Canon 24-240

I am oddly excited about this lens. If this lens is decent - and most recent Canon entires have been - this plus the RP could make an excellent travel addition (and might cost less combined than the Sony 100-400 does alone).

Will be interesting to see the quality of a superzoom. I feel like there hasn't been a first party superzoom released for quite a few years.

LensSodomist wrote:

travelinbri_74 wrote:

I am oddly excited about this lens. If this lens is decent - and most recent Canon entires have been - this plus the RP could make an excellent travel addition (and might cost less combined than the Sony 100-400 does alone).

Will be interesting to see the quality of a superzoom. I feel like there hasn't been a first party superzoom released for quite a few years.

Of course, none of us have used that lens yet, but historically, zooms that have such a wide focal range are not very good; very compromised.

Such lenses are a jack of all trades, great at nothing, and never remarkable.

That aside, f4 is too slow an aperture to make this lens worthwhile.

Is it any wonder Canon does not make this zoom an L grade lens?

This lens is for the soccer moms, not people with a passion for quality photography.

There have been some very decent superzoom for crop sensors from third parties. Even the Nikon 18-200 is decent. F/4 would not be the deal breaker here for me, it would need to be reasonably sharp. Let's see...

LensSodomist wrote:

This lens is for the soccer moms, not people with a passion for quality photography.

That's a bold and inflammatory statement. There's no such thing as a free lunch; some people value the ability to have a wide focal range in one lens as a compromise they are willing to make against overall IQ.

And this is coming from a primes-only shooter.

There is the Oly 12-100 which received good reviews. So why not a similar lens for FF? We will see, I'm curious.

Price will be important on this one, any of the non L RF lenses price will be important. it will be great to see some RP type prices on a few aimed straight at APS-C upgraders, first time FF users etc.

buellom wrote:

There is the Oly 12-100 which received good reviews. So why not a similar lens for FF? We will see, I'm curious.

Yes the Oly 12-100 is a good example that it's indeed possible to make a high quality superzoom lens. It has about the same range as the 24-240. The Oly lens however is a PRO lens, which is something similar to Canons L lenses, while the 24-240 is no L lens and thus probably not of the highest optical quality. But we'll  see, we don't know yet, it's too early to count out already.

travelinbri_74 wrote:

I am oddly excited about this lens. If this lens is decent - and most recent Canon entires have been - this plus the RP could make an excellent travel addition (and might cost less combined than the Sony 100-400 does alone).

Will be interesting to see the quality of a superzoom. I feel like there hasn't been a first party superzoom released for quite a few years.

I agree that it is an interesting offering, especially for travel or on the camera full time for relatively compact package to get used often. Ease of use plays into this.

Not all of us have a budget to pursue the best L series lenses. By having a spread of consumer and excellent lens offerings for the R series, I think Canon is making a good start to appeal to a broad base, regular consumers, and the likely smaller group of photo enthusiasts who will use the R system.

As an amateur astronomer, we have been schooled that the best telescope is the one that gets used most often. My 16 inch dobsonian telescope with a superb f/4 mirror may be the best for star party use, but for every night observing, my smaller dobsonian mounted 8 inch reflector or my much smaller TeleVue refractor are the "best" for me, as they will get used more often.

Perhaps the 24-240 will become the lens that is on the R or RP that the customer uses most often. There are quite a few consumers who are not interested in swapping lenses, even if they have the budget.

I am interested in this lens as well and if the IQ and price are good then I can see myself using it when it fits the situation.

travelinbri_74 wrote:

I am oddly excited about this lens. If this lens is decent - and most recent Canon entires have been - this plus the RP could make an excellent travel addition (and might cost less combined than the Sony 100-400 does alone).

Will be interesting to see the quality of a superzoom. I feel like there hasn't been a first party superzoom released for quite a few years.

Ironic; Sony has an equivalent lens, the 24-240 f/3.5-6.3 I believe? If you note on DXO, it performs well for a superzoom and is a FF superzoom for mirrorless mount.

Canon also has an EF-M little brother, the EF-M 18-150 f/3.5-6.3 IS STM which is also notable as it's a really good performer for a superzoom.

Some conclusions I'll draw from them and the specs...

It doesn't have to stink. The Sony performs well, and Sony isn't a major optics manufacturer IE they don't have all the hat tricks of say Canon / Nikon / Carl Zeiss and they managed to pull off a decent superzoom in the same range.

Since the Canon starts at f/4, not f/3.5, I suspect that 4mm flange distance does play a factor. 1/3 stop isn't big potatoes, but that may be due to Canon choosing a more conservative flange distance which will limit their options on the wide / fast end of the lens, which it has.

However, in the same vein, Canon has a wider throat and this is a newer optic. Both have bearing on the IS capability of the lens. The EF-M 18-150 f/3.5-6.3 IS STM sports a healthy 4-stops of IS. This lens should match or surpass it as the EOS R, both of them (R and RP) support dual sensing IS that is an added 1/2 stop of IS efficiency by tying in sensor data feedback to the lenses IS gyro and the added throat width permits more room for IS gyro presence.

Canon also does have more experience with optics, compared to Sony's lack of. Odds are it'll be somewhat sharper/better optically.

The EF-M 18-150's STM motor is really decent. Just because it's STM (not USM) doesn't mean it's slow. My RF 35mm f/1.8 IS STM is plenty speedy.

Now, what isn't telling, the price.

It's not an L lens, so it doesn't have to be as much as a car. But, Sony's own 24-240 for FF is a grand. Market is usually a good predicator. Canon could be aggressive here and launch it sub-$1000, but by how much? Canon's optics are cheaper than Nikon/Sony historically on the plus side, so it should be cheaper. But, I'd be shocked if this thing landed at $499. It's probably somewhere in between if I had to guess, which makes the total ownership of the RP, less desirable.

I do suspect you get what you pay for. A 24-240 that's probably superior in almost every regard than Sony's, except the maximum wide aperture operational spec, that costs less, is hard to loose sight of. But, the target crowd of the RP is low end.

Maybe Canon will do a bundle deal during Xmas when this thing should show up? Hard to say.

LensSodomist wrote:

This lens is for the soccer moms, not people with a passion for quality photography.

One risks making a fool of oneself when writing of something one knows nothing about. That’s where you are with this lens that you haven’t seen, much less used. I’m betting that you’re dead wrong and that many people will be making exceptionally fine photographs with this lens. Most of those people will be blissfully unaware of, and unencumbered by, any supposed technical shortcomings the lens may have.

dmanthree wrote:

DavidIllig wrote:

LensSodomist wrote:

This lens is for the soccer moms, not people with a passion for quality photography.

One risks making a fool of oneself when writing of something one knows nothing about. That’s where you are with this lens that you haven’t seen, much less used. I’m betting that you’re dead wrong and that many people will be making exceptionally fine photographs with this lens. Most of those people will be blissfully unaware of, and unencumbered by, any supposed technical shortcomings the lens may have.

Agreed. It's always fun to hear someone speak with complete authority from a position of complete ignorance.

Not really a surprise, given the username of that poster. I see that the post now shows up as from "unknown member".

As for those kind of lenses, I agree that you can get great results from them. I have the EF-M 18-150, which has given me some really nice shots on my M6. That's pretty much the crop equivalent of the 24-240, though the R lens starts even wider. I'm inching towards getting an R camera (tempted by the price drops for May). I'll probably go for the 24-105, but I'd certainly look carefully at the 24-240, if it were available when I buy. I had the original 24-105L, and used it a lot on the 20D, 50D, 7D, and 7DII. I loved it. It eventually died (the repair would have been about 60% of the purchase price), and I didn't replace it.

MatsP wrote:

... while the 24-240 is no L lens and thus probably not of the highest optical quality.

I realise you posted your comment a while back but I thought it was still appripriate to comment.

I think there have been quite a few non-L Canon lenses that have very good image quality.

I think the L designation has more to do with build quality than image quality (I'm not suggesting this is official Canon policy... just an overall observation).

I think L lenses are designed primarily for professionals who require rugged, weatherproof lenses that can take years of use and abuse.

I'm saying this as I'm quietly hoping that the 24-240mm R lens will offer high quality optics at an affordable price (I'm an EOS RP owner who'sbeen lamenting the extra length and inconvenience of the R adapter - I keep taking the adapter off with the lens, then realise my mistake and have to take the adapter off the lens and put it back on the camera).