RF 24-240mm F4-6.3 IS USM as sharp as L-lens?

[gium]

In my experience, the 24-240 is exceptionally sharp from about 50-150mm. It sort of falls apart a bit at either end.

24-105L is much more consistent, has a constant f4 aperture, and has a lot less CA, vignetting and distortion.

I have the same finding. I first tried the RF 24-240 with the RP and the sweet spot of this lens is at 50mm with a good center and good corners. At other focal lengths the corner performance is noticeably softer.

In the end I traded it in for the RF 24-105L and that lens has a better and more consistent performance; more contrast in the center and an overall much better corner performance.

 

[thunder storm]

In my experience, the 24-240 is exceptionally sharp from about 50-150mm. It sort of falls apart a bit at either end.

If someone would ask me "do yo want a very good 50-150 full frame zoom, the answer is: YES! Tamron has a 35-150 after all, and for me starting at 50mm is still a whole lot more useful than starting at 70mm.

I'm not sure the value is there just just using it for a 50-150mm f5-6.3. But it's stellar in that range.

24-105L is much more consistent, has a constant f4 aperture,

doesn't matter if you have some primes or an f/2.8 zoom next to it, and beyond 105mm the aperture of the L zoom is f/∞....

and has a lot less CA,

matters

vignetting

matters sometimes

and distortion.

If you consider this as a lens starting at 50mm anyway, it probably won't be that bad. After all this lens saves you from carrying a 70-200 in your bag. And that might be the biggest advantage over the f/4.0 L.

It's not terrible at the wide end. It's just that the L comparison only works in the mid range. If you want L class in the mid range, and can tolerate kit lens class at either end, it's a pretty spiffy all-in-one lens.

For a single lens travel/walkaround lens, I prioritized landscapes and portraits over telephoto reach. So I swapped my 24-240 for a 24-105L and am quite happy with the trade.

I went with the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 mkII for the same reasons, sacrificing IS for having f/2.8 at 70mm in stead of f/4.0 at 105......

 

[davel33]

A few weeks after I picked up my RF 24-240 I did a few test with the 1951 chart. I found that the RF 24-240 was just about as good as the RF 24-105 for resolution but the RF 24-105 was better for contrast like Karl said in one of his post.

For vacation pics the RF 24-240 is a great one lens solution but for most other things I use my RF 24-105 + EF 70-300 L or the EF 16-35 f4 and RF 24-105. One lens on my R and one on my Lens Flipper.

I find the RF 24-105 to be a fantastic general purpose lens, with 5 stop IS and near on to instant focus its hard to beat for the price

 

[NowHearThis]

In my experience, the 24-240 is exceptionally sharp from about 50-150mm. It sort of falls apart a bit at either end.

24-105L is much more consistent, has a constant f4 aperture, and has a lot less CA, vignetting and distortion.

Most superzooms for whatever reason seemed to be their best around 50mm, few, if any, are optimized to be great at their widest or most telephoto where it would also be useful.

 

[Karl_Guttag]

One of the biggest reasons I like using super zoom lenses is it allows me to get fleeting photos that won't be there if I had to change lenses to obtain it. Getting a photo that has a little less IQ is better than no photo at all.

Yes, and that is why I bought the 24-240 myself. It's better than I expected. It's good to know where it "fits." It's also, good to know if/when it is worth buying a prime or other lens.

In the center, it is hard to tell from the 50f1.8II at the same apertures. In the corners (which are often not as important as well) you are going to get some softening, roughly equivalent to lowering the resolution to about 0.75x in each direction, but it is not horrible.

I would assume on a higher resolution camera with big prints it would be much more noticeable.

 

[Treidlia]

Hi all

I agree with entirely satisfactory, therefore deeply impressive for 10x superzoom, sharpness.

I’d say sweet 50 to 80, great 35 to 150. Good at long end 150-240. And poorest but still ok apart from corners <35.

However outside of sharpness Even with up to date firmware and full lens correction profile on in camera I’m also generally not impressed with Chromatic aberration correction in sooc JPEG. So I’m surprised at how well CA resolves here in this pixel peep.

 

[Karl_Guttag]

A few weeks after I picked up my RF 24-240 I did a few test with the 1951 chart. I found that the RF 24-240 was just about as good as the RF 24-105 for resolution but the RF 24-105 was better for contrast like Karl said in one of his post.

For vacation pics the RF 24-240 is a great one lens solution but for most other things I use my RF 24-105 + EF 70-300 L or the EF 16-35 f4 and RF 24-105. One lens on my R and one on my Lens Flipper.

I find the RF 24-105 to be a fantastic general purpose lens, with 5 stop IS and near on to instant focus its hard to beat for the price

I assume all your references above are to the 24-105 F4L (could it be more confusing with two new "kit" lenses with the same fl?). I could not pass up the deal on the RF+24-240 to finally get a full-frame camera. Based on my tests, I don't think I will be missing not having a 24-105 f4L (your milage may differ).

I'm debating between waiting on the RF14-35 f4L IS (rumored) or the RF15-35f2.8L. I'm "slumming" with the old 17-40F4L for the time being. The newer conversion software seems to really help old lenses too and an added reason to always shoot RAW or C-RAW in addition to JPEG. I have the new "nifty fifty" on order and will fill in with some new primes at some point. I think all my new lenses will be RF mount.

I'm hoping I can travel next year and will likely buy something like the R6 and make the RP backup.

 

[shawnphoto]

Dustin Abbott says in this review of this lens: “Not particularly sharp at any focal length”.

Since I got the impression that my images with this lens were very sharp, I decided to do some pixel peeping of my own. I also own the RF 24-105mm F4 L IS USM which was used for this comparison.

A book shelf with books was shot as test target with the R5 from a tripod using both lenses at 50mm focal length. The aperture was set to f/5.0 being the largest aperture for the RF 24-240mm at 50mm, ASA setting was 400. Three images were taken with the same settings but with different locations of the AF-point: utmost left, center and utmost right. Its purpose was to verify that the sensor plane was parallel to the plane of the test target.

A crop of 900x1600 pixels was made of the left edge of the image in DPP using the raw images without any sharpening. The images were converted to jpeg for this forum.

Results: center sharpness was the same, even at 200%. But surprisingly the edge sharpness was also the same, even maybe slightly better for the non-L lens. I realise that there is more than sharpness to characterize the qualities of a lens, but still I found this result remarkable. By the way, I also own the RF 50mm f/1.2 which was included in the test and destroys everything else at that focal length but that is what you expect.



RF 24-105mm F4 L IS USM: edge sharpness



RF 24-240mm F4-6.3 IS USM: edge sharpness

To be fair, there is some evidence that copy variation is slightly worse with this lens. That said, DA seems to be a bit of a lens snob. I was put off when he compared the Canon EF 85mm f/1.4 L to the Zeiss Otus 85mm. Forgetting the fact that the Canon is half the price, he also seemed to ignore the reality of shooting with a fast 85mm constrained to manual focus.

Sorry, DA compared the EF 85mm f/1.4 L IS USM to three other lenses, the Sigma Art, the Tamron f/1.8 VC, and yes, also that Otus. And yes, the Canon L was a bit disappointing wide open, but that was also compared to the other two options. Dustin Abbott did mention - as always - the downside of manual focus lenses.

The downside?? The truth is, manual focus lenses are a cop out. It's a lot harder to do an AF lens with IS than an old school manual lens. Canon did it at the same aperture for half the price of the Otus... The Otus is a nice optic for what it is: a borderline unusable anachronism from a bygone age.

As more people start shooting 4k and then 8k manual focus will start to become more and more impossible... fact. It doesn't matter how good the optics are if you can't get it in focus.

He did also mention sharpness and contrast isn't everything in a portrait lens. He mentioned the Canon having the best light transmission, and nice bokeh.

I don't know why you are framing Dustin Abbott as a reviewer with a total lack of nuance, but you don't impress me with that kind of nonsense, sorry.

It's almost impossible to get a shot in focus unless you work off a tripod with a sitting subject. Anyway, just my opinion.

--
Biden will save us!

 

[Wayne Larmon]

The lens that pushed me over the edge was my trusty old EF 24-85/3.5-4.5 USM. Ancient kit zoom that is cheap, light and sharp corner to corner stopped down at 24mm. All the conventional wisdom and data says this lens should suck, but I've had wide angle L glass that was worse at the same FLs. Would it be the last word in corner sharpness on a 5DS R? Probably not, but I'd need someone to explain why that should matter to me............

Wow! I was just putting together a list of surplus equipment to put on eBay and my EF 24-85/3.5-4.5 USM lens was at the top of the list. I was holding this lens in my hand today and said "nah, too old, the coatings have to be inferior, it can't possibly be as good as my modern lenses, etc." without really testing it.

I think I'll test it a bit tomorrow.

Thanks.

Wayne

 

[MikeJ9116]

One of the biggest reasons I like using super zoom lenses is it allows me to get fleeting photos that won't be there if I had to change lenses to obtain it. Getting a photo that has a little less IQ is better than no photo at all.

Yes, and that is why I bought the 24-240 myself. It's better than I expected. It's good to know where it "fits." It's also, good to know if/when it is worth buying a prime or other lens.

In the center, it is hard to tell from the 50f1.8II at the same apertures. In the corners (which are often not as important as well) you are going to get some softening, roughly equivalent to lowering the resolution to about 0.75x in each direction, but it is not horrible.

I would assume on a higher resolution camera with big prints it would be much more noticeable.

About ten years ago I was at a family event and was taking photos with a plethora of lenses, trying to get things just right etc. It was frustrating. Then I stopped and realized I was an observer and not a participant at this event. This was an epiphany moment for me and I decided being obsessed with gear had to stop. I had to start being part of the event and not a by stander. Then I realized I was doing the same on vacations. I was toting around pounds of gear and I spent more time worrying about what lens to mount where to position myself etc. I was letting photograph keep me from enjoying life with other people and the places I was visiting. This is when I started to change my attitude toward photography and multipurpose lenses caught my interests.

These days I lighten my load as much as possible. I take fewer photos. I don't waste time swapping lenses just to get a handful of photos. Lenses like the RF 24-240mm are what I want for about 90% of what I shoot these days. If I want to go even lighter I carry the SL2 with the EF 15-85mm and maybe take along the EF-S 55-250mm STM and the EF-S 10-18mm. I rarely print anything larger the 13"x19" if at all. I view most photos on a 4k TV where a 8.1mp photo is good enough. I guess I have decided that 90% of the time I care more about the content of the photo than it being technically great. Also, a lens like the RF 24-240mm greatly reduces the need to crop. So in many circumstances I get sharper photos than using a higher quality lens of less range and getting the extra "reach" from cropping.

I am dying to get my hands on a RF mount APS-C camrea with IBIS, DPAF2 and an updated 32mp sensor. This would be ideal for me and would replace the SL2 as a small lightweight MILC that can use all the good, portable EF-S lenses I have become fond of.

 

[RDM5546]

I compared it against the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM (I have both)

The 70-300 is slightly sharper, more noticeable at 240mm end.

But, the difference isn't that great, and the 24-240 is smaller (thus easier to carry) when you consider no need for adaptor.

I agree. All my comparisons are with the 30MP EOS R and not the 45MP R5 still on the way. I have the RF 24-240m 24-105f4L and the EF 7--300mmf4-5.6 II IS USM. All three are close and great lenses. No losers here on the EOS R. The 24mm end of the 24-240mm may have slighty worse results the 24-105mm but trivial if correction built into camera is used and hence totally unimportant to me. A nyway with corrections it is gone my 26mm if you care. At 105 all three lenses look the same to me. At 240mm the bigger EF 70-300mm wins by a hair but the difference is not important to me. I regard them all pretty equal for the ranges they overlap. The RF 24-240mm is not much bigger than the 24-105mm in my.bag and the reach is a lot more. However the RF 24-105 has a nice constant aperature video zoom which I use when I want that or I want the weather sealing on the RF 24-105. There are are may the look at the raw uncorrected images that see it otherwise. My advise is use the Canon corrections. The Sony mirrorless lens is the same way that really needs the corrections on so turn them on or sell the lens and buy another.

I also will shock some when I share than use the Tamron 18-400mm lens for APS-C cameras on the EOS R. It has a 22:1 zoom that is light weight, compact and lots of fun on the cropped down EOS R camera. You do have to crop down and you can crop in post which I like to do sometimes. This lens gets a little softer above 250mm but is still usable. The reach of this cropped sensor lens is 28 to 480mm if it were full frame. Awesome reach this Tamron!! Good for hiking and long reach travel. Just $400 used and works well on EOS R.

Currently my biggest sensors are the 30MP on the EOS R and 5DIV. When my 45MP R5 gets here my lens preferences may change. I have no idea how my current lenses will stack up to an increased MP sensor like 45MP. I suspect every lens detail should show more clearly at 45MP. It will be interesting however it turns out.

 

[sportyaccordy]

The lens that pushed me over the edge was my trusty old EF 24-85/3.5-4.5 USM. Ancient kit zoom that is cheap, light and sharp corner to corner stopped down at 24mm. All the conventional wisdom and data says this lens should suck, but I've had wide angle L glass that was worse at the same FLs. Would it be the last word in corner sharpness on a 5DS R? Probably not, but I'd need someone to explain why that should matter to me............

Wow! I was just putting together a list of surplus equipment to put on eBay and my EF 24-85/3.5-4.5 USM lens was at the top of the list. I was holding this lens in my hand today and said "nah, too old, the coatings have to be inferior, it can't possibly be as good as my modern lenses, etc." without really testing it.

I think I'll test it a bit tomorrow.

Thanks.

Wayne

Definitely give it a spin. It really shined on my old A7R2. Haven't tried it on the R yet but I imagine it can't be too far behind.

 

[thunder storm]

Dustin Abbott says in this review of this lens: “Not particularly sharp at any focal length”.

Since I got the impression that my images with this lens were very sharp, I decided to do some pixel peeping of my own. I also own the RF 24-105mm F4 L IS USM which was used for this comparison.

A book shelf with books was shot as test target with the R5 from a tripod using both lenses at 50mm focal length. The aperture was set to f/5.0 being the largest aperture for the RF 24-240mm at 50mm, ASA setting was 400. Three images were taken with the same settings but with different locations of the AF-point: utmost left, center and utmost right. Its purpose was to verify that the sensor plane was parallel to the plane of the test target.

A crop of 900x1600 pixels was made of the left edge of the image in DPP using the raw images without any sharpening. The images were converted to jpeg for this forum.

Results: center sharpness was the same, even at 200%. But surprisingly the edge sharpness was also the same, even maybe slightly better for the non-L lens. I realise that there is more than sharpness to characterize the qualities of a lens, but still I found this result remarkable. By the way, I also own the RF 50mm f/1.2 which was included in the test and destroys everything else at that focal length but that is what you expect.



RF 24-105mm F4 L IS USM: edge sharpness



RF 24-240mm F4-6.3 IS USM: edge sharpness

To be fair, there is some evidence that copy variation is slightly worse with this lens. That said, DA seems to be a bit of a lens snob. I was put off when he compared the Canon EF 85mm f/1.4 L to the Zeiss Otus 85mm. Forgetting the fact that the Canon is half the price, he also seemed to ignore the reality of shooting with a fast 85mm constrained to manual focus.

Sorry, DA compared the EF 85mm f/1.4 L IS USM to three other lenses, the Sigma Art, the Tamron f/1.8 VC, and yes, also that Otus. And yes, the Canon L was a bit disappointing wide open, but that was also compared to the other two options. Dustin Abbott did mention - as always - the downside of manual focus lenses.

The downside?? The truth is, manual focus lenses are a cop out. It's a lot harder to do an AF lens with IS than an old school manual lens. Canon did it at the same aperture for half the price of the Otus... The Otus is a nice optic for what it is: a borderline unusable anachronism from a bygone age.

As more people start shooting 4k and then 8k manual focus will start to become more and more impossible... fact. It doesn't matter how good the optics are if you can't get it in focus.

You're moving the goalpost. It was about Dustin Abbott, not about manual focus lenses.

Your statement about manual focus lenses is nonsense too. The focus assist of my R enables me to have perfect focus every shot with my Samyang 50mm f/1.2 XP. All it takes is just a little time, so for the speed you're limited, but for accuracy there are zero problems. The era manual focus lenses become usable has just started.

He did also mention sharpness and contrast isn't everything in a portrait lens. He mentioned the Canon having the best light transmission, and nice bokeh.

I don't know why you are framing Dustin Abbott as a reviewer with a total lack of nuance, but you don't impress me with that kind of nonsense, sorry.

It's almost impossible to get a shot in focus unless you work off a tripod with a sitting subject. Anyway, just my opinion.

--
victory

 

[User5469540350]

Three lenses compared at 24mm. RF 24-240 vs EF 24-105 vs EF 24-85. Just for fun.

 

[gium]

Three lenses compared at 24mm. RF 24-240 vs EF 24-105 vs EF 24-85. Just for fun.

They all look OK to me. There is some difference, but at ISO 6400 you can't really see how big it is because of the noise. But they all seem usable to me.


I really like my EF 24-85. It's always sharp in the center and sharp from corner to corner when stopped down a bit. Focus is fast, f/3.5-4.5 is reasonably fast, it's compact and lightweight. I always looked for the champagne coloured one, the 'goldfinger'.


But it also took me 5 or 6 tries to get a good second hand one: All previous ones had issues (fungus that affected image quality, degradated internal coating that made everything look hazy, tilted or shifted lens element so one side was soft, sandy rings and a whole lot of dust inside that also affected IQ, etc). It is of course an old lens and a lot can happen during those years. So beware when you buy second hand and inspect the lens first if that is possible. If you can find one in a fantastic condition, you have a nice performing bargain lens.

 

[sportyaccordy]

I was just talking up my 24-85 in another thread. Great little lens. I wish the 24-105 STM was a remake of the 24-85 instead.

 

[thunder storm]

I was just talking up my 24-85 in another thread. Great little lens. I wish the 24-105 STM was a remake of the 24-85 instead.

It seams hard to find for me. At least hard to find at a low price. It's easily 200 euro, for an old and used lens that needs to be stopped down and has no IS.

 

[gium]

I was just talking up my 24-85 in another thread. Great little lens. I wish the 24-105 STM was a remake of the 24-85 instead.

It seams hard to find for me. At least hard to find at a low price. It's easily 200 euro, for an old and used lens that needs to be stopped down and has no IS.

Oh that's too bad. I always see a couple on my national Marktplaats (Dutch Ebay) for around 80 euro to 125 euro. The last one I bought was actually 25 euro, as it was sold by someone who sold the old APS analog "Canon EOS IX camera + lens". He had no idea that lens was the 24-85 and was just happy someone would buy this old analog camera from him. I had a lot of luck there, as everything was in pristine condition.

For portraits you of course don't have to stop down. And at 24mm you get sharp corners when stopping down, unlike some very modern lenses (yes I mean the RF 24-105 and RF 24-240 )

 

[RDM5546]

I have used a few super zoom lenses over the past 15 years and the RF 24-240mm blows them all away easily. I think it was unnecessarily chastised for the corner distortion at 24mm as this is a small price to pay for its performance otherwise. It isn't the best performer but it is also far, far from being the worst. I use it a lot on a R camera and really haven't been disappointed with it. It does get a little less sharp at the long end but not that bad considering its range. When I have used it, it does what I ask from it and more. Just don't expect it to be a lens to be used in lower light conditions when zooming it. Another good thing is that up to 104mm it keeps the max apeture at 5.6 which is pretty good for a 10x lens. Then add in that the IS is good and the focus is snappy for good measure.

I totally agree. When it comes zooms I have owned a bunch of them too. I have had "L" models and consumer grade in Canon, Sigma and Tamron. I bought more than should have. That is partly why I was stunned when I actually tested the RF 24-240mm and saw what amazing images SOOC JPEG it can generate with fully automatic corrections turned on. The second amazing thing was the coverage down to 24mm at wide end that is wide than all of the superzooms I have owned.

I know what great lenses are. I have great Prime and zooms. I have 16 L lenses so I know what expensive lenses can do. The L superzooms I have owned have all been Big White heavy pipes that add weight to my kit and travel backpack. I began with the EF 35-350mmL superzoom that was pretty expensive in 1992 when I got it. Despite this I shot film with it and carried a lot at the time.

I use the 24-240mm at 24mm without quality concerns despite the internet and forum 24mm controversy of those obsessed with the RAW images in Lightroom before automatic corrections are applied. Some of those people do not know that the 24mm they see in raw is from the 22-240mm lens that includes the wider angles and relies on the computer automatic in camera corrections to the cut of the nasty corners leaving a truly beutiful image. Sometimes you can see sometine pixel peeping in the extreme corners of a corrected JPEG but just the extreme corners that do not matter much.

I do have any concern with the lens up to 150mm where is does get a hair softer. Still very good in my book. This amazing performance is markedly better than any other 10X superzoom I have owned. Previously I liked the $2500 EF 28-300mmL for title of the king of the superzooms. It is a quality superzoom with L weatherproof construction and many other great features I like except for the size and 4lb lens weight wth RF adapter:

• Ultra-high magnification 11x zoom
• Superb L-series image quality
• Image Stabilizer compensates approximately 3 stops
• Minimum Focusing Distance of 0.7m
• Lens coatings and optimum lens shape minimize ghosting and flare
• Full-time manual focus possible in AF mode
• Dust-proof, drip-proof construction
• Circular aperture diaphragm for beautiful background blur effect
• Precise distance information passed to E-TTL II metering

The RF 24-240 has may great features too:

• RF-Mount Lens/Full-Frame Format
• Nano USM AF System
• Optical Image Stabilizer and Dynamic IS
• Customizable Control Ring

It is 1/3 the cost of L lens and at 1.7 lbs nearly 1/3 the weight too. While the L is a weather sealed lens and I like that when I travel size and weight matter. The great quality and versatility you get in the single lens solution may this my contender for being the Consumer Grade King of the Superzooms for me. I now rarely carry my EF 70-300mmf4-5.6 II IS USM when going light for a single lens or two lens travel or hiking/biking solution.

 

[davidwien]

Three lenses compared at 24mm. RF 24-240 vs EF 24-105 vs EF 24-85. Just for fun.

I agree that ISO6400 is not a fair trial. The RF lens photo looks oversharpened: there are white bands around the large black letters. Why should this be different on the other lenses?

David