Good but not great

Having recently acquired tiny Canon RP with an excellent 35/1.8 IS prime I was thinking about augmenting it with this 10x zoom. It would make a nice full-frame travel kit, so I could retire my old APS-C D5500 with its 18-140mm f/3.5-5.6 zoom (equivalent to 28-210mm f/5-8 on full frame). Dreams, dreams...

Quick unscientific test on brick walls and tree branches has shown no meaningful difference in terms of sharpness (both in center and on border of the frame), chromatic aberrations, bokeh quality or stabilization efficiency between Canon 24-240 and Nikon 18-140 on any shared focal length. I had a feeling though, the Canon focuses slightly faster. Considering 18-140 is waaaay cheeper and 260 g lighter, I decided to return 24-240 to the vendor and to keep using 18-140 as my travel zoom.

Some people on internet are moaning about huge unrecoverable vignetting, but it is not an issue at all! The thing is, the angle of view of this lens is de-facto wider than should be for e.g. 24mm focal length and vignetting if therefore just a part of this additional frame space left there intentionally. You just have to turn on the correction in camera or do it by yourself on computer and distortion correction will fix everything back to normal.

It is pity, by the way, there is currently (as of early 2020) no other consumer lens between 24-105 and 24-240 in the RF lineup. Something like 24-160/4-6.3 with a weight under 600g, compact dimensions and lower price would suit my needs much better.

Pros:
- very useful focal range for a travel zoom
- pretty good sharpness in the center
- quick and silent focusing
- effective stabilization (around 4-5 stops depending on focus distance)
- can focus as close as 50 cm

Cons:
- visible loss of sharpness on the edges of the frame
- expensive
- on the bulky side when mounted on Canon RP
- control ring w/o clicks is pretty much useless

wjan wrote:

Having recently acquired tiny Canon RP with an excellent 35/1.8 IS prime I was thinking about augmenting it with this 10x zoom. It would make a nice full-frame travel kit, so I could retire my old APS-C D5500 with its 18-140mm f/3.5-5.6 zoom (equivalent to 28-210mm f/5-8 on full frame). Dreams, dreams...

Quick unscientific test on brick walls and tree branches has shown no meaningful difference in terms of sharpness (both in center and on border of the frame), chromatic aberrations, bokeh quality or stabilization efficiency between Canon 24-240 and Nikon 18-140 on any shared focal length. I had a feeling though, the Canon focuses slightly faster. Considering 18-140 is waaaay cheeper and 260 g lighter, I decided to return 24-240 to the vendor and to keep using 18-140 as my travel zoom.

Some people on internet are moaning about huge unrecoverable vignetting, but it is not an issue at all! The thing is, the angle of view of this lens is de-facto wider than should be for e.g. 24mm focal length and vignetting if therefore just a part of this additional frame space left there intentionally.

But why is a lens giving you the option not using the whole sensor surface in the first place?  Especially if it's not covering the whole sensor at the wide end: Just DON NOT let a lens go to 22.whatevermm if it's specified to go to 24mm.

You just have to turn on the correction in camera or do it by yourself on computer and distortion correction will fix everything back to normal.

It is pity, by the way, there is currently (as of early 2020) no other consumer lens between 24-105 and 24-240 in the RF lineup. Something like 24-160/4-6.3 with a weight under 600g, compact dimensions and lower price would suit my needs much better.

Pros:
- very useful focal range for a travel zoom
- pretty good sharpness in the center
- quick and silent focusing
- effective stabilization (around 4-5 stops depending on focus distance)
- can focus as close as 50 cm

Cons:
- visible loss of sharpness on the edges of the frame
- expensive
- on the bulky side when mounted on Canon RP
- control ring w/o clicks is pretty much useless

A lens like this sells. So Canon has to make it.

For me: if there's wouldn't be enough space in my bag i would just leave the longer focal lengths at home. Why the need to picture anything that was just too far away to be really part of your traveling experience? And when you bring a sharp lens there's often that atmospheric haze....

A  24-70 or 24-105 and one prime 35/40/45/50mm....  wouldn't that be enough?

I think RF 24-105 4-7,1 is your boy.
90g lighter than 18-140 and better overall aperture 4-7,1 vs 5-8 equivalent full frame.
but only 105mm max reach.

Well, 105mm is a little too short for my taste. I feel I need at least around 150mm for my travel lens.
Also, this f/7.1@105mm of 24-105 is exactly equivalent to f/5.0@70mm of 18-140 (checked it right now).

wjan wrote:

I think RF 24-105 4-7,1 is your boy.
90g lighter than 18-140 and better overall aperture 4-7,1 vs 5-8 equivalent full frame.
but only 105mm max reach.

Well, 105mm is a little too short for my taste. I feel I need at least around 150mm for my travel lens.
Also, this f/7.1@105mm of 24-105 is exactly equivalent to f/5.0@70mm of 18-140 (checked it right now).

What about the Tamron 35-150mm f/2.8-4.0 eventually + EF 24mm f/2.8 IS?

"

But why is a lens giving you the option not using the whole sensor surface in the first place? Especially if it's not covering the whole sensor at the wide end: Just DON NOT let a lens go to 22.whatevermm if it's specified to go to 24mm.

"

The lens is ~22mm (with dark corners) but after running it though the correct profile, it is cropped to ~24. I compared the result to a RF 24-105 L and EF 16-35 f4 and found the 24-240 jpeg very near both. In the comparison to the RF 24-105, I also found with LR the the 24-240 was a bit wider but with DPP the 24-105 was a hair wider.

OK its a super zoom with F4. Pretty much what is expected.

What about the Tamron 35-150mm f/2.8-4.0 eventually + EF 24mm f/2.8 IS?

After some time of enjoying travel photography I came to the conclusion I would like to have:
a) some zoom options covering at least the range of 24-150mm (but not necessary gapeless)
b) some fixed lens for shallow DoF and low light situations
c) maybe some ultra-wide angle option
d) two cameras is a plus for not losing time changing lenses and to get some redundancy
e) the kit should ideally weight under 2 kg and do not be too expensive (preferably under 2k$)

So, one can think of several lens-body combinations loosely fitting these requirements:
Canon RP + EOS-RF Adapter + Tamron 17-35 + Tamron 35-150 + EF 50/1.8 [2 kg]
Canon RP + EOS-RF Adapter + EF 24/2.8 IS + Tamron 35-150 VC + EF 50/1.8 [1.85 kg]
Canon RP + RF 35/1.8 IS + RF 24-240 [1.55 kg]
Canon RP + RF 35/1.8 IS + Nikon D5500 + Nikon 18-140mm [1.75 kg] ← my current kit
Canon RP + RF 35/1.8 IS + Nikon D5500 + Nikon 10-20/4.5-5.6 VR + Nikon AF-P 70-300/4.5-6.3 VR [1.9 kg] ← combination I want to try on my next travel
2 x light mirrorless cameras, under 500g each + 24-200mm IS + 35mm/2.0 IS + 15-24mm/4.0 IS (all in FF equivalent) ← my dream kit which does not exist yet Well, itkind of exists if consider Sony E system (Sony 18-135 + Sony 10-18/4.0 + my existing RF 35/1.8), but not quite.

And if you have a feeling, I am overthinking the whole thing, you might be right!

That Tamron is f/2.8 at 35mm + stabilization. That's a good thing. That's what i find the most appealing of this lens, but unfortunately it isn't at is sharpest at these aperture&focal length.

It's a bit complicating you need 150mm in stead of 105. But if you really need that that Tamron 35-150mm is hard to beat, as it saves you from carrying a 70-200mm.

But why is a lens giving you the option not using the whole sensor surface in the first place? Especially if it's not covering the whole sensor at the wide end: Just DON NOT let a lens go to 22.whatevermm if it's specified to go to 24mm.

Yes, I totally agree, it is a waste of resolution.

A 24-70 or 24-105 and one prime 35/40/45/50mm.... wouldn't that be enough?

It depends on ones style of shooting of course. In my personal experience, 24-70 is enough for maybe 80% of my shots. 10% need something wider and another 10% need something longer, often significantly. These numbers come from analyzing my photo collection with ExposurePlot.

gavin wrote:

OK its a super zoom with F4. Pretty much what is expected.

Most new lenses for mirrorless full-frame systems we got in the recent years are clearly better than older designs. So, I had a great hope this new super-zoom will be something more than just another one of its kind. It will be interesting to look on its rivaling Nikon Z 24-200 colleague when it finally become available.

wjan wrote:

But why is a lens giving you the option not using the whole sensor surface in the first place? Especially if it's not covering the whole sensor at the wide end: Just DON NOT let a lens go to 22.whatevermm if it's specified to go to 24mm.

Yes, I totally agree, it is a waste of resolution.

A 24-70 or 24-105 and one prime 35/40/45/50mm.... wouldn't that be enough?

It depends on ones style of shooting of course.

That is very true.

OTOH i think a good portion of starting photographers at the beginning of  the development of their style overestimate the value of long focal lengths for their more developed style in the future. This is never true for everybody of course, definitely not.

In my personal experience, 24-70 is enough for maybe 80% of my shots. 10% need something wider and another 10% need something longer, often significantly. These numbers come from analyzing my photo collection with ExposurePlot.

That could be about the same for me. That's why i will keep my M for the ef-m 11-22mm, samyang 12mm f/2.0  and the ef-s 55-250mm. I think it isn't even worth it to get a full frame equivalent for the sigma 50-100mm f/1.8.

For my R  I have a 50mm for general shooting including portraits, a 105mm for portraits only, a 35mm for when i need wider and/or IS. The 24mm gets hardly used. All i really need next to it is a 24-70mm f/2.8.

Adding the Tamron 45&85mm f/1.8 VC would be nice, the 45 as a 50 with IS, and the 85 to have a more compact portrait option (the 105 is somewhat heavy and big).

thunder storm wrote:

wjan wrote:

Some people on internet are moaning about huge unrecoverable vignetting, but it is not an issue at all! The thing is, the angle of view of this lens is de-facto wider than should be for e.g. 24mm focal length and vignetting if therefore just a part of this additional frame space left there intentionally.

But why is a lens giving you the option not using the whole sensor surface in the first place? Especially if it's not covering the whole sensor at the wide end: Just DON NOT let a lens go to 22.whatevermm if it's specified to go to 24mm.

I think you misunderstand. It isn’t an “option.” The only way to recover a 24mm equivalent image from this lens is to shoot it at the wide end, where the optical FOV is something like 22mm with extreme vignetting so that only a 24mm equivalent center crop is usable. If you zoom in slightly to 25mm, you get optically something like 23mm with extreme vignetting so that only a 25mm equivalent crop is usable. And so on, until you zoom in enough that the vignetting is gone finally gone.

Something like the 24-105 f/4-7.1 IS STM sounds more up your alley at 395 grams.

Likewise, I might even suggest you look at the M system and it's EF-M 18-150 and EF-M 22mm f/2. Those will give you something more powerful than your D5500 (if doing the M6 Mark II) and more reach, and probably sharper too as it's a modern mirrorless optimized optic, and even smaller, lighter still in terms of whole package. One can shoot those two lenses alone and cover alot.

I've got an RF 24-240 on the way arriving Wednesday. It would appear to clock in around the same size as the former (adapted) EF 70-300 DO I had but didn't care for it's image quality, but a bit lighter due to no adapter being required. I can live with that especially with both 240mm on the long end and 24mm on the wide end. AF (and IS) is a big one. From having shot the 70-300 IS USM II, I'm curious how it'll do on the long end of things with the newer 1.6 firmware on my EOS R. If both the AF and IS live up to expectations, this could be a winner for my needs anyways. However I'm falling back on a G5X Mark II for my portable needs and eschewing APS-C entirely, and aside from the RF 35mm which I have a soft spot, eschewing primes too with the RF 28-70 f/2L. Essentially between the RF 24-240, RF 28-70, RF 35 and G5X II, these are no lens swap answers. The former for things like the zoo or other outdoor outings with the family where I want to be prepared for the unexpected but not have to deal with bags or lens swaps, the RF 28-70 covers events and special occasions (unless the 24-240 supplants it), the RF 35 covers indoors and the G5X II covers hiking (where I don't want the RF 24-240 as to your point, it may be light for what it is, but it's not light or compact at all per se) or other pocket-needs like glovebox duty, going to general things like the park (if it'll ever re-open), etc.

Great writeup though, seems to confirm what I've noticed from the existing online reviews of the lens, which it's not terrible, but not cheap, and also not heavy/huge, but not light/small either. I think you've got it correct though, it's not going to replace an APS-C superzoom in size and weight. It's just not that small/light. But, then again your APS-C superzoom isn't going to have the same "punch" as the RF 24-240 does either, which I want that punch and versatility that if I want to cover a wedding with it, I could (though I'd do the RF 28-70 f/2L for that truth told).

thunder storm wrote:

wjan wrote:

Having recently acquired tiny Canon RP with an excellent 35/1.8 IS prime I was thinking about augmenting it with this 10x zoom. It would make a nice full-frame travel kit, so I could retire my old APS-C D5500 with its 18-140mm f/3.5-5.6 zoom (equivalent to 28-210mm f/5-8 on full frame). Dreams, dreams...

Quick unscientific test on brick walls and tree branches has shown no meaningful difference in terms of sharpness (both in center and on border of the frame), chromatic aberrations, bokeh quality or stabilization efficiency between Canon 24-240 and Nikon 18-140 on any shared focal length. I had a feeling though, the Canon focuses slightly faster. Considering 18-140 is waaaay cheeper and 260 g lighter, I decided to return 24-240 to the vendor and to keep using 18-140 as my travel zoom.

Some people on internet are moaning about huge unrecoverable vignetting, but it is not an issue at all! The thing is, the angle of view of this lens is de-facto wider than should be for e.g. 24mm focal length and vignetting if therefore just a part of this additional frame space left there intentionally.

But why is a lens giving you the option not using the whole sensor surface in the first place? Especially if it's not covering the whole sensor at the wide end: Just DON NOT let a lens go to 22.whatevermm if it's specified to go to 24mm.

I'm willing to bet if you look at the imaging circle of say the EF-M 18-150, it mechanically covers more of the imaging circle than 24mm and alot of glass is "wasted". My guess, Canon designed this lens with software corrections in mind from the get-go to maximize the potential of the lens design in the same way they do with point and shoot optics on the wide end. Canon couldn't do that at the time of the 18-150 with the DIGIC7, but, with the DIGIC8 which is much faster, they can. According to the tests, this lens is no slouch...

https://www.photoreview.com.au/reviews/mirrorless-lenses/mirrorless-lenses-full-frame/canon-rf-24-240mm-f-4-6-3-is-usm-lens/

Likewise, the real-world samples I've seen are impressive and seem to affirm these benchmarks.

I think this is a winner-lens, for what it is. We'll see later this week.
Btw, I may "go dark" because I've been on DPR too much lately. Forums are a nasty addiction. Time to scale back a bit, but I'll be back if so.

You just have to turn on the correction in camera or do it by yourself on computer and distortion correction will fix everything back to normal.

It is pity, by the way, there is currently (as of early 2020) no other consumer lens between 24-105 and 24-240 in the RF lineup. Something like 24-160/4-6.3 with a weight under 600g, compact dimensions and lower price would suit my needs much better.

Pros:
- very useful focal range for a travel zoom
- pretty good sharpness in the center
- quick and silent focusing
- effective stabilization (around 4-5 stops depending on focus distance)
- can focus as close as 50 cm

Cons:
- visible loss of sharpness on the edges of the frame
- expensive
- on the bulky side when mounted on Canon RP
- control ring w/o clicks is pretty much useless

A lens like this sells. So Canon has to make it.

For me: if there's wouldn't be enough space in my bag i would just leave the longer focal lengths at home. Why the need to picture anything that was just too far away to be really part of your traveling experience? And when you bring a sharp lens there's often that atmospheric haze....

A 24-70 or 24-105 and one prime 35/40/45/50mm.... wouldn't that be enough?

RLight wrote:

Something like the 24-105 f/4-7.1 IS STM sounds more up your alley at 395 grams.

Likewise, I might even suggest you look at the M system and it's EF-M 18-150 and EF-M 22mm f/2. Those will give you something more powerful than your D5500 (if doing the M6 Mark II) and more reach, and probably sharper too as it's a modern mirrorless optimized optic, and even smaller, lighter still in terms of whole package. One can shoot those two lenses alone and cover alot.

I've got an RF 24-240 on the way arriving Wednesday. It would appear to clock in around the same size as the former (adapted) EF 70-300 DO I had but didn't care for it's image quality, but a bit lighter due to no adapter being required. I can live with that especially with both 240mm on the long end and 24mm on the wide end. AF (and IS) is a big one. From having shot the 70-300 IS USM II, I'm curious how it'll do on the long end of things with the newer 1.6 firmware on my EOS R. If both the AF and IS live up to expectations, this could be a winner for my needs anyways. However I'm falling back on a G5X Mark II for my portable needs and eschewing APS-C entirely, and aside from the RF 35mm which I have a soft spot, eschewing primes too with the RF 28-70 f/2L. Essentially between the RF 24-240, RF 28-70, RF 35 and G5X II, these are no lens swap answers. The former for things like the zoo or other outdoor outings with the family where I want to be prepared for the unexpected but not have to deal with bags or lens swaps, the RF 28-70 covers events and special occasions (unless the 24-240 supplants it), the RF 35 covers indoors and the G5X II covers hiking (where I don't want the RF 24-240 as to your point, it may be light for what it is, but it's not light or compact at all per se) or other pocket-needs like glovebox duty, going to general things like the park (if it'll ever re-open), etc.

Great writeup though, seems to confirm what I've noticed from the existing online reviews of the lens, which it's not terrible, but not cheap, and also not heavy/huge, but not light/small either. I think you've got it correct though, it's not going to replace an APS-C superzoom in size and weight. It's just not that small/light. But, then again your APS-C superzoom isn't going to have the same "punch" as the RF 24-240 does either, which I want that punch and versatility that if I want to cover a wedding with it, I could (though I'd do the RF 28-70 f/2L for that truth told).

I also use the RF 24-70, RF 24-240, RF 35 with the EOS R and the G5XII collection as a full travelling core with adding the RF15-35mm at times.  Each have pros and cons depending on he expected subjects.   Travelling light for me might be the G5XII or the EOS R with 24-240mm.

RLight wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

wjan wrote:

Having recently acquired tiny Canon RP with an excellent 35/1.8 IS prime I was thinking about augmenting it with this 10x zoom. It would make a nice full-frame travel kit, so I could retire my old APS-C D5500 with its 18-140mm f/3.5-5.6 zoom (equivalent to 28-210mm f/5-8 on full frame). Dreams, dreams...

Quick unscientific test on brick walls and tree branches has shown no meaningful difference in terms of sharpness (both in center and on border of the frame), chromatic aberrations, bokeh quality or stabilization efficiency between Canon 24-240 and Nikon 18-140 on any shared focal length. I had a feeling though, the Canon focuses slightly faster. Considering 18-140 is waaaay cheeper and 260 g lighter, I decided to return 24-240 to the vendor and to keep using 18-140 as my travel zoom.

Some people on internet are moaning about huge unrecoverable vignetting, but it is not an issue at all! The thing is, the angle of view of this lens is de-facto wider than should be for e.g. 24mm focal length and vignetting if therefore just a part of this additional frame space left there intentionally.

But why is a lens giving you the option not using the whole sensor surface in the first place? Especially if it's not covering the whole sensor at the wide end: Just DON NOT let a lens go to 22.whatevermm if it's specified to go to 24mm.

I'm willing to bet if you look at the imaging circle of say the EF-M 18-150, it mechanically covers more of the imaging circle than 24mm and alot of glass is "wasted". My guess, Canon designed this lens with software corrections in mind from the get-go to maximize the potential of the lens design in the same way they do with point and shoot optics on the wide end. Canon couldn't do that at the time of the 18-150 with the DIGIC7, but, with the DIGIC8 which is much faster, they can. According to the tests, this lens is no slouch...

https://www.photoreview.com.au/reviews/mirrorless-lenses/mirrorless-lenses-full-frame/canon-rf-24-240mm-f-4-6-3-is-usm-lens/

Likewise, the real-world samples I've seen are impressive and seem to affirm these benchmarks.

I think this is a winner-lens, for what it is.

If you want a superzoom this will be the best option around.

We'll see later this week.
Btw, I may "go dark" because I've been on DPR too much lately. Forums are a nasty addiction. Time to scale back a bit, but I'll be back if so.

Hmmmm, that might be a wise thing to do for someone else too.

You just have to turn on the correction in camera or do it by yourself on computer and distortion correction will fix everything back to normal.

It is pity, by the way, there is currently (as of early 2020) no other consumer lens between 24-105 and 24-240 in the RF lineup. Something like 24-160/4-6.3 with a weight under 600g, compact dimensions and lower price would suit my needs much better.

Pros:
- very useful focal range for a travel zoom
- pretty good sharpness in the center
- quick and silent focusing
- effective stabilization (around 4-5 stops depending on focus distance)
- can focus as close as 50 cm

Cons:
- visible loss of sharpness on the edges of the frame
- expensive
- on the bulky side when mounted on Canon RP
- control ring w/o clicks is pretty much useless

A lens like this sells. So Canon has to make it.

For me: if there's wouldn't be enough space in my bag i would just leave the longer focal lengths at home. Why the need to picture anything that was just too far away to be really part of your traveling experience? And when you bring a sharp lens there's often that atmospheric haze....

A 24-70 or 24-105 and one prime 35/40/45/50mm.... wouldn't that be enough?

RDM5546 wrote:

RLight wrote:

Something like the 24-105 f/4-7.1 IS STM sounds more up your alley at 395 grams.

Likewise, I might even suggest you look at the M system and it's EF-M 18-150 and EF-M 22mm f/2. Those will give you something more powerful than your D5500 (if doing the M6 Mark II) and more reach, and probably sharper too as it's a modern mirrorless optimized optic, and even smaller, lighter still in terms of whole package. One can shoot those two lenses alone and cover alot.

I've got an RF 24-240 on the way arriving Wednesday. It would appear to clock in around the same size as the former (adapted) EF 70-300 DO I had but didn't care for it's image quality, but a bit lighter due to no adapter being required. I can live with that especially with both 240mm on the long end and 24mm on the wide end. AF (and IS) is a big one. From having shot the 70-300 IS USM II, I'm curious how it'll do on the long end of things with the newer 1.6 firmware on my EOS R. If both the AF and IS live up to expectations, this could be a winner for my needs anyways. However I'm falling back on a G5X Mark II for my portable needs and eschewing APS-C entirely, and aside from the RF 35mm which I have a soft spot, eschewing primes too with the RF 28-70 f/2L. Essentially between the RF 24-240, RF 28-70, RF 35 and G5X II, these are no lens swap answers. The former for things like the zoo or other outdoor outings with the family where I want to be prepared for the unexpected but not have to deal with bags or lens swaps, the RF 28-70 covers events and special occasions (unless the 24-240 supplants it), the RF 35 covers indoors and the G5X II covers hiking (where I don't want the RF 24-240 as to your point, it may be light for what it is, but it's not light or compact at all per se) or other pocket-needs like glovebox duty, going to general things like the park (if it'll ever re-open), etc.

Great writeup though, seems to confirm what I've noticed from the existing online reviews of the lens, which it's not terrible, but not cheap, and also not heavy/huge, but not light/small either. I think you've got it correct though, it's not going to replace an APS-C superzoom in size and weight. It's just not that small/light. But, then again your APS-C superzoom isn't going to have the same "punch" as the RF 24-240 does either, which I want that punch and versatility that if I want to cover a wedding with it, I could (though I'd do the RF 28-70 f/2L for that truth told).

I also use the RF 24-70, RF 24-240, RF 35 with the EOS R and the G5XII collection as a full travelling core with adding the RF15-35mm at times. Each have pros and cons depending on he expected subjects. Travelling light for me might be the G5XII or the EOS R with 24-240mm.

Interesting. That's the other lens I'm debating adding (RF 15-35). And that's also the intent (traveling light = G5XII or R+RF 24-240).

I'm not a big landscape person, but when I want an ultra wide, I want an ultra wide...

The question is, do I want to add that to the mix, or save my $2k for something else?

The RF15-35mm is a nice ultra wide lens and covers 35mm too. It particulary useful indoors in tight spaces for group shots as well as outdoors for panoramas.  Many times I need the ultrawide to get everything in the shot. It can be the perfect complement to the 24-240mm in some of my travel uses.  I leave the RF35mm home in those cases.   The wide ultrawide and the 35 are not that different in size.   The wide zoom works well with a small flash but getting full coverage of the 15mm is tricky with a single flash. It all depends on the available light and the subject matter. It is a lot of money but it also gets a lots of use from me.