Canon RF 24-105/F4 versus RF 24-240/F4-6.3?

Started 3 months ago | Discussions
RobDMB Regular Member • Posts: 391
Canon RF 24-105/F4 versus RF 24-240/F4-6.3?

All:

Wondering what everyone's thoughts are on the Canon RF 24-105/F4 versus the RF 24-240/F4-6.3.  Obviously the latter is a superzoom and a bit slower.  However, I currently have the RF24-105 and am somewhat tempted to trade is for the 24-240 for increased versatility as a travel/walk around lens. Thought being, neither are particularly fast for indoor use but the superzoom gives so much extra range. However, would I be given up significant image quality (sharpness, etc) of with the non-L lens?

For reference, I typically shoot outdoor lanscape/family/dogs. Other lenses I own for  are the RF 15-35/2.8 which I would use for outdoor landscapes often and the RF35/1.8 which could give some increased light indoors. If I went that route maybe I'd consider picking up another prime for indoor/portrait.

Anyone else considered such a switch? Any thoughts are appreciated. Thanks!

R2D2 Forum Pro • Posts: 22,287
Re: Canon RF 24-105/F4 versus RF 24-240/F4-6.3?
2

A couple of recent threads that might be helpful...

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4531995#forum-post-64545294

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4532843#forum-post-64556610

R2

-- hide signature --

Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
http://www.pbase.com/jekyll_and_hyde/galleries

 R2D2's gear list:R2D2's gear list
Canon EOS M6 Canon EOS M6 II Canon EOS R5
User5469540350 Regular Member • Posts: 135
Re: Canon RF 24-105/F4 versus RF 24-240/F4-6.3?
3

I bought the 24-240. Compared it with the 24-105. In the range 24-105 I did not see any major differences. Ended up selling the 24-105. No regrets. I use it on the RP.

OP RobDMB Regular Member • Posts: 391
Re: Canon RF 24-105/F4 versus RF 24-240/F4-6.3?

For clarification, if not clear, I am talking about the RF 24-105 F4L constant aperture lens (not the cheaper 24-105).

Karl_Guttag Regular Member • Posts: 360
Re: Canon RF 24-105/F4 versus RF 24-240/F4-6.3?
1

Image quality-wise, I doubt you are giving up much based on my tests (https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4532843#forum-post-64556610) of the 24-240 (unfortunately, I don't have the 24-105 f4L). I would expect the 24-105 f4L to probably have better resolution in the corners and any f-number.

The 24-240 is so distorted at the widest end when uncorrected that it is about 1/2 the resolution in the corners. It is amazing how good the image looks corrected by Canon's DPP4 software versus uncorrected (view with Canon's RAW). But after correction it still has good contrast in the corners even at 24mm f4 which means you may not notice the issues much.

The 24-105 f4L also distorts in the corners requiring correction but I don't think it is nearly as severe. Unfortunately, I have not seen a direct comparison between the f4L and the 24-240.

You can expect that an "L" lens will have much better sealing and should be more durable. I will say that the 24-240 feels nice and solid in my hand like a quality lens.

I went straight for the 24-240 and have no temptation to get the 24-105 f4L and don't feel any reason to get the f4L. That said, I would find it hard to swap the f4L and take a trade-in hit to get the 24-240. So as with most of these types of discussions, it seems like a personal decision. Personally, if I was given the choice of both lenses at the same price, I would pick the 24-240 (and I paid a lot less).

BTW, I see no reason for the non-L version compared to the 24-240. It seems redundant except for a very small percentage of money.

One other comment, I have consistently found Canon's DPP4 to be MUCH better at correcting Canon lenses than Photoshop/Lightroom RAW. The "flow" is more of a pain and DPP4 is a lot slower, but the image quality is consistently much better.

In the end, no answer but just some things to think about.

 Karl_Guttag's gear list:Karl_Guttag's gear list
Canon EOS 70D Canon EOS RP Olympus E-M5 III Canon EF 50mm F1.8 II Canon EF 85mm F1.8 USM +15 more
MikeJ9116 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,785
Re: Canon RF 24-105/F4 versus RF 24-240/F4-6.3?
2

From what I have read, and seen in example photos, the 24-105mm f/4 is sharper in the corners at certain focal lengths and might have slightly better color and contrast. I decided to opt for the 24-240mm from seeing examples of how good it performs considering its massive range advantage over the 24-105mm variety lenses. My copy of this lens is sharp in the center at all focal lengths and the corners are no worse than many other lenses with far less range. Even the lens correction in the corners at 24mm isn't horrible. For a 10x zoom it is an exceptional performing lens. I will be using it a lot as a travel and walk around lens. It is by far the best super zoom lens I have owned and, IMO, it really can be a one lens solution for many people who are casual shooters.

Also, I will add that there really isn't much of a loss in light capture from one lens to the other. The 24-240mm holds a f/5.6 aperture up to 104mm so you only give up a stop and 1.33 stops from 105-240mm. Here is the aperture table for the 24-240mm:

24-26mm = f/4.0
27-43mm = f/4.5
44-69mm = f/5.0
70-104mm = f/5.6
105-240mm = f/6.3

From 27-43mm you lose 1/3 stop and from 44-69mm you lose 2/3 stop. Overall not too bad considering you get an extra 135mm of reach and only give up 1.33 stops through this range compared to f/4.0 at 105mm for the L lens.

Lastly, the IS and AF (Nano USM) for the 24-240mm is very good.

tkbslc Forum Pro • Posts: 15,545
Re: Canon RF 24-105/F4 versus RF 24-240/F4-6.3?
7

RobDMB wrote:

All:

Wondering what everyone's thoughts are on the Canon RF 24-105/F4 versus the RF 24-240/F4-6.3. Obviously the latter is a superzoom and a bit slower. However, I currently have the RF24-105 and am somewhat tempted to trade is for the 24-240 for increased versatility as a travel/walk around lens. Thought being, neither are particularly fast for indoor use but the superzoom gives so much extra range. However, would I be given up significant image quality (sharpness, etc) of with the non-L lens?

For reference, I typically shoot outdoor lanscape/family/dogs. Other lenses I own for are the RF 15-35/2.8 which I would use for outdoor landscapes often and the RF35/1.8 which could give some increased light indoors. If I went that route maybe I'd consider picking up another prime for indoor/portrait.

Anyone else considered such a switch? Any thoughts are appreciated. Thanks!

I've owned both the 24-240 and 24-105L.

24-105L has better build and is a little bit smaller and lighter.  Not by a lot, but it's noticeable holding them side by side.  The 24-240 extend a lot in use so it can feel like a pretty big lens.  But compared to any other telephoto option, it is pretty compact.

24-105 is much better at the wider end, 24-40mm or so.   Maybe that doesn't matter as you have the 15-35mm.  But if planning to use the 24-240 as a one-lens solution for travel it means you are giving up quality for landscape and scenery shots vs the L.

24-105mm is a stop faster through the shared telephoto range.   For me, this means the 24-105 can be a portrait lens.  I find 80-105mm f4 on FF is just enough to give some bg blur for nice portraits.   f5.6 is not quite there.    This adds to the versatility of the 24-105 for my usage.

The 24-240 is outstandingly sharp in the 50-105 range.  It may even be a little sharper than the 24-105 at 105mm.  As you get closer to 240mm, the quality drops and it's merely decent.   So in terms of sharpness, I'd say it's L quality in the middle and kit lens quality at either end.

24-240mm has terrible CA through most of the range.  It has shocking distortion and vignetting at wide angle.    It absolutely needs a lens profile to correct these or you will be disappointed.   Shoot JPEG with the corrections enabled, or shoot RAW and process with a  lens profile (DPP, LR, DxO have them) and you'll get good images.

I feel the 24-105 has better color and contrast.

In the end, I felt the 24-105 was better for my needs due to the sharpness at the wide end and the faster 105mm end for portraits.   And given the whole appeal of the 24-240 is that it goes to 240, it was a little disappointing at full zoom.   There is no denying the versatility of the 24-240, though.  As now I have to carry a second lens for telephoto shots.

24-240 is not a lens that will often "wow" you, but it is also one that has good enough image quality that it won't ever ruin a shot for you.

The 24-240 is pretty cheap second-hand.  It might be worth picking up a used copy and then comparing them yourself.  And then selling on the one you decide not to keep.

Tom Conelly Junior Member • Posts: 28
Re: Canon RF 24-105/F4 versus RF 24-240/F4-6.3?

RobDMB,

Since I'm just an ordinary amateur photographer and not an expert, I always feel it helps a lot to look at examples rather than just reading an assertion such as 'I don't like the colors' or 'there is way too much chromatic aberration'. These photos cover a range of subjects and include both EOS RP and R6 examples and all were edited in Adobe LR or Photoshop Camera Raw:

RF 24-240mm

https://www.flickr.com/photos/99341985@N05/albums/72157711711018167


RF 24-105 f4

https://www.flickr.com/photos/99341985@N05/albums/72157715592701333/with/50530272546/

 Tom Conelly's gear list:Tom Conelly's gear list
Panasonic FZ1000 Panasonic LX100 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 Panasonic G85 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 +6 more
davidwien Forum Member • Posts: 82
Re: Canon RF 24-105/F4 versus RF 24-240/F4-6.3?

Very nice pictures, Tom, that brought back memories of road trips to Santa Fe and NM. There is a definite "Wow!" factor there for me, though having such wonderful subjects is half the battle! I was particularly impressed by the RF 24-240mm images, having read some negative reviews of this lens. When the grey skies retreat here, I look forward to putting my copy of this lens through its paces.

Many thanks, and all the best!

David

 davidwien's gear list:davidwien's gear list
Sony RX100 VA Canon EOS RP Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM +4 more
RDM5546
RDM5546 Senior Member • Posts: 2,178
Re: Canon RF 24-105/F4 versus RF 24-240/F4-6.3?

RobDMB wrote:

All:

Wondering what everyone's thoughts are on the Canon RF 24-105/F4 versus the RF 24-240/F4-6.3. Obviously the latter is a superzoom and a bit slower. However, I currently have the RF24-105 and am somewhat tempted to trade is for the 24-240 for increased versatility as a travel/walk around lens. Thought being, neither are particularly fast for indoor use but the superzoom gives so much extra range. However, would I be given up significant image quality (sharpness, etc) of with the non-L lens?

For reference, I typically shoot outdoor lanscape/family/dogs. Other lenses I own for are the RF 15-35/2.8 which I would use for outdoor landscapes often and the RF35/1.8 which could give some increased light indoors. If I went that route maybe I'd consider picking up another prime for indoor/portrait.

Anyone else considered such a switch? Any thoughts are appreciated. Thanks!

You might look at Karl_Guttag.

He does a bunch of test an excellent job.   I bought both the RF 24-105mmf1.4L and the RF 24-240L when I bought the EOS R a year ago to evaluate these two lens for my travel and hiking use.   I have had 10X super zooms before.  Too many in fact.  Many were too shoft for my taste.   I assume the 4X zoom would be better but I like the reach of 240mm when travelling as well as the coverage of 24mm.  So I both both with a bias that the 24-105mm would be remarkably better.   However,  reality is that I was shocked much more by the 24-240 which is exceedingly close to the 24-105mm for the full range it covers.   I did not expect this.   The RF 24-105 is better at video zooms since it has constant aperature.   The RF 24-105 has better corner sharpness at 24mm but both are more than adequate for me.  The RF 24-105mm is not worse and it is weather sealed for bad weather shooting.  It has the pretting red ring too!

I kept both as my long term plan was to buy the EOS 5D Mk IV DSLR equivalent of the EOS R but the R5 was a distant rumor back then.   I love the versaltility of the 5DIV.  It was before the R5 the best camera I have owned and it is really fantastic for my needs.

I learned from using the EOS R that the RF lenses were the next generation and the best.   I have 25 EF lenses though and they cover lots of bases.   After shooting awhile with EOS R and the RF 24-105 and RF 24-240 I bought the RF 15-35 and RF 24-70 as my core shooting lenses. F2.8 is very flexible for indoor and general shooting most of the time.  They are heavy for travel or hiking though.   I use the f2.8 when I really need them along with Sigma f1.4 EF primes in 50, 85 and 135MM for bokeh and portraits.   The Sigma are huge and heavy and not good for travel/hiking IMO.

I also bought the RF 35f1.8 and RF50f1.8 as travel primes.  I will use my EF lens collection for the telephotos, macro and many primes.

So I have lots of lense and choices about what to use when and I like the RF 24-240mm.  This 10X great disrespect by some reviewers that just do not get that a 10X superzoom like this can be as good as it really is.   I now use both the R and R in my bag with the R having the 24-240mm and the R5 with the 24-105mm.    They are difference lenses covering different FL ranges and aperatures. They are both great IQ and that is why I kept both.  They both suit me.

 RDM5546's gear list:RDM5546's gear list
Canon G5 X II Canon EOS 70D Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EOS R +38 more
Karl_Guttag Regular Member • Posts: 360
RF Lenses Seem to be Designed Requiring Digital Correction

All good information from RDM5546.

One thing that seems to be true is that the new RF lenses, compared to the EF lenses seem to be designed depending on digital/profile correction. I suspect but have not proven yet, that the consumer lenses depend even more on correction.

Below is a comparison of the 20+-year-old Canon 17-40 f4 at 17mm and RF 24-240 both at their widest focal length and aperture AND in the far upper left corner of the pictures (the worst case for both lenses).  Looking at the uncorrected images, the chroma aberrations look about the same but the RF lens is highly distorted where there is more minor distortion on the old EF lens. After correction, the RF 24-240 has somewhat lower resolution in the fine detail, but much better contrast than the EF lens.

My expectation (I can't remember seeing a direct comparison between the 24-240 and the 24-105 f4L), is that the f4L lens will have less, but still significant distortion in the corners at 24mm when uncorrected. The lesser distortion should result in slightly better resolution in the corners at 24mm.

No amount of stopping down will improve the resolution loss caused by distortion (but a higher resolution camera might do better). BUT, unless you are "pixel peeping," you probably will not be able to tell the difference in most photos, because, with profile correction, Canon seems to be able to keep the contrast high and eliminate chroma aberration  (they seem to be totally gone with DPP4).

Essentially Canon appears to design new lenses and let parameters get worse IF they can be corrected digitally.

If you look carefully at the corrected images below, you can see that the 17-40 has finer detail but the 24-240 has much better contrast. In almost any real-world photo, the contrast advantage will be preferred. But if you look at the uncorrected images, you would probably pick the one from the older EF lens.

 Karl_Guttag's gear list:Karl_Guttag's gear list
Canon EOS 70D Canon EOS RP Olympus E-M5 III Canon EF 50mm F1.8 II Canon EF 85mm F1.8 USM +15 more
ProDude Senior Member • Posts: 2,092
Re: RF Lenses Seem to be Designed Requiring Digital Correction

I was so intrigued with the 24-240 I just had to try one. I have a RF24-70 f2.8L IS USM for serious stuff where I don't need the reach the other provides. I have a RF100-500 on the way but longed for the concept of a lighter walk around lens that would take care of moderate tele. So I went down to the river to try out some ducks and geese and such with it. Also some landscapes.

What I found was the central 1/3rd of the frame is about as sharp as anything from 24mm to at least 150mm. At 240mm it's a tad less sharp but is decent when sharpened up in post. I'm talking however at 100% on screen. If you take it down to 75% or 50% on screen it's dang sharp all over the place due of course to interpellation and if one were to print a shot well up to at least 13x19 it would be near flawless. So you have to determine first what your plans of it's use are. If you're going to crop way outside the center forget about it. If you're planning on 22x17 prints, stick to the center. Otherwise it's a fine performer. Focus is rather instant and the build is fine. I find myself shooting a lot more Jpeg as the Jpegs out of camera on the R5 are so darned sweet to begin with. My new DXO 4 does a fine job of the needed instant profile corrections from RAW so likewise it's NO big deal.

-- hide signature --

Name the gear and I've probably owned it and used it.

 ProDude's gear list:ProDude's gear list
Canon EOS R5 Sigma 14-24mm F2.8 DG HSM Art Sigma 105mm F1.4 DG HSM Art Canon RF 24-70mm F2.8L IS USM Canon RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM +17 more
Karl_Guttag Regular Member • Posts: 360
Re: RF Lenses Seem to be Designed Requiring Digital Correction

ProDude wrote:

I was so intrigued with the 24-240 I just had to try one. I have a RF24-70 f2.8L IS USM for serious stuff where I don't need the reach the other provides. I have a RF100-500 on the way but longed for the concept of a lighter walk around lens that would take care of moderate tele. So I went down to the river to try out some ducks and geese and such with it. Also some landscapes.

What I found was the central 1/3rd of the frame is about as sharp as anything from 24mm to at least 150mm. At 240mm it's a tad less sharp but is decent when sharpened up in post. I'm talking however at 100% on screen. If you take it down to 75% or 50% on screen it's dang sharp all over the place due of course to interpellation and if one were to print a shot well up to at least 13x19 it would be near flawless. So you have to determine first what your plans of it's use are. If you're going to crop way outside the center forget about it. If you're planning on 22x17 prints, stick to the center. Otherwise it's a fine performer. Focus is rather instant and the build is fine. I find myself shooting a lot more Jpeg as the Jpegs out of camera on the R5 are so darned sweet to begin with. My new DXO 4 does a fine job of the needed instant profile corrections from RAW so likewise it's NO big deal.

Sounds to me like an accurate assessment of the 24-240 and agrees with my findings. I'm moving back to full-frame having shot APS-C since 2000 (Canon D30, using film before that). The 24-240 is very sharp in the center and loses resolution in the corners at either end of the zoom range. One thing a little different is that you can't get the resolution back by stopping down at the wide end because the resolution loss is caused by scaling.

I'm curious if you have compared DXO software versus Canon's DPP4 for correction? I have compared Photoshop RAW and DPP4 and DPP4 is obviously much better both in terms of distortion and particularly chroma aberration correction.

I find DPP4 does an amazing job with chroma aberrations. It seems to totally eliminated them without hurting colors/saturation. DPP4 is much slower than Photoshop but does a much better job. I'm curious if DXO is worth gettting.

 Karl_Guttag's gear list:Karl_Guttag's gear list
Canon EOS 70D Canon EOS RP Olympus E-M5 III Canon EF 50mm F1.8 II Canon EF 85mm F1.8 USM +15 more
ProDude Senior Member • Posts: 2,092
Re: RF Lenses Seem to be Designed Requiring Digital Correction

Karl_Guttag wrote:

ProDude wrote:

Sounds to me like an accurate assessment of the 24-240 and agrees with my findings. I'm moving back to full-frame having shot APS-C since 2000 (Canon D30, using film before that). The 24-240 is very sharp in the center and loses resolution in the corners at either end of the zoom range. One thing a little different is that you can't get the resolution back by stopping down at the wide end because the resolution loss is caused by scaling.

I'm curious if you have compared DXO software versus Canon's DPP4 for correction? I have compared Photoshop RAW and DPP4 and DPP4 is obviously much better both in terms of distortion and particularly chroma aberration correction.

I find DPP4 does an amazing job with chroma aberrations. It seems to totally eliminated them without hurting colors/saturation. DPP4 is much slower than Photoshop but does a much better job. I'm curious if DXO is worth gettting.

I'll have to check that out. The other night I was playing with some RAW's I took in DPP but it was so frustratingly slow and didn't seem to show all the adjustments on each page which really drove me nuts. I even took one of our members here's suggestion to get rid of a directory that slows down DPP. But it still seems to crawl. And I have a pretty fast I7 computer with plenty of RAM.  But now you've got my curiosity up I'll check it out tomorrow

-- hide signature --

Name the gear and I've probably owned it and used it.

 ProDude's gear list:ProDude's gear list
Canon EOS R5 Sigma 14-24mm F2.8 DG HSM Art Sigma 105mm F1.4 DG HSM Art Canon RF 24-70mm F2.8L IS USM Canon RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM +17 more
Karl_Guttag Regular Member • Posts: 360
DPP4 and Adobe RAW give very different results

ProDude wrote:

I'll have to check that out. The other night I was playing with some RAW's I took in DPP but it was so frustratingly slow and didn't seem to show all the adjustments on each page which really drove me nuts. I even took one of our members here's suggestion to get rid of a directory that slows down DPP. But it still seems to crawl. And I have a pretty fast I7 computer with plenty of RAM. But now you've got my curiosity up I'll check it out tomorrow

I will be very interested to see your findings.

The big differences I have found between DPP4 and Adobe RAW so far:

  1. At the wide end, the DPP4 scales the oveall image up when doing distortion correction, thus reducing the FOV. Adobe RAW scales the image down, thus increasing the FOV. The net is that you see about 6% more of the FOV with Adobe RAW. The FOV you see with DPP4 matches what you see in the viewfinder where Adobe RAW shows you more. I'm surprised I have not seen this mentioned anywhere (at least that I have found so far). I have marked two vertical red lines so you can compare the size of the Adobe and DPP4 image. 
  2. DPP4 seems to eliminate purple chroma fringes around black and white objects whereas Adobe while improving chroma aberrations, does not eliminate them. I have pointed out some of the purple fringes with arrows in the image crops below in the Adobe output. Also, compare the "UL" that is circled. 
  3. Overall DPP4 default conversion is more contrasty. But this could be a default settings difference. 
  4. DPP4 seems to do an excellent job of straightening the image. I notice that Adobe, while not bad, seems to leave a little bit of barrel distortion with its default correction thus leaving me wanting to tweak images with long horizontal lines in them. 

In the image below, I also included the Adobe conversion of the EF 17-40mm at 24mmf4. There seems to be very little difference between DPP4 and Adobe in this case.

 Karl_Guttag's gear list:Karl_Guttag's gear list
Canon EOS 70D Canon EOS RP Olympus E-M5 III Canon EF 50mm F1.8 II Canon EF 85mm F1.8 USM +15 more
Swerky Regular Member • Posts: 342
Re: Canon RF 24-105/F4 versus RF 24-240/F4-6.3?

If you plan on keeping the lens for a long time, several years, I hear that superzooms don't age well. At least not as well as higher quality lenses. Can't know if it's the same for this lens with supposed newer architecture. I hear that the optical quality will degrade over time as there are a lot of elements in play. Not so for an L lens with moderate focal length range. It's a thing to at least take into consideration.

 Swerky's gear list:Swerky's gear list
Canon G1 X III Voigtlander 20mm F3.5 Color Skopar SL II Voigtlander 90mm F3.5 APO-Lanthar SL II Canon EF 35mm F2 IS USM
ProDude Senior Member • Posts: 2,092
Re: Canon RF 24-105/F4 versus RF 24-240/F4-6.3?
1

Swerky wrote:

If you plan on keeping the lens for a long time, several years, I hear that superzooms don't age well. At least not as well as higher quality lenses. Can't know if it's the same for this lens with supposed newer architecture. I hear that the optical quality will degrade over time as there are a lot of elements in play. Not so for an L lens with moderate focal length range. It's a thing to at least take into consideration.

I couldn't disagree more. Longevity has nearly NOTHING to do with pure age. It has to do with EVERYTHING regarding how the lens has been treated. I had one Canon non L lens for over 20 years that remained in new perfect condition. If you're going to be banging it around at events and hiking and such then sure, that may be. I feel the build of the RF24-240 is solid as heck and I wouldn't be the least bit worried it will likely outlive me.

-- hide signature --

Name the gear and I've probably owned it and used it.

 ProDude's gear list:ProDude's gear list
Canon EOS R5 Sigma 14-24mm F2.8 DG HSM Art Sigma 105mm F1.4 DG HSM Art Canon RF 24-70mm F2.8L IS USM Canon RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM +17 more
Karl_Guttag Regular Member • Posts: 360
Similar Discussion about DPP4, Adobe, and DXO correction from a year ago

I finally found a similar discussion from about 1 year ago.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4436911

Apparently DXO crops similarly to DPP4 and in-camera JPEG. Adobe RAW does crop a bit wider after rescaling with a FOV similar to what a 22.5mm lens would have.

It would be nice to give one the option to crop wider. We will have to wait and see if Adobe "corrects" theirs to match Canon.

 Karl_Guttag's gear list:Karl_Guttag's gear list
Canon EOS 70D Canon EOS RP Olympus E-M5 III Canon EF 50mm F1.8 II Canon EF 85mm F1.8 USM +15 more
Swerky Regular Member • Posts: 342
Re: Canon RF 24-105/F4 versus RF 24-240/F4-6.3?

ProDude wrote:

Swerky wrote:

If you plan on keeping the lens for a long time, several years, I hear that superzooms don't age well. At least not as well as higher quality lenses. Can't know if it's the same for this lens with supposed newer architecture. I hear that the optical quality will degrade over time as there are a lot of elements in play. Not so for an L lens with moderate focal length range. It's a thing to at least take into consideration.

I couldn't disagree more. Longevity has nearly NOTHING to do with pure age. It has to do with EVERYTHING regarding how the lens has been treated. I had one Canon non L lens for over 20 years that remained in new perfect condition. If you're going to be banging it around at events and hiking and such then sure, that may be. I feel the build of the RF24-240 is solid as heck and I wouldn't be the least bit worried it will likely outlive me.

When I say age, I mean that the lens is being used of course. Not just sitting there in the closet. And of course not meaning that it's being banged around either. But if superzooms retain their performance with time and regular use, it's all for the better. Again it's hearsay that I'm basing my comment on. In the end an all in one 24-240 lens with decent quality is a lot more practical than two 24-70 and 70-200 top notch quality lenses when one is out and about and risk missing shots by the time one changes a lens, let alone having to carry two pieces of glass. But also when hiking, an L lens will be more resistant to dust and the different natural elements. A non L lens will require more care. Specially a superzoom like the 24-240.

 Swerky's gear list:Swerky's gear list
Canon G1 X III Voigtlander 20mm F3.5 Color Skopar SL II Voigtlander 90mm F3.5 APO-Lanthar SL II Canon EF 35mm F2 IS USM
thunder storm Senior Member • Posts: 6,253
Re: Canon RF 24-105/F4 versus RF 24-240/F4-6.3?
1

MikeJ9116 wrote:

From what I have read, and seen in example photos, the 24-105mm f/4 is sharper in the corners at certain focal lengths and might have slightly better color and contrast. I decided to opt for the 24-240mm from seeing examples of how good it performs considering its massive range advantage over the 24-105mm variety lenses. My copy of this lens is sharp in the center at all focal lengths and the corners are no worse than many other lenses with far less range. Even the lens correction in the corners at 24mm isn't horrible. For a 10x zoom it is an exceptional performing lens. I will be using it a lot as a travel and walk around lens. It is by far the best super zoom lens I have owned and, IMO, it really can be a one lens solution for many people who are casual shooters.

Also, I will add that there really isn't much of a loss in light capture from one lens to the other. The 24-240mm holds a f/5.6 aperture up to 104mm so you only give up a stop and 1.33 stops from 105-240mm. Here is the aperture table for the 24-240mm:

24-26mm = f/4.0
27-43mm = f/4.5
44-69mm = f/5.0
70-104mm = f/5.6
105-240mm = f/6.3

From 27-43mm you lose 1/3 stop and from 44-69mm you lose 2/3 stop.

And it's just one stop compared to (almost) the longest end of the f/4.0 L zoom..... Some good information here.

Overall not too bad considering you get an extra 135mm of reach and only give up 1.33 stops through this range compared to f/4.0 at 105mm for the L lens.

Lastly, the IS and AF (Nano USM) for the 24-240mm is very good.

The L is slightly better for traveling as long as you don't need a long reach.

The L f/4.0: 107.3mm length and 695g

The 24-240mm: 122.5mm length and 750g

But's not a big difference.

-- hide signature --

victory

 thunder storm's gear list:thunder storm's gear list
Canon EOS R Canon EOS M6 II Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Canon EF 35-80mm f/4.0-5.6 III Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L II USM +15 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads