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

Started 5 months ago | Discussions
MikeJ9116 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,829
Re: Canon RF 24-105/F4 versus RF 24-240/F4-6.3?

thunder storm wrote:

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.

I think one of the more impressive things with this lens is only losing 1.33 stops out to 240mm.

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.

The lens is somewhat heavy but manageable.  Where it makes up for this is not having to carry other lenses to obtain its range.

MikeJ9116 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,829
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.

I agree.  I have owned a Sigma 18-250mm macro lens for about eight years.  I rarely use it these days but have quite a bit in the past.  It still works like new.  I don't think they are any better or worse than other lenses.  Some do tend to suffer from barrel creep over time but many non super zoom lenses do the same. The build quality of the RF 24-240mm is very good, IMO, and I doubt it will have any issues moving forward.

Karl_Guttag Contributing Member • Posts: 545
Internal vs External Zooming and Durability

I don't know of any studies proving the case of "L" lenses being more durable, but one would think it is true. Pro equipment in the hand of a pro is likely to get used 10x to 1000x that of an amateur taking pictures of their family. There is a lot more travel and the opportunities to bang the lens around with pro use even if they are more careful with each use.

It used to be that most L lenses used internal zooming and focus whereas the new RF-L lenses all have external zooming and focus. Most EF and RF non-L lenses are external zooming and focus. Assuming it is true that EF-L lenses are more durable, will the new externally zooming and focusing RF-L lenses be as durable?

Let me say, it seems the external zooming was done for good reasons, namely making the lenses smaller and lighter, but does it compromise durability?

 Karl_Guttag's gear list:Karl_Guttag's gear list
Canon EOS RP Olympus E-M5 III Canon EOS R5 Canon RF 24-240mm F4-6.3 Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM +11 more
ProDude Senior Member • Posts: 2,214
Re: Canon RF 24-105/F4 versus RF 24-240/F4-6.3?

Swerky wrote:

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.

Here's where it get's dicey. If you are going to subject the 24-240 to moisture and salt by a ocean, banging around hiking, extreme heat like Arizona in the summer and such, then I'd have to say that is where the L's come into their own with resistance to those conditions and better longevity. But if you are cautious the 24-240 should survive as long as you are on this planet.

-- 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 Canon RF 24-70mm F2.8L IS USM Canon RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1L IS USM Canon RF 24-240mm F4-6.3 Sigma 14-24mm F2.8 DG HSM Art +17 more
MikeJ9116 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,829
Re: Canon RF 24-105/F4 versus RF 24-240/F4-6.3?

ProDude wrote:

Swerky wrote:

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.

Here's where it get's dicey. If you are going to subject the 24-240 to moisture and salt by a ocean, banging around hiking, extreme heat like Arizona in the summer and such, then I'd have to say that is where the L's come into their own with resistance to those conditions and better longevity. But if you are cautious the 24-240 should survive as long as you are on this planet.

One advantage of the 24-240mm is no, or minimal, lens changes. Less chance of dust getting into lenses and camera bodies. I would say that for 99% of photographers the 24-240mm is durable enough. Few of us here are trudging through jungles, rock climbing, enduring desert storms etc. Also, there are options to add weather sealing to lens mounts to give a little more weather sealing to lenses without mount seals. This won't completely protect the lens but it should protect the camera body.

RDM5546
RDM5546 Senior Member • Posts: 2,350
Re: Canon RF 24-105/F4 versus RF 24-240/F4-6.3?

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. 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.

I agree full with Thunderstorm:  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.

However I would add:

The higher vesatility of 240mm reach is a 2X in FL advantage of the 24-240 is provided for with  insignificant extra weight and bulk.  This is the major advantage other than price of the 24-105.

The 24-105 is weather sealed and the 24-240 is not.

The 24-105 offers video zooms at constant aperature (a big feature for me).

The 24-105mm has that all important "L series" red ring of snob approval.

 RDM5546's gear list:RDM5546's gear list
Canon G5 X II Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EOS 70D Canon EOS R +38 more
MikeJ9116 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,829
Re: Canon RF 24-105/F4 versus RF 24-240/F4-6.3?

RDM5546 wrote:

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. 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.

I agree full with Thunderstorm: 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.

However I would add:

The higher vesatility of 240mm reach is a 2X in FL advantage of the 24-240 is provided for with insignificant extra weight and bulk. This is the major advantage other than price of the 24-105.

The 24-105 is weather sealed and the 24-240 is not.

The 24-105 offers video zooms at constant aperature (a big feature for me).

I think another deal breaker for the 24-240mm regarding video for many would be the lack of smoothness in the zoom.  I think it would be too jerky for video work.

The 24-105mm has that all important "L series" red ring of snob approval.

There is always this to add to one's street cred.

MAC Forum Pro • Posts: 15,468
Re: Canon RF 24-105/F4 versus RF 24-240/F4-6.3?

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. 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.

in the portrait range, the RF 24-105 F4L lets in twice the light and has its foot indoors and was the $899 purchase for me - a great L

the 24-240 is worth $500 in the kit but is an outdoors lens

I use my T7i + 55-250 stm for outdoor reach instead (88 - 400 FOV)

the 55-250  stm is and amazing sharp lens for $179 I paid.  At 153 mm it is only F5!!!

and it is sharper from 200mm to 280 mm than my 70-200 L + 1.4 II ext

 MAC's gear list:MAC's gear list
Canon EOS Rebel SL1 Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EOS Rebel T7i Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS RP +12 more
tkbslc Forum Pro • Posts: 15,770
Re: Canon RF 24-105/F4 versus RF 24-240/F4-6.3?

RDM5546 wrote:

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. 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.

I agree full with Thunderstorm: 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.

However I would add:

The higher vesatility of 240mm reach is a 2X in FL advantage of the 24-240 is provided for with insignificant extra weight and bulk. This is the major advantage other than price of the 24-105.

The 24-105 is weather sealed and the 24-240 is not.

The 24-105 offers video zooms at constant aperature (a big feature for me).

The 24-105mm has that all important "L series" red ring of snob approval.

Versatility comes in many forms.

24-105L lets me take top quality landscapes at the wide end.  It lets me take good portraits at the long end.  I can zoom in and out without worrying about exposure or ISO changing.  I can shoot in worse weather because it's sealed.    105mm is plenty of zoom for the typical walkaround or travel usage.   I feel like the things I'd want more zoom for, like wildlife or sports,  240mm 6.3 didn't work well anyway.

MAC Forum Pro • Posts: 15,468
Re: Canon RF 24-105/F4 versus RF 24-240/F4-6.3?

tkbslc wrote:

RDM5546 wrote:

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. 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.

I agree full with Thunderstorm: 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.

However I would add:

The higher vesatility of 240mm reach is a 2X in FL advantage of the 24-240 is provided for with insignificant extra weight and bulk. This is the major advantage other than price of the 24-105.

The 24-105 is weather sealed and the 24-240 is not.

The 24-105 offers video zooms at constant aperature (a big feature for me).

The 24-105mm has that all important "L series" red ring of snob approval.

Versatility comes in many forms.

24-105L lets me take top quality landscapes at the wide end. It lets me take good portraits at the long end. I can zoom in and out without worrying about exposure or ISO changing. I can shoot in worse weather because it's sealed. 105mm is plenty of zoom for the typical walkaround or travel usage. I feel like the things I'd want more zoom for, like wildlife or sports, 240mm 6.3 didn't work well anyway.

exactamundo

the RF24-105 L is the best 24-105 ever made

 MAC's gear list:MAC's gear list
Canon EOS Rebel SL1 Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EOS Rebel T7i Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS RP +12 more
lawny13 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,079
Re: Internal vs External Zooming and Durability

Karl_Guttag wrote:

I don't know of any studies proving the case of "L" lenses being more durable, but one would think it is true. Pro equipment in the hand of a pro is likely to get used 10x to 1000x that of an amateur taking pictures of their family. There is a lot more travel and the opportunities to bang the lens around with pro use even if they are more careful with each use.

It used to be that most L lenses used internal zooming and focus whereas the new RF-L lenses all have external zooming and focus. Most EF and RF non-L lenses are external zooming and focus. Assuming it is true that EF-L lenses are more durable, will the new externally zooming and focusing RF-L lenses be as durable?

One correction here. It looks like the RF L lenses zoom by telescoping but they do focus internally. While the non L glass do both externally. So far at last.

Remember canon is making a point that they are using new special seals/filters to allow for the telescoping designs without compromising on moisture and dust sealing. I am sure that those special filters aren't used on the non-L lenses. So just because an L and a non L both telescope when zooming doesn't make them in the same league.

I live in The Netherlands, and I do find myself often in a drizzle or even in the rain. If I have the L lens on the body it doesn't bother me one bit. If I have a non-L lens on it though, I do worry. The only lens I won't care as much about that is non-L is the nifty fifty. At €90 for the lens... I am less concerned if it suffered from water damage. If it is a €600 lens on the other hand...

Let me say, it seems the external zooming was done for good reasons, namely making the lenses smaller and lighter, but does it compromise durability?

MikeJ9116 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,829
Re: Canon RF 24-105/F4 versus RF 24-240/F4-6.3?

MAC wrote:

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. 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.

in the portrait range, the RF 24-105 F4L lets in twice the light and has its foot indoors and was the $899 purchase for me - a great L

The extra reach of the RF 24-240mm allows one to get decent bokeh in many situations.

the 24-240 is worth $500 in the kit but is an outdoors lens

I paid $610 all in for mine and it is worth every penny.  It can be used indoors for many uses.  Just not so much for moving targets.  Also, the RF 24-105mm L isn't all that great for indoor use either.  Keep in mind the 24-240 only loses 1/3 stop from the L from 27-43mm, 2/3 stop to 70mm and a stop from 70-104mm.  From 24-27mm it loses nothing.

I use my T7i + 55-250 stm for outdoor reach instead (88 - 400 FOV)

the 55-250 stm is and amazing sharp lens for $179 I paid. At 153 mm it is only F5!!!

and it is sharper from 200mm to 280 mm than my 70-200 L + 1.4 II ext

I have the 55-250mm STM also.  It is a stellar lens.  Especially considering the price.  I got mine from the FM Buy & Sell forum for $125 several years ago.

MikeJ9116 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,829
Re: Canon RF 24-105/F4 versus RF 24-240/F4-6.3?
2

tkbslc wrote:

RDM5546 wrote:

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. 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.

I agree full with Thunderstorm: 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.

However I would add:

The higher vesatility of 240mm reach is a 2X in FL advantage of the 24-240 is provided for with insignificant extra weight and bulk. This is the major advantage other than price of the 24-105.

The 24-105 is weather sealed and the 24-240 is not.

The 24-105 offers video zooms at constant aperature (a big feature for me).

The 24-105mm has that all important "L series" red ring of snob approval.

Versatility comes in many forms.

24-105L lets me take top quality landscapes at the wide end. It lets me take good portraits at the long end. I can zoom in and out without worrying about exposure or ISO changing. I can shoot in worse weather because it's sealed. 105mm is plenty of zoom for the typical walkaround or travel usage. I feel like the things I'd want more zoom for, like wildlife or sports, 240mm 6.3 didn't work well anyway.

For me the real value of the 24-240mm lens is not having to suffer from lost opportunities due to time consuming lens swaps or lack of carrying a longer lens.  Being able to go from wide angle to medium telephoto in a split second has huge advantages.  Some of the best photos I have taken are a result of having a super zoom on the camera.  They might not be perfect technically but they were plenty good enough to capture the moment before it disappeared.  The 24-240mm isn't all that far off from the 24-105mmL and is a potent tool for getting a wide range of shots with very good IQ.

thunder storm Senior Member • Posts: 6,504
Re: Canon RF 24-105/F4 versus RF 24-240/F4-6.3?

MikeJ9116 wrote:

MAC wrote:

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. 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.

in the portrait range, the RF 24-105 F4L lets in twice the light and has its foot indoors and was the $899 purchase for me - a great L

The extra reach of the RF 24-240mm allows one to get decent bokeh in many situations.

the 24-240 is worth $500 in the kit but is an outdoors lens

I paid $610 all in for mine and it is worth every penny. It can be used indoors for many uses. Just not so much for moving targets. Also, the RF 24-105mm L isn't all that great for indoor use either. Keep in mind the 24-240 only loses 1/3 stop from the L from 27-43mm, 2/3 stop to 70mm and a stop from 70-104mm. From 24-27mm it loses nothing.

Well.........  in the center it looses nothing.  Let's forget about the corners.

I use my T7i + 55-250 stm for outdoor reach instead (88 - 400 FOV)

the 55-250 stm is and amazing sharp lens for $179 I paid. At 153 mm it is only F5!!!

and it is sharper from 200mm to 280 mm than my 70-200 L + 1.4 II ext

I have the 55-250mm STM also. It is a stellar lens. Especially considering the price. I got mine from the FM Buy & Sell forum for $125 several years ago.

-- hide signature --

victory

 thunder storm's gear list:thunder storm's gear list
Canon EOS M6 II Canon EOS R5 Sigma 50mm F1.4 DG HSM | A Sigma 105mm F1.4 DG HSM Art Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM Art +16 more
thunder storm Senior Member • Posts: 6,504
Re: Canon RF 24-105/F4 versus RF 24-240/F4-6.3?
1

tkbslc wrote:

RDM5546 wrote:

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. 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.

I agree full with Thunderstorm: 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.

However I would add:

The higher vesatility of 240mm reach is a 2X in FL advantage of the 24-240 is provided for with insignificant extra weight and bulk. This is the major advantage other than price of the 24-105.

The 24-105 is weather sealed and the 24-240 is not.

The 24-105 offers video zooms at constant aperature (a big feature for me).

The 24-105mm has that all important "L series" red ring of snob approval.

Versatility comes in many forms.

24-105L lets me take top quality landscapes at the wide end. It lets me take good portraits at the long end. I can zoom in and out without worrying about exposure or ISO changing. I can shoot in worse weather because it's sealed. 105mm is plenty of zoom for the typical walkaround or travel usage. I feel like the things I'd want more zoom for, like wildlife or sports, 240mm 6.3 didn't work well anyway.

I agree with you. 105mm is more than long enough for me. I went for a 24-70mm f/2.8, as i prefer 70mm @f/2.8 over 105mm@f/4.0 for portraits.

But hey, this isn't about what's the best lens. This is all about preferences. Just preferences.

-- hide signature --

victory

 thunder storm's gear list:thunder storm's gear list
Canon EOS M6 II Canon EOS R5 Sigma 50mm F1.4 DG HSM | A Sigma 105mm F1.4 DG HSM Art Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM Art +16 more
MikeJ9116 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,829
Re: Canon RF 24-105/F4 versus RF 24-240/F4-6.3?

thunder storm wrote:

MikeJ9116 wrote:

MAC wrote:

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. 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.

in the portrait range, the RF 24-105 F4L lets in twice the light and has its foot indoors and was the $899 purchase for me - a great L

The extra reach of the RF 24-240mm allows one to get decent bokeh in many situations.

the 24-240 is worth $500 in the kit but is an outdoors lens

I paid $610 all in for mine and it is worth every penny. It can be used indoors for many uses. Just not so much for moving targets. Also, the RF 24-105mm L isn't all that great for indoor use either. Keep in mind the 24-240 only loses 1/3 stop from the L from 27-43mm, 2/3 stop to 70mm and a stop from 70-104mm. From 24-27mm it loses nothing.

Well......... in the center it looses nothing. Let's forget about the corners.

IMO, it gets a bad rap for the severe corrections in the corners at 24mm. Through a lot of its range the corners aren't all that bad.  Not great mind you.

I use my T7i + 55-250 stm for outdoor reach instead (88 - 400 FOV)

the 55-250 stm is and amazing sharp lens for $179 I paid. At 153 mm it is only F5!!!

and it is sharper from 200mm to 280 mm than my 70-200 L + 1.4 II ext

I have the 55-250mm STM also. It is a stellar lens. Especially considering the price. I got mine from the FM Buy & Sell forum for $125 several years ago.

tkbslc Forum Pro • Posts: 15,770
Re: Canon RF 24-105/F4 versus RF 24-240/F4-6.3?

MikeJ9116 wrote:

tkbslc wrote:

RDM5546 wrote:

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. 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.

I agree full with Thunderstorm: 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.

However I would add:

The higher vesatility of 240mm reach is a 2X in FL advantage of the 24-240 is provided for with insignificant extra weight and bulk. This is the major advantage other than price of the 24-105.

The 24-105 is weather sealed and the 24-240 is not.

The 24-105 offers video zooms at constant aperature (a big feature for me).

The 24-105mm has that all important "L series" red ring of snob approval.

Versatility comes in many forms.

24-105L lets me take top quality landscapes at the wide end. It lets me take good portraits at the long end. I can zoom in and out without worrying about exposure or ISO changing. I can shoot in worse weather because it's sealed. 105mm is plenty of zoom for the typical walkaround or travel usage. I feel like the things I'd want more zoom for, like wildlife or sports, 240mm 6.3 didn't work well anyway.

For me the real value of the 24-240mm lens is not having to suffer from lost opportunities due to time consuming lens swaps or lack of carrying a longer lens. Being able to go from wide angle to medium telephoto in a split second has huge advantages. Some of the best photos I have taken are a result of having a super zoom on the camera. They might not be perfect technically but they were plenty good enough to capture the moment before it disappeared. The 24-240mm isn't all that far off from the 24-105mmL and is a potent tool for getting a wide range of shots with very good IQ.

So you find focal length versatility to trump the ability to take sharper wide angles, better portraits, and shoot at a stop lower aperture for much of the range. I feel the opposite. Nobody is wrong here. Canon made both lenses for a reason.

Speaking of lost opportunities, I felt like the 24-240 was making me miss out on some opportunities as well due to the slower aperture and some optical deficiencies.

KENTGA Veteran Member • Posts: 7,073
Re: Canon RF 24-105/F4 versus RF 24-240/F4-6.3?

Didn't read any but a couple of the replies.

I don't have any direct comparsions except:

1. Going from 5D4 w/ EF 24-105 ver. 1 and it is my go to focal length on a FF. I bought an RP w/ 24-240 and an R5 / RF 24-105 f4. I chose the RF 24-105 f4 because of positive comments I've read about it vs. EF 24-105 f4 but not a black and white difference between the two. Mainly got the RF because I use it so much for landscapes.

2. With the RP and RF 24-240 it will be my wide zoom carry around.

Scott Kelby speaks very highly of the 24-240 except for a little on the wide end.

I'm a total amateur. Good luck in whatever you decide.

Kent

 KENTGA's gear list:KENTGA's gear list
Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS 80D Canon EOS Rebel SL1 Canon EOS 5D Mark IV +15 more
MikeJ9116 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,829
Re: Canon RF 24-105/F4 versus RF 24-240/F4-6.3?

tkbslc wrote:

MikeJ9116 wrote:

tkbslc wrote:

RDM5546 wrote:

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. 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.

I agree full with Thunderstorm: 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.

However I would add:

The higher vesatility of 240mm reach is a 2X in FL advantage of the 24-240 is provided for with insignificant extra weight and bulk. This is the major advantage other than price of the 24-105.

The 24-105 is weather sealed and the 24-240 is not.

The 24-105 offers video zooms at constant aperature (a big feature for me).

The 24-105mm has that all important "L series" red ring of snob approval.

Versatility comes in many forms.

24-105L lets me take top quality landscapes at the wide end. It lets me take good portraits at the long end. I can zoom in and out without worrying about exposure or ISO changing. I can shoot in worse weather because it's sealed. 105mm is plenty of zoom for the typical walkaround or travel usage. I feel like the things I'd want more zoom for, like wildlife or sports, 240mm 6.3 didn't work well anyway.

For me the real value of the 24-240mm lens is not having to suffer from lost opportunities due to time consuming lens swaps or lack of carrying a longer lens. Being able to go from wide angle to medium telephoto in a split second has huge advantages. Some of the best photos I have taken are a result of having a super zoom on the camera. They might not be perfect technically but they were plenty good enough to capture the moment before it disappeared. The 24-240mm isn't all that far off from the 24-105mmL and is a potent tool for getting a wide range of shots with very good IQ.

So you find focal length versatility to trump the ability to take sharper wide angles, better portraits, and shoot at a stop lower aperture for much of the range. I feel the opposite. Nobody is wrong here. Canon made both lenses for a reason.

I have specific lenses for those occasions where I am doing a specific type of photography.  There isn't that much daylight between these two lenses.  Where I think the 24-240mm has a distinct advantage is that it can do everything the 24-105mm L can do to an 85%-95% level then have all the advantages of 135mm of additional reach with no size and very little weight penalty.  On the other hand the only areas where the L has an advantage is sharper corners to varying degrees depending on focal length, build quality, and a one stop advantage from 70-104mm which reduces down to a 1/3 stop at 43mm and wider.

I never said anyone was wrong for whatever lens they choose.

Speaking of lost opportunities, I felt like the 24-240 was making me miss out on some opportunities as well due to the slower aperture and some optical deficiencies.

One to 1/3 of a stop difference isn't missing all that much, IMO.  If this difference is causing you a lot of problems then you likely need a brighter lens than the 24-105mm L f/4.  As for corner sharpness, if landscapes are your thing then neither lens should be on your camera.  The 24-240mm is a general purpose, walk around/travel lens.  It covers a lot of bases very well.  It is not a specific purpose lens and anyone needing more than this should chose another lens and that other lens probably shouldn't be the 24-105mm f/4.  I think the main deciding factor for choosing one of these lenses over the other is focal range.  The other areas are so close to each other they are nearly inconsequential with the exception of weather proofing.

In the end it all comes down to personal preference.

jwilliams Veteran Member • Posts: 6,023
To me ...

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!

To me the 24-105 4L seems to straddle that line where I'd want a zoom for flexibility vs a prime for IQ and speed. It's not quite as good or fast as most primes are going to be in the overlapping range, but it's close enough and f4 works for a good range of uses.

I don't own the 24-240, so I'll have to comment based on what I've read (and handling one at a store), but it seems to be just on the other side of that line where I'd be more likely to want to carry along a prime or 2 to supplement it, thus taking away some of its advantage.

2 different lenses for different uses. I wouldn't mind owning one, but I would not give up my 24-105 for one, but that's just me.

I actually wish Canon had gone with a bit less FL range and maybe settled for 7.1 on the long end and gotten the size down a bit. It's a pretty big lens (especially on a RP) and one reason to use such a lens is to have it with you at all times. The size doesn't help that. Look at Tamron's 28-200 and Nikon's 24-200 for an idea how to shrink a superzoom down to a more manageable size. Of course you give up something, but I like the tradeoffs on those lenses better.

-- hide signature --

Jonathan

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads