L, is L, has f/4 constant, coatings and nano USM, but is heavier, more pricey of the bunch.

Not gonna lie right now it’s in that order.

Curious what other people do or “pair” with. Example, I used to pair the 24-240 with the 35 1.8, not bad, but the AF on the R with 24-240 was iffy, and it was a touch bulky.

Hiking, park, throw in car.

Again I’d say 24-50, but I’m finding it’s just ok. More barely ok. CA drives me nuts and I would like more reach.

Some examples of train of thoughts…

24-105s could “pair” with the 100-400. Or not. 24-105 (not L) is awesome for these reasons… *insert reasons*
Ill be studying benchmarks on these shortly…

Even R8 w/ 24-240 is bulky for general purpose handling. I relegated R8 for specific use cases like lowlight , ultra wide , max resolution, and went with R10 and 18-150 for general purpose shooting. In good light the R10 combo pretty much matched R8 and 24-240 in AF and detail. Plus is both use the same battery which helps simplify charging.

tkbslc · Aug 9, 2023

RLight said:
My R8 needs a compact zoom to go with it, one more capable than the 24-50.

.
Request to the public: Votes from the peanut gallery and why.

Hint, I’m already familiar with them, but am curious on other people’s thoughts.

The 24-240 goes great for zoo duty.

The 24-105 (not L) is more low key, no red ring

24-105L, is L, has f/4 constant, coatings and nano USM, but is heavier, more pricey of the bunch.

24-105L is actually slightly smaller and lighter than the 24-240. IN particular it is also less front heavy when in use. I found the 24-105L felt a lot better on the Rp, so by extension it should also on the R8. 24-240 is a good option, I just don't want you to think it's any more compact than it is.

24-105 STM is in a whole different class in terms of size and weight. It matches the compact body a lot better and feels very light and balanced. It's the right size for a kit lens on that camera. I have a feeling it is more of what you are looking for.

cocoanud · Aug 9, 2023

RLight said:
My R8 needs a compact zoom to go with it, one more capable than the 24-50.

.
Request to the public: Votes from the peanut gallery and why.

Hint, I’m already familiar with them, but am curious on other people’s thoughts.

The 24-240 goes great for zoo duty.

I sold this previously but have bought it back again for use with R8. Will fit nicely in a Mirrorless Mover 25i.

RLight said:
The 24-105 (not L) is more low key, no red ring

Not sure it is any better optically than 24-50 overall in that same range. Not much heavier than the 24-50 but overall size will increase. I'd personally stick with RF 24-50 and allocate space for the EL-100 flash instead.

RLight said:
24-105L, is L, has f/4 constant, coatings and nano USM, but is heavier, more pricey of the bunch.

Very close between this and the RF 24-240. Both weigh about the same, 24-105L gets you better build quality and somewhat better optics. The RF 24-240 gets you more reach and somewhat worse optics.

(Anecdata : The RF 24-240 comes across as much better put together than my RF 24-105L. The 24-105L feels "wonky" or wobbly compared to the 24-240)

RLight said:
Not gonna lie right now it’s in that order.

Curious what other people do or “pair” with. Example, I used to pair the 24-240 with the 35 1.8, not bad, but the AF on the R with 24-240 was iffy, and it was a touch bulky.

I have not had issues with AF with R8 + 24-240 (I think 2020 onwards R bodies should not have AF issues)

For pairing, especially with R8 ,RF 35 1.8 sounds reasonable. I got my RF 28 today so this might change over time.

RLight said:
Hiking, park, throw in car.

Again I’d say 24-50, but I’m finding it’s just ok. More barely ok. CA drives me nuts and I would like more reach.

24-50 cannot be ignored I think

Its physical size trumps lack in IQ... it isn't a horrible lens (much better than participating in EF-M 15-45 lottery)

RLight said:
Some examples of train of thoughts…

24-105s could “pair” with the 100-400. Or not. 24-105 (not L) is awesome for these reasons… *insert reasons*
Ill be studying benchmarks on these shortly…

Very close between RF 24-240 and RF 24-105L. Former has reach, latter has better build and optics and not totally handicapped in reach.

In my opinion it's between 24-50, 24-240 and 24-105L. I bought and resold that RF 24-105 STM twice... didn't do it for me . The RF 24-240 is a keeper with R8 now.

Pairing with RF 35 1.8 seems natural due to IS. Opinion on RF 28 not yet formed.

--C

RLight · Aug 9, 2023

cocoanud said:
RLight said:

My R8 needs a compact zoom to go with it, one more capable than the 24-50.

.
Request to the public: Votes from the peanut gallery and why.

Hint, I’m already familiar with them, but am curious on other people’s thoughts.

The 24-240 goes great for zoo duty.

Click to expand...

I sold this previously but have bought it back again for use with R8. Will fit nicely in a Mirrorless Mover 25i.

cocoanud said:

The 24-105 (not L) is more low key, no red ring

Click to expand...

Not sure it is any better optically than 24-50 overall in that same range. Not much heavier than the 24-50 but overall size will increase. I'd personally stick with RF 24-50 and allocate space for the EL-100 flash instead.

cocoanud said:

24-105L, is L, has f/4 constant, coatings and nano USM, but is heavier, more pricey of the bunch.

Click to expand...

Very close between this and the RF 24-240. Both weigh about the same, 24-105L gets you better build quality and somewhat better optics. The RF 24-240 gets you more reach and somewhat worse optics.

(Anecdata : The RF 24-240 comes across as much better put together than my RF 24-105L. The 24-105L feels "wonky" or wobbly compared to the 24-240)

cocoanud said:

Not gonna lie right now it’s in that order.

Curious what other people do or “pair” with. Example, I used to pair the 24-240 with the 35 1.8, not bad, but the AF on the R with 24-240 was iffy, and it was a touch bulky.

Click to expand...

I have not had issues with AF with R8 + 24-240 (I think 2020 onwards R bodies should not have AF issues)

For pairing, especially with R8 ,RF 35 1.8 sounds reasonable. I got my RF 28 today so this might change over time.

cocoanud said:

Hiking, park, throw in car.

Again I’d say 24-50, but I’m finding it’s just ok. More barely ok. CA drives me nuts and I would like more reach.

Click to expand...

24-50 cannot be ignored I think Its physical size trumps lack in IQ... it isn't a horrible lens (much better than participating in EF-M 15-45 lottery)

The color fringe in high contrast is what’s driving me bats on the 24-50. Shows up where I want to use; landscapes…

cocoanud said:
cocoanud said:

Some examples of train of thoughts…

24-105s could “pair” with the 100-400. Or not. 24-105 (not L) is awesome for these reasons… *insert reasons*
Ill be studying benchmarks on these shortly…

Click to expand...

Very close between RF 24-240 and RF 24-105L. Former has reach, latter has better build and optics and not totally handicapped in reach.

In my opinion it's between 24-50, 24-240 and 24-105L. I bought and resold that RF 24-105 STM twice... didn't do it for me . The RF 24-240 is a keeper with R8 now.

Pairing with RF 35 1.8 seems natural due to IS. Opinion on RF 28 not yet formed.

--C

gimp_dad · Aug 9, 2023

RLight said:
cocoanud said:

RLight said:

My R8 needs a compact zoom to go with it, one more capable than the 24-50.

.
Request to the public: Votes from the peanut gallery and why.

Hint, I’m already familiar with them, but am curious on other people’s thoughts.

The 24-240 goes great for zoo duty.

Click to expand...

I sold this previously but have bought it back again for use with R8. Will fit nicely in a Mirrorless Mover 25i.

RLight said:

The 24-105 (not L) is more low key, no red ring

Click to expand...

Not sure it is any better optically than 24-50 overall in that same range. Not much heavier than the 24-50 but overall size will increase. I'd personally stick with RF 24-50 and allocate space for the EL-100 flash instead.

RLight said:

24-105L, is L, has f/4 constant, coatings and nano USM, but is heavier, more pricey of the bunch.

Click to expand...

Very close between this and the RF 24-240. Both weigh about the same, 24-105L gets you better build quality and somewhat better optics. The RF 24-240 gets you more reach and somewhat worse optics.

(Anecdata : The RF 24-240 comes across as much better put together than my RF 24-105L. The 24-105L feels "wonky" or wobbly compared to the 24-240)

RLight said:

Not gonna lie right now it’s in that order.

Curious what other people do or “pair” with. Example, I used to pair the 24-240 with the 35 1.8, not bad, but the AF on the R with 24-240 was iffy, and it was a touch bulky.

Click to expand...

I have not had issues with AF with R8 + 24-240 (I think 2020 onwards R bodies should not have AF issues)

For pairing, especially with R8 ,RF 35 1.8 sounds reasonable. I got my RF 28 today so this might change over time.

RLight said:

Hiking, park, throw in car.

Again I’d say 24-50, but I’m finding it’s just ok. More barely ok. CA drives me nuts and I would like more reach.

Click to expand...

24-50 cannot be ignored I think Its physical size trumps lack in IQ... it isn't a horrible lens (much better than participating in EF-M 15-45 lottery)

Click to expand...

The color fringe in high contrast is what’s driving me bats on the 24-50. Shows up where I want to use; landscapes…

Agree it's noticeable with bright backgrounds. But no worse than the rf24-105 stm, and only slightly worse than the 24-240. RF24-105/4LIS is no contest optically. So many times I've said I'm taking the 24-240 on this trip only to change my mind at the last minute back to the trusty RF24-105/4LIS.

Another thought, have you tried exposure bracketing? With highlights not blown, there will be much less CA and fringing.

RLight said:
RLight said:

RLight said:

Some examples of train of thoughts…

24-105s could “pair” with the 100-400. Or not. 24-105 (not L) is awesome for these reasons… *insert reasons*
Ill be studying benchmarks on these shortly…

Click to expand...

Very close between RF 24-240 and RF 24-105L. Former has reach, latter has better build and optics and not totally handicapped in reach.

In my opinion it's between 24-50, 24-240 and 24-105L. I bought and resold that RF 24-105 STM twice... didn't do it for me . The RF 24-240 is a keeper with R8 now.

Pairing with RF 35 1.8 seems natural due to IS. Opinion on RF 28 not yet formed.

Click to expand...

RLight · Aug 9, 2023

gimp_dad said:
RLight said:

cocoanud said:

RLight said:

My R8 needs a compact zoom to go with it, one more capable than the 24-50.

.
Request to the public: Votes from the peanut gallery and why.

Hint, I’m already familiar with them, but am curious on other people’s thoughts.

The 24-240 goes great for zoo duty.

Click to expand...

I sold this previously but have bought it back again for use with R8. Will fit nicely in a Mirrorless Mover 25i.

gimp_dad said:

The 24-105 (not L) is more low key, no red ring

Click to expand...

Not sure it is any better optically than 24-50 overall in that same range. Not much heavier than the 24-50 but overall size will increase. I'd personally stick with RF 24-50 and allocate space for the EL-100 flash instead.

gimp_dad said:

24-105L, is L, has f/4 constant, coatings and nano USM, but is heavier, more pricey of the bunch.

Click to expand...

Very close between this and the RF 24-240. Both weigh about the same, 24-105L gets you better build quality and somewhat better optics. The RF 24-240 gets you more reach and somewhat worse optics.

(Anecdata : The RF 24-240 comes across as much better put together than my RF 24-105L. The 24-105L feels "wonky" or wobbly compared to the 24-240)

gimp_dad said:

Not gonna lie right now it’s in that order.

Curious what other people do or “pair” with. Example, I used to pair the 24-240 with the 35 1.8, not bad, but the AF on the R with 24-240 was iffy, and it was a touch bulky.

Click to expand...

I have not had issues with AF with R8 + 24-240 (I think 2020 onwards R bodies should not have AF issues)

For pairing, especially with R8 ,RF 35 1.8 sounds reasonable. I got my RF 28 today so this might change over time.

gimp_dad said:

Hiking, park, throw in car.

Again I’d say 24-50, but I’m finding it’s just ok. More barely ok. CA drives me nuts and I would like more reach.

Click to expand...

24-50 cannot be ignored I think Its physical size trumps lack in IQ... it isn't a horrible lens (much better than participating in EF-M 15-45 lottery)

Click to expand...

The color fringe in high contrast is what’s driving me bats on the 24-50. Shows up where I want to use; landscapes…

Click to expand...

Agree it's noticeable with bright backgrounds. But no worse than the rf24-105 stm, and only slightly worse than the 24-240. RF24-105/4LIS is no contest optically. So many times I've said I'm taking the 24-240 on this trip only to change my mind at the last minute back to the trusty RF24-105/4LIS.

Another thought, have you tried exposure bracketing? With highlights not blown, there will be much less CA and fringing.

No, that’s a wonderful idea though with that eshutter. Interesting.

Dumb question; Does the R8 have an exposure bracket, merge? Think HDR mode?

gimp_dad said:
gimp_dad said:

gimp_dad said:

gimp_dad said:

Some examples of train of thoughts…

24-105s could “pair” with the 100-400. Or not. 24-105 (not L) is awesome for these reasons… *insert reasons*
Ill be studying benchmarks on these shortly…

Click to expand...

Very close between RF 24-240 and RF 24-105L. Former has reach, latter has better build and optics and not totally handicapped in reach.

In my opinion it's between 24-50, 24-240 and 24-105L. I bought and resold that RF 24-105 STM twice... didn't do it for me . The RF 24-240 is a keeper with R8 now.

Pairing with RF 35 1.8 seems natural due to IS. Opinion on RF 28 not yet formed.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

LennyLevino · Aug 9, 2023

m100 said:
RLight said:

My R8 needs a compact zoom to go with it, one more capable than the 24-50.

.
Request to the public: Votes from the peanut gallery and why.

Hint, I’m already familiar with them, but am curious on other people’s thoughts.

The 24-240 goes great for zoo duty.

The 24-105 (not L) is more low key, no red ring

24-105L, is L, has f/4 constant, coatings and nano USM, but is heavier, more pricey of the bunch.

Not gonna lie right now it’s in that order.

Curious what other people do or “pair” with. Example, I used to pair the 24-240 with the 35 1.8, not bad, but the AF on the R with 24-240 was iffy, and it was a touch bulky.

Hiking, park, throw in car.

Again I’d say 24-50, but I’m finding it’s just ok. More barely ok. CA drives me nuts and I would like more reach.

Some examples of train of thoughts…

24-105s could “pair” with the 100-400. Or not. 24-105 (not L) is awesome for these reasons… *insert reasons*
Ill be studying benchmarks on these shortly…

Click to expand...

Of your choices I am thinking the RF 24-105mm L will in most cases make the best SOOC JPEGs on your R8.

The little DIGIC X computer will see you have a L lens on it and that you are serious about IQ and will get L lens busy.

DIGIC X will switch to L lens mode.

gimp_dad · Aug 9, 2023

RLight said:
gimp_dad said:

RLight said:

cocoanud said:

RLight said:

My R8 needs a compact zoom to go with it, one more capable than the 24-50.

.
Request to the public: Votes from the peanut gallery and why.

Hint, I’m already familiar with them, but am curious on other people’s thoughts.

The 24-240 goes great for zoo duty.

Click to expand...

I sold this previously but have bought it back again for use with R8. Will fit nicely in a Mirrorless Mover 25i.

RLight said:

The 24-105 (not L) is more low key, no red ring

Click to expand...

Not sure it is any better optically than 24-50 overall in that same range. Not much heavier than the 24-50 but overall size will increase. I'd personally stick with RF 24-50 and allocate space for the EL-100 flash instead.

RLight said:

24-105L, is L, has f/4 constant, coatings and nano USM, but is heavier, more pricey of the bunch.

Click to expand...

Very close between this and the RF 24-240. Both weigh about the same, 24-105L gets you better build quality and somewhat better optics. The RF 24-240 gets you more reach and somewhat worse optics.

(Anecdata : The RF 24-240 comes across as much better put together than my RF 24-105L. The 24-105L feels "wonky" or wobbly compared to the 24-240)

RLight said:

Not gonna lie right now it’s in that order.

Curious what other people do or “pair” with. Example, I used to pair the 24-240 with the 35 1.8, not bad, but the AF on the R with 24-240 was iffy, and it was a touch bulky.

Click to expand...

I have not had issues with AF with R8 + 24-240 (I think 2020 onwards R bodies should not have AF issues)

For pairing, especially with R8 ,RF 35 1.8 sounds reasonable. I got my RF 28 today so this might change over time.

RLight said:

Hiking, park, throw in car.

Again I’d say 24-50, but I’m finding it’s just ok. More barely ok. CA drives me nuts and I would like more reach.

Click to expand...

24-50 cannot be ignored I think Its physical size trumps lack in IQ... it isn't a horrible lens (much better than participating in EF-M 15-45 lottery)

Click to expand...

The color fringe in high contrast is what’s driving me bats on the 24-50. Shows up where I want to use; landscapes…

Click to expand...

Agree it's noticeable with bright backgrounds. But no worse than the rf24-105 stm, and only slightly worse than the 24-240. RF24-105/4LIS is no contest optically. So many times I've said I'm taking the 24-240 on this trip only to change my mind at the last minute back to the trusty RF24-105/4LIS.

Another thought, have you tried exposure bracketing? With highlights not blown, there will be much less CA and fringing.

Click to expand...

No, that’s a wonderful idea though with that eshutter. Interesting.

Dumb question; Does the R8 have an exposure bracket, merge? Think HDR mode?

Yes! It has the full HDR mode with all the different options. Can just give one final image or keep all 3, allows for control of what exposure range to take or auto and can be set up to continue to shoot HDR or just do it once. However, if you want more than 3 different exposures I think you have to use exposure bracketing instead. The RP had a much more limited HDR mode.

RLight said:
RLight said:

RLight said:

RLight said:

RLight said:

Some examples of train of thoughts…

24-105s could “pair” with the 100-400. Or not. 24-105 (not L) is awesome for these reasons… *insert reasons*
Ill be studying benchmarks on these shortly…

Click to expand...

Very close between RF 24-240 and RF 24-105L. Former has reach, latter has better build and optics and not totally handicapped in reach.

In my opinion it's between 24-50, 24-240 and 24-105L. I bought and resold that RF 24-105 STM twice... didn't do it for me . The RF 24-240 is a keeper with R8 now.

Pairing with RF 35 1.8 seems natural due to IS. Opinion on RF 28 not yet formed.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

MikeJ9116 · Aug 9, 2023

I have been using this lens for three years and can't give it enough praise for how good its IQ is for a 10X zoom that goes from 24mm out to 240mm. This is just the perfect zoom range for a FF camera, IMO. I still use it more than any other lens I own which includes the RF 24-105mmL. There isn't all that much difference between it and the 24-105mmL through their common focal range. Even the minimum f stop settings isn't all that different for most of the shared focal range as shown below. Especially when used on a camera like the R8 that has excellent low light, high ISO, shooting capabilities.

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

From 24-26mm they are even. From 27-43mm the difference is just 1/3 of a stop. From 44-60mm its 2/3 of a stop and one stop to 104mm. Then you go all the way to 240mm with a 4/3 stop difference.

Sharpness is very good for a lens of this range and from around 30mm out to around 140mm it is as sharp as some of Canon's L lenses. It softens up some at the long end but nothing that is all that consequential. Also, the 24-240mm has Canon's best AF system (Nano USM) and superb image stabilization. Its build quality is good too for a lens in its price range.

If you are looking for a one lens solution that is relatively small, lightweight, has very good IQ, great zoom range and doesn't break the bank, then the 24-240mm is easily the best, and only, choice in the RF lens catalog, IMO. If i could only use one lens on my R8, it would be an easy decision to pick the 24-240mm to be able to cover the widest range of shooting situations while delivering the best IQ over that range.

MikeJ9116 · Aug 9, 2023

LennyLevino said:
m100 said:

RLight said:

My R8 needs a compact zoom to go with it, one more capable than the 24-50.

.
Request to the public: Votes from the peanut gallery and why.

Hint, I’m already familiar with them, but am curious on other people’s thoughts.

The 24-240 goes great for zoo duty.

The 24-105 (not L) is more low key, no red ring

24-105L, is L, has f/4 constant, coatings and nano USM, but is heavier, more pricey of the bunch.

Not gonna lie right now it’s in that order.

Curious what other people do or “pair” with. Example, I used to pair the 24-240 with the 35 1.8, not bad, but the AF on the R with 24-240 was iffy, and it was a touch bulky.

Hiking, park, throw in car.

Again I’d say 24-50, but I’m finding it’s just ok. More barely ok. CA drives me nuts and I would like more reach.

Some examples of train of thoughts…

24-105s could “pair” with the 100-400. Or not. 24-105 (not L) is awesome for these reasons… *insert reasons*
Ill be studying benchmarks on these shortly…

Click to expand...

Of your choices I am thinking the RF 24-105mm L will in most cases make the best SOOC JPEGs on your R8.

The little DIGIC X computer will see you have a L lens on it and that you are serious about IQ and will get L lens busy.

DIGIC X will switch to L lens mode.

Click to expand...

This sounds like bs but I believe it.

I would have put a period after "bs" and stopped typing. ;-)

m100 · Aug 9, 2023

MikeJ9116 said:
LennyLevino said:

m100 said:

RLight said:

My R8 needs a compact zoom to go with it, one more capable than the 24-50.

.
Request to the public: Votes from the peanut gallery and why.

Hint, I’m already familiar with them, but am curious on other people’s thoughts.

The 24-240 goes great for zoo duty.

The 24-105 (not L) is more low key, no red ring

24-105L, is L, has f/4 constant, coatings and nano USM, but is heavier, more pricey of the bunch.

Not gonna lie right now it’s in that order.

Curious what other people do or “pair” with. Example, I used to pair the 24-240 with the 35 1.8, not bad, but the AF on the R with 24-240 was iffy, and it was a touch bulky.

Hiking, park, throw in car.

Again I’d say 24-50, but I’m finding it’s just ok. More barely ok. CA drives me nuts and I would like more reach.

Some examples of train of thoughts…

24-105s could “pair” with the 100-400. Or not. 24-105 (not L) is awesome for these reasons… *insert reasons*
Ill be studying benchmarks on these shortly…

Click to expand...

Of your choices I am thinking the RF 24-105mm L will in most cases make the best SOOC JPEGs on your R8.

The little DIGIC X computer will see you have a L lens on it and that you are serious about IQ and will get L lens busy.

DIGIC X will switch to L lens mode.

Click to expand...

This sounds like bs but I believe it.

Click to expand...

I would have put a period after "bs" and stopped typing. ;-)

No doubt when you mount a RF 24-105mm L on the R8 the R8 will switch to RF 24-105mm L mode.

It is automatic. As far as I know you can not use the R8 in the RF 24mm STM mode with a RF 24-105mm L mounted.

--
Dr. says listen to this every morning.

cocoanud · Aug 9, 2023

RLight said:
No, that’s a wonderful idea though with that eshutter. Interesting.

Dumb question; Does the R8 have an exposure bracket, merge? Think HDR mode?

These are from yesterday after I got the the RF 28 in my hands. Now word of caution, no compositional prowess or creative endeavours at display here.. simply fired away a few random snaps in HDR mode.

Granted these are with the RF 28 and not 24-50... but HDR mode is totally usable hand held. (The 2nd image has some wonkiness if you look carefully but won't matter with static landscapes with no rapid motion in frame)

Rock and Rollei · Aug 9, 2023

My R travel kit at the moment comprises of RP, 16mm or 15-30, one or other 24-105, and 100-400 - precise composition depends on details of the trip. Sometimes I add the 35 or 50 f1 8, sometimes I don't take the 100-400. And sometimes it's the R instead of the RP...

I'm fairly happy with all the lenses. The 24-105 STM is pretty decent, except at 24mm, where it's only OK. If I'm using the 15-30, that's covered anyway. Half life size is a real bonus. Yes, the L lens is better, but a lot of the time it really doesn't matter - one thing that my time as a pro has taught me is that good enough really is good enough.

None of it is as small and light as my M6 II travel kit. Somewhat weirdly, my wide options are better with my crop system, and tele better with full frame...

One thing we can't complain about is the choice of standard zooms - the 4 in this thread, plus the 24-70 and 28-70...

MikeJ9116 · Aug 9, 2023

m100 said:
MikeJ9116 said:

LennyLevino said:

m100 said:

RLight said:

My R8 needs a compact zoom to go with it, one more capable than the 24-50.

.
Request to the public: Votes from the peanut gallery and why.

Hint, I’m already familiar with them, but am curious on other people’s thoughts.

The 24-240 goes great for zoo duty.

The 24-105 (not L) is more low key, no red ring

24-105L, is L, has f/4 constant, coatings and nano USM, but is heavier, more pricey of the bunch.

Not gonna lie right now it’s in that order.

Curious what other people do or “pair” with. Example, I used to pair the 24-240 with the 35 1.8, not bad, but the AF on the R with 24-240 was iffy, and it was a touch bulky.

Hiking, park, throw in car.

Again I’d say 24-50, but I’m finding it’s just ok. More barely ok. CA drives me nuts and I would like more reach.

Some examples of train of thoughts…

24-105s could “pair” with the 100-400. Or not. 24-105 (not L) is awesome for these reasons… *insert reasons*
Ill be studying benchmarks on these shortly…

Click to expand...

Of your choices I am thinking the RF 24-105mm L will in most cases make the best SOOC JPEGs on your R8.

The little DIGIC X computer will see you have a L lens on it and that you are serious about IQ and will get L lens busy.

DIGIC X will switch to L lens mode.

Click to expand...

This sounds like bs but I believe it.

Click to expand...

I would have put a period after "bs" and stopped typing. ;-)

Click to expand...

No doubt when you mount a RF 24-105mm L on the R8 the R8 will switch to RF 24-105mm L mode.

It is automatic. As far as I know you can not use the R8 in the RF 24mm STM mode with a RF 24-105mm L mounted.

The only thing the camera does is apply lens corrections specific to the lens attached to the camera. This only corrects deficiencies inherent with its design. It isn't some kind of magic pixie dust that makes a lens perform beyond its design capabilities. There is no "L mode" to switch to. I hope you are trying to make a joke here because if you're not then....

47photo11 · Aug 10, 2023

Fjzk said:
Think the 24-105 stm is a no brainer to pair with the R8… for not a lot of extra weight and length you double your reach. Then software (kind of) closes the IQ gap versus the L.

+1 for R8 & 24-105 STM due to portability/weight and "relative" IQ

This FF setup successfully replaced my Crop Kit (760D/T6s)

The normal zoom

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts