24-240 / 24-105 7.1 / 24mm IS comparison

Thank you for this comparison.

First up I figured something was wrong with your copy of the RF 24-105, when I realised it wasn't the 'L' version. Still, surprisingly poor compared to the 24-240, which seems to defy physics!

So I'm left with polarised conclusions: That Canon can do wonderful things with its more recent lenses, and at the same time, quite average things, as is the case with the 24-105. Given Canon's proven capability (as seen here on the 24-240) I had high hopes for the 24-105 as a lightweight option, even if it cost a bit more. As it is, I'm not impressed and I will be looking at getting the RF 24-105/4 'L' version, maybe just as Canon wanted me to.

tkbslc wrote:

Surprised the 24-240 is so much better given it need much more distortion/vignetting correction than the 24-105 and it has more than double the range.

I've not noticed such a large disparity between 24-105 and 24-240 except at the wide and. 24-105 is very good from 35-105. But certainly can't recommend it for WA landscapes

Interesting. Thanks. I was planning to get the 24-105 as a lightweight throw in the bag option when the primary objective was nature and wildlife where I carry the RF 800. Looks like I will have to lug the 24-240mm. I like the images I get out of the 24-240 however it is a bit on the heavier side relatively speaking. I usually end up carrying my 17-40 adapted as it weighs about same (feels a lot lighter in real life for some reason). Volume wise 17-40 adapted and 24-240 are almost similar in regards to backpack volume

Thanks for sharing. I was going to order the R6 with the 24-105 as a lightweight option as it is about 300 grams lighter than the L version but will wait for just the body or R6 w/ 24-240 as a one lenns hiking option when there's possibiltiy of wildlife. Could've used one on a recent 8.5 mile hike in North Cascades when encountering marmots.

tkbslc wrote:

Quick comparison of the 24-105 4-7.1, 24-240 and an EF 24mm f2.8 IS prime all at 24mm. Wanted to see if the 24-105 is as bad at 24mm as they say.

The centers are all pretty close. Close enough I didn't bother showing the crops. Nothing really to see. All are great in the center.

The edges, there was quite a difference. 24-105 is pretty bad, even at f8. The 24-240 gets quite good at f8. Prime still wins, as it should. I didn't show it, but the 24mm prime is better at f2.8 edges than 24-105 is at f8. (Easiest to see the differences in the fire hydrant)

Surprised the 24-240 is so much better given it need much more distortion/vignetting correction than the 24-105 and it has more than double the range.

I've not noticed such a large disparity between 24-105 and 24-240 except at the wide and. 24-105 is very good from 35-105. But certainly can't recommend it for WA landscapes.

100% crops at f4 and f8 of just the top right edge/corner (view full screen). Shot JPEG with in camera corrections.

FWIW, the 24-105 STM is much better corrected using RAW and doing so manually in Capture One — it corrects to where it looks better than the 24-240 in the corners at 24mm. Canon didn’t do enough peripheral sharpening correction in their processing, and Lightroom/Adobe simply mimics what Canon does in-camera. On the 24-240, the distortion correction is too extreme for extra sharpening in the corners to make any difference. My guess is that given the resources available during the pandemic, Canon engineers didn’t pursue peripheral sharpening on the 24-105 STM because it hadn't helped the the 24-240.

highdesertmesa wrote:

tkbslc wrote:

Quick comparison of the 24-105 4-7.1, 24-240 and an EF 24mm f2.8 IS prime all at 24mm. Wanted to see if the 24-105 is as bad at 24mm as they say.

The centers are all pretty close. Close enough I didn't bother showing the crops. Nothing really to see. All are great in the center.

The edges, there was quite a difference. 24-105 is pretty bad, even at f8. The 24-240 gets quite good at f8. Prime still wins, as it should. I didn't show it, but the 24mm prime is better at f2.8 edges than 24-105 is at f8. (Easiest to see the differences in the fire hydrant)

Surprised the 24-240 is so much better given it need much more distortion/vignetting correction than the 24-105 and it has more than double the range.

I've not noticed such a large disparity between 24-105 and 24-240 except at the wide and. 24-105 is very good from 35-105. But certainly can't recommend it for WA landscapes.

100% crops at f4 and f8 of just the top right edge/corner (view full screen). Shot JPEG with in camera corrections.

FWIW, the 24-105 STM is much better corrected using RAW and doing so manually in Capture One — it corrects to where it looks better than the 24-240 in the corners at 24mm. Canon didn’t do enough peripheral sharpening correction in their processing, and Lightroom/Adobe simply mimics what Canon does in-camera. On the 24-240, the distortion correction is too extreme for extra sharpening in the corners to make any difference. My guess is that given the resources available during the pandemic, Canon engineers didn’t pursue peripheral sharpening on the 24-105 STM because it hadn't helped the the 24-240.

Jpeg with in-camera corrections should give just about best case for this kind of test. I don't know if DLO was enabled which might make a difference.

I think the 24-105 / 7.1 can and should be better.

highdesertmesa wrote:

FWIW, the 24-105 STM is much better corrected using RAW and doing so manually in Capture One — it corrects to where it looks better than the 24-240 in the corners at 24mm. Canon didn’t do enough peripheral sharpening correction in their processing, and Lightroom/Adobe simply mimics what Canon does in-camera. On the 24-240, the distortion correction is too extreme for extra sharpening in the corners to make any difference. My guess is that given the resources available during the pandemic, Canon engineers didn’t pursue peripheral sharpening on the 24-105 STM because it hadn't helped the the 24-240.

Would love to see some examples if possible. I have the f71. and 4L versions of the 24-105. Love the size/weight of the f7.1, especially on the RP. I don't yet have SW setup to do RAW conversions so I can only see JPG results. Would love to see how much native distortion the f7.1 has and how it can be cleaned up so to speak at 24mm.

I'm terrible at RAW processing, but I have wondered how the f7.1 version would perform if you did the distortion correction manually and didn't try to get all of it out. In other words partially correct the distortion while leaving some of it in hopes that sharpness would be better. For scenes without straight line this might produce better results.

jwilliams wrote:

highdesertmesa wrote:

FWIW, the 24-105 STM is much better corrected using RAW and doing so manually in Capture One — it corrects to where it looks better than the 24-240 in the corners at 24mm. Canon didn’t do enough peripheral sharpening correction in their processing, and Lightroom/Adobe simply mimics what Canon does in-camera. On the 24-240, the distortion correction is too extreme for extra sharpening in the corners to make any difference. My guess is that given the resources available during the pandemic, Canon engineers didn’t pursue peripheral sharpening on the 24-105 STM because it hadn't helped the the 24-240.

Would love to see some examples if possible. I have the f71. and 4L versions of the 24-105. Love the size/weight of the f7.1, especially on the RP. I don't yet have SW setup to do RAW conversions so I can only see JPG results. Would love to see how much native distortion the f7.1 has and how it can be cleaned up so to speak at 24mm.

I'm terrible at RAW processing, but I have wondered how the f7.1 version would perform if you did the distortion correction manually and didn't try to get all of it out. In other words partially correct the distortion while leaving some of it in hopes that sharpness would be better. For scenes without straight line this might produce better results.

I didn't have my original 24-105 STM test shots any more, so I took a few new ones. I took a series at 24mm from f/4 through f/16, and f/8 was the clear stand-out winner for best corner performance. I think when I did this last time, I was looking at f/4 or 5.6, which I don't think the in camera corrections can clean up as well. Anyway, when processing them manually, I think it's pretty much a wash compared to in-camera. There may be a bit more detail when corrected manually, but the in-camera corrections are better at chromatic aberration correction, so I think that gives an edge to Canon's JPEG versus what I was doing. Here are all three for reference on the R6. Differences probably become more apparent on the R5 of course.

I did notice on the R6 it has a new setting (or at least I never noticed it on the R) under Digital Lens Optimizer – options for Standard and High. Perhaps these lenses (24-105 STM and 24-240) would benefit from the High setting.

No correction applied to the RAW – this is the optical performance of the lens. Not great, but not as crazy as the uncorrected 24-240.

Corrected RAW in C1 Lens Correction Panel: Distortion: 92; Sharpness 250; Light falloff 7

In-camera corrected (DLO) JPEG

RexTremendae wrote:

The RF 24-240 is excellent as you can see from these images. My two issues with it are pretty minor, but still a problem. First, the zoom ring is stiff and jerky, forget about doing smooth zooms in videos. Second, the video servo AF tends to hunt on the EOS R/RP. All in all the AF tends to miss a little too much to reach "pro" level for photo or video. Optically, it's quite good as you noticed. I would classify it as ridiculously good for the price and range. It's actually prime like from 35mm to 105mm IMHO. If it had a nice smooth zoom and dual AF motors like the RF 70-200 I don't know if most people would ever need another lens. Canon should do an L version of this lens with a larger aperture and better build quality and AF.

I can agree it's quite good in the middle.  Comparing with my 70-200 F4 L IS the 24-240 there is really no difference in sharpness from about 70-135mm.   I actually think it is better than the 24-105L from 85-105.

My main issues are the massive corrections it requires.  My preferred software is ACDSee, but there are no RF lens profiles.  So the 24-240 is basically unusable with that software as a result.  Also I find that with lower contrast targets it gives up at the long end really quickly.  Have to manual focus or zoom out to acquire focus.

It's also got pretty weak corners at 240mm, but I often centrally frame at that focal length.  If I was doing landscapes, I'd probably stop in the mid 100s for corner sharpness.

If they made an upgraded version of this lens, I think rather than a larger aperture, I'd want it to be better corrected and cover the whole sensor at wide angle.  Nikon's 24-200 and Tamron's 28-200 both seem better optically, so maybe cutting a little off the telephoto is a good idea.

highdesertmesa wrote:

jwilliams wrote:

highdesertmesa wrote:

FWIW, the 24-105 STM is much better corrected using RAW and doing so manually in Capture One — it corrects to where it looks better than the 24-240 in the corners at 24mm. Canon didn’t do enough peripheral sharpening correction in their processing, and Lightroom/Adobe simply mimics what Canon does in-camera. On the 24-240, the distortion correction is too extreme for extra sharpening in the corners to make any difference. My guess is that given the resources available during the pandemic, Canon engineers didn’t pursue peripheral sharpening on the 24-105 STM because it hadn't helped the the 24-240.

Would love to see some examples if possible. I have the f71. and 4L versions of the 24-105. Love the size/weight of the f7.1, especially on the RP. I don't yet have SW setup to do RAW conversions so I can only see JPG results. Would love to see how much native distortion the f7.1 has and how it can be cleaned up so to speak at 24mm.

I'm terrible at RAW processing, but I have wondered how the f7.1 version would perform if you did the distortion correction manually and didn't try to get all of it out. In other words partially correct the distortion while leaving some of it in hopes that sharpness would be better. For scenes without straight line this might produce better results.

I didn't have my original 24-105 STM test shots any more, so I took a few new ones. I took a series at 24mm from f/4 through f/16, and f/8 was the clear stand-out winner for best corner performance. I think when I did this last time, I was looking at f/4 or 5.6, which I don't think the in camera corrections can clean up as well. Anyway, when processing them manually, I think it's pretty much a wash compared to in-camera. There may be a bit more detail when corrected manually, but the in-camera corrections are better at chromatic aberration correction, so I think that gives an edge to Canon's JPEG versus what I was doing. Here are all three for reference on the R6. Differences probably become more apparent on the R5 of course.

I did notice on the R6 it has a new setting (or at least I never noticed it on the R) under Digital Lens Optimizer – options for Standard and High. Perhaps these lenses (24-105 STM and 24-240) would benefit from the High setting.

That seems like a pretty big sharpness difference in the edges to me.  I will have to try some manual corrections.  I'd be a lot happier with the Capture 1 result.

tkbslc wrote:

highdesertmesa wrote:

jwilliams wrote:

highdesertmesa wrote:

FWIW, the 24-105 STM is much better corrected using RAW and doing so manually in Capture One — it corrects to where it looks better than the 24-240 in the corners at 24mm. Canon didn’t do enough peripheral sharpening correction in their processing, and Lightroom/Adobe simply mimics what Canon does in-camera. On the 24-240, the distortion correction is too extreme for extra sharpening in the corners to make any difference. My guess is that given the resources available during the pandemic, Canon engineers didn’t pursue peripheral sharpening on the 24-105 STM because it hadn't helped the the 24-240.

Would love to see some examples if possible. I have the f71. and 4L versions of the 24-105. Love the size/weight of the f7.1, especially on the RP. I don't yet have SW setup to do RAW conversions so I can only see JPG results. Would love to see how much native distortion the f7.1 has and how it can be cleaned up so to speak at 24mm.

I'm terrible at RAW processing, but I have wondered how the f7.1 version would perform if you did the distortion correction manually and didn't try to get all of it out. In other words partially correct the distortion while leaving some of it in hopes that sharpness would be better. For scenes without straight line this might produce better results.

I didn't have my original 24-105 STM test shots any more, so I took a few new ones. I took a series at 24mm from f/4 through f/16, and f/8 was the clear stand-out winner for best corner performance. I think when I did this last time, I was looking at f/4 or 5.6, which I don't think the in camera corrections can clean up as well. Anyway, when processing them manually, I think it's pretty much a wash compared to in-camera. There may be a bit more detail when corrected manually, but the in-camera corrections are better at chromatic aberration correction, so I think that gives an edge to Canon's JPEG versus what I was doing. Here are all three for reference on the R6. Differences probably become more apparent on the R5 of course.

I did notice on the R6 it has a new setting (or at least I never noticed it on the R) under Digital Lens Optimizer – options for Standard and High. Perhaps these lenses (24-105 STM and 24-240) would benefit from the High setting.

That seems like a pretty big sharpness difference in the edges to me. I will have to try some manual corrections. I'd be a lot happier with the Capture 1 result.

Yeah, I think there is more detail manually, even if it has a little minor chromatic aberration left over. Capture One will be even better once they add a profile for this lens so that the distortion correction is more accurate. But I'm not sure if it's worth the hassle of RAW processing if you're used to using JPEG – maybe if you want to print really big it would be worth it, like 30'x20" and larger.

I tried setting DLO on High just now – in-camera JPEG results look over-sharpened across the frame on that setting. I would have thought that DLO would have only amped up the corrective sharpness toward the corners, but it looks like it applies it across the frame. I do have my Picture Style sharpness maxed out, so maybe for the DLO High setting, I need to return Picture Style sharpness to the default/middle.

highdesertmesa wrote:

tkbslc wrote:

highdesertmesa wrote:

jwilliams wrote:

highdesertmesa wrote:

FWIW, the 24-105 STM is much better corrected using RAW and doing so manually in Capture One — it corrects to where it looks better than the 24-240 in the corners at 24mm. Canon didn’t do enough peripheral sharpening correction in their processing, and Lightroom/Adobe simply mimics what Canon does in-camera. On the 24-240, the distortion correction is too extreme for extra sharpening in the corners to make any difference. My guess is that given the resources available during the pandemic, Canon engineers didn’t pursue peripheral sharpening on the 24-105 STM because it hadn't helped the the 24-240.

Would love to see some examples if possible. I have the f71. and 4L versions of the 24-105. Love the size/weight of the f7.1, especially on the RP. I don't yet have SW setup to do RAW conversions so I can only see JPG results. Would love to see how much native distortion the f7.1 has and how it can be cleaned up so to speak at 24mm.

I'm terrible at RAW processing, but I have wondered how the f7.1 version would perform if you did the distortion correction manually and didn't try to get all of it out. In other words partially correct the distortion while leaving some of it in hopes that sharpness would be better. For scenes without straight line this might produce better results.

I didn't have my original 24-105 STM test shots any more, so I took a few new ones. I took a series at 24mm from f/4 through f/16, and f/8 was the clear stand-out winner for best corner performance. I think when I did this last time, I was looking at f/4 or 5.6, which I don't think the in camera corrections can clean up as well. Anyway, when processing them manually, I think it's pretty much a wash compared to in-camera. There may be a bit more detail when corrected manually, but the in-camera corrections are better at chromatic aberration correction, so I think that gives an edge to Canon's JPEG versus what I was doing. Here are all three for reference on the R6. Differences probably become more apparent on the R5 of course.

I did notice on the R6 it has a new setting (or at least I never noticed it on the R) under Digital Lens Optimizer – options for Standard and High. Perhaps these lenses (24-105 STM and 24-240) would benefit from the High setting.

That seems like a pretty big sharpness difference in the edges to me. I will have to try some manual corrections. I'd be a lot happier with the Capture 1 result.

Yeah, I think there is more detail manually, even if it has a little minor chromatic aberration left over. Capture One will be even better once they add a profile for this lens so that the distortion correction is more accurate. But I'm not sure if it's worth the hassle of RAW processing if you're used to using JPEG – maybe if you want to print really big it would be worth it, like 30'x20" and larger.

To be honest, I don't have many complaint about this 24-105 STM lens for everyday casual stuff. I think it's actually quite good. Even in the sample I posted in the OP, it doesn't look bad at screen size on a 28" monitor. I think you could do 13x19" prints on it just fine, even at 24mm f8. For the rest of the range, I find it close enough to the 24-240 to call it equal,.

But it would be nice if we could get sharp corners for more serious shots. The lens is light enough I would like to travel or hike with it. Switching to RAW for detail shots at is not too much of a chore if that's what it takes.

I tried setting DLO on High just now – in-camera JPEG results look over-sharpened across the frame on that setting. I would have thought that DLO would have only amped up the corrective sharpness toward the corners, but it looks like it applies it across the frame. I do have my Picture Style sharpness maxed out, so maybe for the DLO High setting, I need to return Picture Style sharpness to the default/middle.

That's unfortunate. I'm not a fan of oversharpening. It starts to look like a phone photo if you go too far.

RexTremendae wrote:

tkbslc wrote:

RexTremendae wrote:

The RF 24-240 is excellent as you can see from these images. My two issues with it are pretty minor, but still a problem. First, the zoom ring is stiff and jerky, forget about doing smooth zooms in videos. Second, the video servo AF tends to hunt on the EOS R/RP. All in all the AF tends to miss a little too much to reach "pro" level for photo or video. Optically, it's quite good as you noticed. I would classify it as ridiculously good for the price and range. It's actually prime like from 35mm to 105mm IMHO. If it had a nice smooth zoom and dual AF motors like the RF 70-200 I don't know if most people would ever need another lens. Canon should do an L version of this lens with a larger aperture and better build quality and AF.

I can agree it's quite good in the middle. Comparing with my 70-200 F4 L IS the 24-240 there is really no difference in sharpness from about 70-135mm. I actually think it is better than the 24-105L from 85-105.

My main issues are the massive corrections it requires. My preferred software is ACDSee, but there are no RF lens profiles. So the 24-240 is basically unusable with that software as a result. Also I find that with lower contrast targets it gives up at the long end really quickly. Have to manual focus or zoom out to acquire focus.

It's also got pretty weak corners at 240mm, but I often centrally frame at that focal length. If I was doing landscapes, I'd probably stop in the mid 100s for corner sharpness.

I always stop down to f/7.1 at the long end. It's sharp at f/6.3 but tends to just miss focus, maybe it's the extra DoF but f/7.1 works most of the time for static subjects.

I will try that, good tip.

If they made an upgraded version of this lens, I think rather than a larger aperture, I'd want it to be better corrected and cover the whole sensor at wide angle. Nikon's 24-200 and Tamron's 28-200 both seem better optically, so maybe cutting a little off the telephoto is a good idea.

Are they better optically? You tell me:

They seem to be a bit better at both ends.  They definitely don't need so much correction. .

Maybe I just got a good copy but I think the image quality is more than good enough. This was shot by my girlfriend from our car.

Nice image!  I'm definitely not saying it's a bad lens at all.  But it's definitely got room for improvement.

RexTremendae wrote:

tkbslc wrote:

RexTremendae wrote:

tkbslc wrote:

RexTremendae wrote:

The RF 24-240 is excellent as you can see from these images. My two issues with it are pretty minor, but still a problem. First, the zoom ring is stiff and jerky, forget about doing smooth zooms in videos. Second, the video servo AF tends to hunt on the EOS R/RP. All in all the AF tends to miss a little too much to reach "pro" level for photo or video. Optically, it's quite good as you noticed. I would classify it as ridiculously good for the price and range. It's actually prime like from 35mm to 105mm IMHO. If it had a nice smooth zoom and dual AF motors like the RF 70-200 I don't know if most people would ever need another lens. Canon should do an L version of this lens with a larger aperture and better build quality and AF.

I can agree it's quite good in the middle. Comparing with my 70-200 F4 L IS the 24-240 there is really no difference in sharpness from about 70-135mm. I actually think it is better than the 24-105L from 85-105.

My main issues are the massive corrections it requires. My preferred software is ACDSee, but there are no RF lens profiles. So the 24-240 is basically unusable with that software as a result. Also I find that with lower contrast targets it gives up at the long end really quickly. Have to manual focus or zoom out to acquire focus.

It's also got pretty weak corners at 240mm, but I often centrally frame at that focal length. If I was doing landscapes, I'd probably stop in the mid 100s for corner sharpness.

I always stop down to f/7.1 at the long end. It's sharp at f/6.3 but tends to just miss focus, maybe it's the extra DoF but f/7.1 works most of the time for static subjects.

I will try that, good tip.

If they made an upgraded version of this lens, I think rather than a larger aperture, I'd want it to be better corrected and cover the whole sensor at wide angle. Nikon's 24-200 and Tamron's 28-200 both seem better optically, so maybe cutting a little off the telephoto is a good idea.

Are they better optically? You tell me:

They seem to be a bit better at both ends. They definitely don't need so much correction. .

Maybe I just got a good copy but I think the image quality is more than good enough. This was shot by my girlfriend from our car.

Nice image! I'm definitely not saying it's a bad lens at all. But it's definitely got room for improvement.

Let's be honest, we have no idea what the truth of the image is anymore. I don't trust lenses that are excessively corrected looking yet have a wide zoom range and low price... I just don't buy it.

But you bought the 24-240?  It looks like a fisheye and doesn't cover the sensor at 24mm unless you let Canon work it's magic with DLO.

At least with this Canon lens it appears you get what you pay for whereas the other lenses are probably employing digital manipulation to make them look better than they are. No offense but I don't want the wool pulled over my eyes. I want to see the real lens image...

Again, the Canon employs MASSIVE digital manipulation just to make it look decent.

The corrections don't bother me much at this price point, but that's just me. I also have other L lenses so someone who just has this lens may feel more strongly about the image quality it offers.

Realistically speaking the only way anyone will beat the image I posted is with a prime lens. And if you think you can find a better quality image taken with the Nikon or Tamron lenses, I would love to see them but I know they don't exist...

Now you are just being silly.   I like my 24-240, but I'm not going to pretend it's god-like.

I tried again as someone mentioned maybe RAW gives better results. But when I viewed the JPEGs, I found the 24-105 seems to be a lot closer today. It could be field curvature?  I made sure to focus at the exact spot where these crops were taken.   Or maybe the lens just didn't focus as crisply yesterday.

These are DLO JPEGs at 24mm f8. 24-105 on the right. (color difference is from cloud movement between photos)

Top corner, 100% crop from 4K monitor. Light slightly changed while changing lenses.