Good but not great

RDM5546 wrote:

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.

Interesting. I've never owned an f/2.8 ultra wide zoom (f/4 previously) so this changes things where it becomes a "party lens".

Right now my RF 28-70 f/2L has been my party lens in the same way your 24-70 f/2.8L would be.

Where then does the RF 24-70 f/2.8L fit in my workflow? Or you swap between the 15-35 f/2.8L and 24-70 f/2.8L I presume for that work?

The kicker is I just sold off my M gear which was a pretty penny. I can justify either an RF 15-35 f/2.8L or, R5 potentially as both would be partially or mostly paid for with existing gear sale funds (as I'd sell the R) without the need to ask the other half for approval to use our money otherwise. The approval part is my problem; just because I'm the one who brings the bread home doesn't I don't have to justify it to the "boss".

Funny how when she wants that new fence though or tile flooring this never comes up...

First world problems

I am thinking the RF 15-35 makes more sense than the R5. Optics are usually the better investment.

RLight wrote:

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

As mentioned earlier in another post, 24-105 f/4-7.1 IS STM is nearly equal to my current 18-140 f/3.5-5.6 in terms of equivalent light gathering on longer end of zoom range, which lowers my excitement some And 105mm is unfortunately too short for my shooting stile while traveling. Would this lens go to ~150mm, it would appeal to me much more.

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 a lot.

I love EF-M 22mm f/2! Enjoyed this wonderful little marvel a lot while using it on tiny Canon M100. Wonderful package. Small, cheap, competent. Probably even too small for my big hands, I was sometimes missing a decent grip Still, on Black Friday I was seduced by a kit of Canon RP with RF 35 f/1.8 IS for an unbelievably low price, thus M had to go.

Yes, I was thinking about this EF-M 18-150 a lot, but the EF-M system would be more expensive than equivalent Nikon DX one (I paid only 350€ for used Nikon D5500 with 18-140 lens vs. probably over ~1000€ for e.g. used M6 II + 18-150). Also I still wanted to use my very useful Nikon 85mm f/3.5 macro which simply does not exist in EF-M realm.

In summary, with EF-M you brought a valid option, just it was not most optimal for my situation.

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.

I would love to hear about comparison of RF 24-240 with 70-300 IS USM II on equivalent focal lengths if you will find time for it!

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.

This sounds like a good selection of right tools for different jobs. I normally use 24-70/2.8 on full-frame for events and your RF 28-70/2 should be even better than that.

There is a new review by Gordon Laing of the RF 15-35mm lens and compares it with

EF 16-35mm III  which I use with my 5D MK IV and have always very impressed.   The RF 15-35 successor for EOS R successor to this great EF lens is actually better both instabilization and slightly better in image quality though I these differences are pretty small.  The better optical stablization of the RF lens show off well when shooting video and the overy video behavior is better as well.  Both are great lenses IMHO though.

wjan wrote:

RLight wrote:

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

As mentioned earlier in another post, 24-105 f/4-7.1 IS STM is nearly equal to my current 18-140 f/3.5-5.6 in terms of equivalent light gathering on longer end of zoom range, which lowers my excitement some And 105mm is unfortunately too short for my shooting stile while traveling. Would this lens go to ~150mm, it would appeal to me much more.

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 a lot.

I love EF-M 22mm f/2! Enjoyed this wonderful little marvel a lot while using it on tiny Canon M100. Wonderful package. Small, cheap, competent. Probably even too small for my big hands, I was sometimes missing a decent grip Still, on Black Friday I was seduced by a kit of Canon RP with RF 35 f/1.8 IS for an unbelievably low price, thus M had to go.

Yes, I was thinking about this EF-M 18-150 a lot, but the EF-M system would be more expensive than equivalent Nikon DX one (I paid only 350€ for used Nikon D5500 with 18-140 lens vs. probably over ~1000€ for e.g. used M6 II + 18-150). Also I still wanted to use my very useful Nikon 85mm f/3.5 macro which simply does not exist in EF-M realm.

In summary, with EF-M you brought a valid option, just it was not most optimal for my situation.

Yup. You need to go M50 or M6 II better yet for a decent grip. But those aren't cheap anymore for what they are (M6 II in particular) vs the RP.

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.

I would love to hear about comparison of RF 24-240 with 70-300 IS USM II on equivalent focal lengths if you will find time for it!

Sadly I sold the 70-300, but I can still offer my thoughts having owned it for some time I'm very familiar with it's behavior and rendering.

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.

This sounds like a good selection of right tools for different jobs. I normally use 24-70/2.8 on full-frame for events and your RF 28-70/2 should be even better than that.

As I am considering to buy the 24-240mm this is very interesting for me.
I have owned the Sony RX10 IV but switched back to the Canon RP because of the greater sensor and the better quality of the bokeh.
Did you compare the lens of the Sony RX10 IV with the Canon RF 24-240mm more extensive, what are your findings? I have searched, but cannot find a comparison between these two.

axlotl 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. 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

Agree with all these

Cons:
- visible loss of sharpness on the edges of the frame

After profile corrections the loss of sharpness at the wide end is only mild

In the middle of the zoom range, around 35-150mm peripheral sharpness is good to very good

When further zoomed out to 240mm peripheral softness becomes obvious and is not improved by closing the lens aperture. Profile corrections can manage the distortion, peripheral shading and color fringing but nothing can correct the loss of sharpness.

At equivalent 240mm the Sony RX10.4 delivers slghtly better center sharpness and much better peripheral sharpness with few significant aberrations.

- expensive
- on the bulky side when mounted on Canon RP
- control ring w/o clicks is pretty much useless

Agree with those.

Andrew

Even at the wide end the issues after in camera automatic JPEG corrections are minor and nearly all in the very corners.

When viewed in comparison with 10X travel lenses rather the 4X zooms the results are are the best of any prior Canon 10X lenses (I have owned several) and this new RF lens is actual award winning:

https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/buying-guides/best-lenses-for-travel

I love this lens for the great 10X lens achievement that it is and I do also have the RF 24-70mm f2.8L and the RF 24-105mm f4 which I find great lenses but for other purposes. They all cover much more purpose in shooting and require lens changes which at times can cost a shot during moments of rapic situation change that the RF 24-240mm will get while others won't because of it's great versatility in speed to focus and shoot lens in rapid fluctuation chaotic situtaions.  I some time carry this lens on EOS R along with the EF 100-400mm f4-5.6L ii on a EOS 5D MkIV for important challenging shots.

RedFox88 wrote:

wjan wrote:

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

Canon has not made a zoom lens near that range in recent history. Not sure your disappointed there isn’t a lens made just for you you could get the old, soft 28-135 IS and use an adapter

If something was not done previously, it does not mean it can't be made at all. Besides, we already have a plethora of 18-xxx zooms for APS-C sensors, which are indeed in this focal range if only for a different sensor format. Also we have an ancient Canon EF 28-200mm 3.5-5.6 witch weighted only 500g. I'd love to see it reincarnated with a modern tech! But I understand that Canon can not magically produce dozens of lenses at once to satisfy all customer desires. If we look in the past, we can realize that major lens companies can produce around 10 lenses per year at most. And with new 24-105/4-7.1 and 24-240/4-6.3 Canon already covered most bases for casual shooters. So, I am afraid I have to wait really long until something like 24-160 appears. If at all.

RDM5546 wrote:

Even at the wide end the issues after in camera automatic JPEG corrections are minor and nearly all in the very corners.

Minor or not is a rather subjective definition. The fact is, we have to seriously stretch the image in order to get rid of lens' hard vignetting on wide angle. And it means very real loss of details, more than twofold in comparison with image center if we can believe the graphs from this review: https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/reviews/canon-rf-24-240mm-f4-63-is-usm-review

When viewed in comparison with 10X travel lenses rather the 4X zooms the results are are the best of any prior Canon 10X lenses (I have owned several) and this new RF lens is actual award winning:

https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/buying-guides/best-lenses-for-travel

I am sorry for directness, but this "award" looks like a joke to me. Seemingly random collection of some zoom lenses without clear selection criteria from a source without well-established recognition in photography world.

I love this lens for the great 10X lens achievement that it is

In that case you have to love Tamron 18-400mm with its 22x zoom even more!

and I do also have the RF 24-70mm f2.8L and the RF 24-105mm f4 which I find great lenses but for other purposes. They all cover much more purpose in shooting and require lens changes which at times can cost a shot during moments of rapic situation change that the RF 24-240mm will get while others won't because of it's great versatility in speed to focus and shoot lens in rapid fluctuation chaotic situtaions. I some time carry this lens on EOS R along with the EF 100-400mm f4-5.6L ii on a EOS 5D MkIV for important challenging shots.

Yes, obviously all these lenses have their niches where they are most useful. Just look on it from a different perspective. We go up in therms of sensor size in order to gain image quality, simultaneously giving up on size, cost and weight of a corresponding camera (in general). But a 10x zoom is actually negating this intention by sacrificing image quality in a pursue of convenience! So one has to ask himself/herself what is he/she striving to achieve. If it is image quality, than full frame with a quality zoom or a prime lens seems to be most appropriate. If it is convenience, than lower cost, lower weight APS-C cameras might be a smarter choice. Indeed, if we stay in Canon world, than something like M5 with 18-150 lens is both significantly cheaper and lighter than RP with 24-240.

wjan wrote:

RDM5546 wrote:

Even at the wide end the issues after in camera automatic JPEG corrections are minor and nearly all in the very corners.

Minor or not is a rather subjective definition. The fact is, we have to seriously stretch the image in order to get rid of lens' hard vignetting on wide angle. And it means very real loss of details, more than twofold in comparison with image center if we can believe the graphs from this review: https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/reviews/canon-rf-24-240mm-f4-63-is-usm-review

When viewed in comparison with 10X travel lenses rather the 4X zooms the results are are the best of any prior Canon 10X lenses (I have owned several) and this new RF lens is actual award winning:

https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/buying-guides/best-lenses-for-travel

I am sorry for directness, but this "award" looks like a joke to me. Seemingly random collection of some zoom lenses without clear selection criteria from a source without well-established recognition in photography world.

I love this lens for the great 10X lens achievement that it is

In that case you have to love Tamron 18-400mm with its 22x zoom even more!

and I do also have the RF 24-70mm f2.8L and the RF 24-105mm f4 which I find great lenses but for other purposes. They all cover much more purpose in shooting and require lens changes which at times can cost a shot during moments of rapic situation change that the RF 24-240mm will get while others won't because of it's great versatility in speed to focus and shoot lens in rapid fluctuation chaotic situtaions. I some time carry this lens on EOS R along with the EF 100-400mm f4-5.6L ii on a EOS 5D MkIV for important challenging shots.

Yes, obviously all these lenses have their niches where they are most useful. Just look on it from a different perspective. We go up in therms of sensor size in order to gain image quality, simultaneously giving up on size, cost and weight of a corresponding camera (in general). But a 10x zoom is actually negating this intention by sacrificing image quality in a pursue of convenience! So one has to ask himself/herself what is he/she striving to achieve. If it is image quality, than full frame with a quality zoom or a prime lens seems to be most appropriate. If it is convenience, than lower cost, lower weight APS-C cameras might be a smarter choice. Indeed, if we stay in Canon world, than something like M5 with 18-150 lens is both significantly cheaper and lighter than RP with 24-240.

I have primes and other lenses in this range that EF lenses that sound like what you would prefer.  You take you choice with what you buy.  I know that other buyers are different and make different tradeoffs.   This lens has a place for me but it is not my only lens.  Getting the shot in a chaotic world and convenience are two of the major benefits of this lens but prime lenses are definitely the IQ leaders among the lenses I own.   Different decision metrics will lead to different choices.

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. 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

When you say the RF 24-240 may good but not great I would say that greatess is in the eye of the beholder. Different appications lead to different lens requirement and individual preferences when compared to alternative lens choices and prices.

I look at your Pros and Cons and think these are accurate insights into these factors.

I think this may be one of Canon's more controversial lenses because the the radical solution it offers for the classic problems of prior superzoom lenses which tend to in many factors underperform prime lenses and narrow range zoom lenses. The smaller the zoom range appears to be easier for designing lenses that are corner sharp with larger aperatures for better low light performance.

However, the travel photography application remains popular today with many people using smartphones as well a better cameras. It is more common for these travel cameras to use zooming in cameras and superzoom lenses are popular here.

A recent review demonstrates what it regards as the currently great travel superzooms for modern popular travel cameras.

https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/buying-guides/best-lenses-for-travel

They include both EOS EF lenses as well as RF lenses. It is no surprise then this review of great superzooms the RF 24-240mm is favorably reviewed:

https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/reviews/canon-rf-24-240mm-f4-63-is-usm-review

They conclude:

OUR VERDICT

Any full frame superzoom lens is going to be BIG, but the Canon RF 24-240mm f/4-6.3 IS USM balances much better on the EOS RP body than we were expecting. It’s comparatively light, it’s neat and simple to use and it’s a good value bundle when bought with an EOS RP. What's exceptional is the optical performance in such a long range zoom, achieved with a lot of help (no doubt controversially) from digital corrections.

FOR

• 10x zoom range
• Light and well balanced
• Exceptional result from a superzoom

AGAINST

• Modest maximum aperture
• Lacks L-series build quality
• Good image quality but not stellar

I agree with the FOR and AGAINST .    I have owned many great and some not so great Canon and third party zoom lenses (as well as primes!).    When it comes to superzooms this RF24-240mm is not my first or second or even third. I have owned and subsequently sold several early L series 4X and 10X zooms that were in my opinion worse lenses by their creating less sharp images in much heavier, bulkier and expensive embodiments.

Today I would say even with respect to the many opinions of others being different I think the RF 24-240mm is a great lens in today's market.  I hope somewhat builds a better even I a higher price.    I have gladly pay more for a better 10X superzoom covering this range.  I hope there is a RF 24-240mm F4.0 L lens with rugged construction and weather sealing.  However, weight and size and still important to me and more so than a small increase in price.   Today, though the RF 24-240mm is a great lens which obviates the need to change lenses frequently when travelling.  Outdoors in decent light it performs very well to my taste and it creates much better imageriny and is easier to shoot to get the shot than any  smartphone,

Just purchased the RF 24-240 for use with my R6.  Only taken a few shots around the yard with it so far but the initial impression is that it looks good.  Will probably pair with RF 35mm f1.8 as a travel kit.

tdbmd wrote:

Just purchased the RF 24-240 for use with my R6. Only taken a few shots around the yard with it so far but the initial impression is that it looks good. Will probably pair with RF 35mm f1.8 as a travel kit.

I have both lenses. That is a good pairing for travel. I have never been disappointed with photos from either one.  If weight and size are absolutely critical, use the 24-105 STM.

Pair any combo of these with an EL-100 flash and you are pretty much covered.

SteveinLouisville wrote:

tdbmd wrote:

Just purchased the RF 24-240 for use with my R6. Only taken a few shots around the yard with it so far but the initial impression is that it looks good. Will probably pair with RF 35mm f1.8 as a travel kit.

I have both lenses. That is a good pairing for travel. I have never been disappointed with photos from either one. If weight and size are absolutely critical, use the 24-105 STM.

Pair any combo of these with an EL-100 flash and you are pretty much covered.

I recently bought a Godox 350 flash that is pretty compact as well.  That will be my travel kit unless I need something for wildlife

I purchased the RF 24-240 about 3 weeks ago and have not had a chance to use it a lot but so far it has surpassed my expectations, especially at the short and long end.  So far I have been happy with the sharpness and the colors.  I will agree that it is not as sharp and doesn't have quite the pop of the EF 100-400II but for the size/weight and price, I am happy with the results.

The more I use this lens, the more impressed I am with its versatility, especially at the price point.