Good all rounder

I bought this lens as a walkaround/travel lens and overall, am pleased with the results. I'm a bit disappointed with the vignetting at 24mm despite which aperture I'm using and the purple fringing around the likes of tree branches in high contrast conditions. I know these can be both corrected post process but for such an expensive lens, I thought these wouldn't be an issue. I suppose that's the price you pay for a 10x superzoom also a little disappointed that Canon don't bundle a lens cap with it like other manufacturer's do even with their less expensive lenses.

PhilRogersPhoto wrote:

also a little disappointed that Canon don't bundle a lens cap with it like other manufacturer's do even with their less expensive lenses.

A Canon lens that doesn't come with a lens cap - that would be a first ?

Did you perhaps mean a lens hood ?

Colin

Andy01 wrote:

PhilRogersPhoto wrote:

also a little disappointed that Canon don't bundle a lens cap with it like other manufacturer's do even with their less expensive lenses.

A Canon lens that doesn't come with a lens cap - that would be a first ?

Did you perhaps mean a lens hood ?

Colin

Ha ha, you spotted my deliberate mistake  I meant a lens hood, I managed to get a genuine one from Amazon as there are no 3rd party one's yet,

Phil

Your post sounds exactly like what Scott Kellby was saying just a few days ago. He highly recommended that lens only if you use LightRoom or Photoshop because of the need for the lens correction and the CA issues. He also said he was blown away by the lack of a  lens hood for a $900 lens. But he also said it really inexpensive at $900

I had a super zoom tamron lens years ago and it was like 1/3 that price if I remember right But it was junk! IQ was amazingly horrible relative to my L lenses I use now. But I think $900 for a non L lens is pretty pricey IMHO, yes a $2 lens hood (what it cost to make, not what they sell it for) should be thrown in!

I don't use Adobe anymore once they stopped supporting non subscription products. I refuse to rent software...

Bottom line is does it fit YOUR needs? That's all that matters.

PhilRogersPhoto wrote:

I bought this lens as a walkaround/travel lens and overall, am pleased with the results. I'm a bit disappointed with the vignetting at 24mm despite which aperture I'm using and the purple fringing around the likes of tree branches in high contrast conditions. I know these can be both corrected post process but for such an expensive lens, I thought these wouldn't be an issue. I suppose that's the price you pay for a 10x superzoom also a little disappointed that Canon don't bundle a lens cap with it like other manufacturer's do even with their less expensive lenses.

Canon only ships a hood with L lenses, been like that from the dawn or time.  Also Canon DPP will work with the RF24-240 not just Adobe programs.

I really like this lens and I also gave it 4.5 on my Gear Page.

How many times have you printed a RAW file, its always converted to a JPG at some point.  For me the ONLY thing that counts is the final product.  I would think that in a few months just about every program like LR will have a 24-240 lens profile.

Like Scott said, setup LR to run the lens profile on import and you will never see the problem again.  Did I say how much I liked his video,   A BUNCH.

Dan W wrote:

Y a $2 lens hood (what it cost to make, not what they sell it for) should be thrown in!

I think that Canon use the hood & pouch / case with the L series lenses as a differentiator, so it is less about the price, and more about the perceived differences between standard and L lenses.

I generally just get a JJC clone hood - they are a LOT cheaper than Canon, and fit snugly (unlike some of the even cheaper clones). It is difficult with a brand new lens that clones are not available for though.

Colin

I have had a bunch of Canon 10X zooms over the years and the RF 24-240mm is the best one so far. I recently did an big update to my camera collection when I got the RF 24-240mm and several other of the RF lens too. I was surprised with how well the 10x zoom does work after reading all the negative reviews. I believe you must compare JPEG images with those of other real world 10X superzooms. To my eye it is very good 10X super-zoom and I have owned them going back to the 1990s film camera lenses.

My first 10X was a Canon EF 35-350mm f3.5-5.6 lens. I loved it's flexibility shooting film at the time. It took many great pictures of my young kids back then. I have a memorable spur of the moment picture of my young son dressed up in cowboy attire using that lens. Of course it was far less sharp than the EF 28-70mm f2.8L that I got later. Then I got the EF 70-200mm f2.8L which made allowed me to then retire the 10X zoom for the those two work horse trinity lenses.

I still wanted a 10X zoom lens for handy snapshots but the EF 35-350mm was not good enough. I got other 10X zooms throughout the years. However this RF 24-240mm is the best 10X zoom I have tried. I still have the EF-S 18-200mm is for cropped sensor cameras but it also works on the EOS -R with an adapter in a crop sensor mode using only the middle of the cameras full frame sensor. The RF 24-240mm is sharper overall throughout the range when comparing JPEG images produced in the camera. Of course, in normal use I shoot with all corrections turned on. Only dinosaur Luddites would turn off the manufacturers corrections and optimization then trash the maker for his product.

Looking at my JPEG images, and even with cropping some of them, the RF 24-240mm the IQ may not up to a Canon RF f2.8 "L" zoom lenses but it works better than any of the several Canon 10X "L" and EF-S zooms that I have owned. When the situation requires it the RF-24-70mm f2.8L will make better pictures within it's limited focal range.

There have been some comments about the raw image using the RF 24-240mm when setting the lens focal length to 24mm. In the RAW image there is a black vignetting in the corners when looking at the un-corrected RAW image in Photoshop. Comparing this RAW image with the image of a 24mm prime lens taken from the same location (using a tripod) you can easily see that the field of view of the RF 24-240nn lens set to 24mm focal length has the field of view of a lens that is a couple of mm wider than 24mm. The camera JPEG automatically corrects this view to proper 24 mm field of view by cropping the image to cut off these black corners. The result is an image with a 24mm field of view with pretty good looking image quality. Apparently this automatic correction horrifies some reviewers but I believe when judging the lens IQ you should look at the quality of the JPEG images you can make and ultimately print with it. This anomalous vignetting is gone  for using focal length settings of a couple of mm greater than 24mm. When using a 10X zoom it is not surprising to see worse performance at the focal length extremes and this lens is no different than the others. However, I love the RF 24-240mm lens overall as does provide better image quality than any of the several other 10X zooms that I have owned over the years.

davel33 wrote:

PhilRogersPhoto wrote:

I bought this lens as a walkaround/travel lens and overall, am pleased with the results. I'm a bit disappointed with the vignetting at 24mm despite which aperture I'm using and the purple fringing around the likes of tree branches in high contrast conditions. I know these can be both corrected post process but for such an expensive lens, I thought these wouldn't be an issue. I suppose that's the price you pay for a 10x superzoom also a little disappointed that Canon don't bundle a lens cap with it like other manufacturer's do even with their less expensive lenses.

Canon only ships a hood with L lenses, been like that from the dawn or time. Also Canon DPP will work with the RF24-240 not just Adobe programs.

I really like this lens and I also gave it 4.5 on my Gear Page.

How many times have you printed a RAW file, its always converted to a JPG at some point. For me the ONLY thing that counts is the final product. I would think that in a few months just about every program like LR will have a 24-240 lens profile.

Like Scott said, setup LR to run the lens profile on import and you will never see the problem again. Did I say how much I liked his video, A BUNCH.

I wrote more than I meant to. TLDR: Love the RP and the 24-240 and DXO Photolab 2 has a very nice profile for the RP plus the 24-240 (just as Lightroom and DPP do) and thanks so much for those who pointed out the Scott Kelby video about the 24-240. Camera and lens profiles have come to add so much value to nearly any lens and body.

[Original multi-paragraph rambling deleted]

PhilRogersPhoto wrote:

I bought this lens as a walkaround/travel lens and overall, am pleased with the results. I'm a bit disappointed with the vignetting at 24mm despite which aperture I'm using and the purple fringing around the likes of tree branches in high contrast conditions. I know these can be both corrected post process but for such an expensive lens, I thought these wouldn't be an issue. I suppose that's the price you pay for a 10x superzoom....

A lens like this is an ideal candidate for shooting JPEG, which will benefit from in-camera processing, or at least using DPP4 for processing. Consider it.

Thanks for your review.

cheers

I love 10x zooms for what they can do even with the limitation they come with.  However, I also love my other lens for what they can do as well.    You need the right tool for the right job.  Good tools cost good money.

Have the RF 24-240mm and I still have my EF-S 18-200mm and my Tamron 18-400 as well. They are all useful.

I have sold off some my previous 10X zooms such my EF 35-350mm f/3.5-5.6 L USM.  If you want talk about being expensive that lens was a $1495 twenty years ago when that money was worth more than now.

I bought all the 10X zooms loving them when new but technology continues to improve the lens and the images they make.

The RF 24-240mm 10x zoom is simply the best such 10X zoom of those I have owned and it appears very competitive with the Sony and other similar zooms.  I paid more money for a couple of those early 10x zooms too.