If You Get A Good Copy It's AMAZING Locked

SonyX wrote:

RDM5546 wrote:

You do not have count on reviewers. Just compare the RF lens with a 24mm Canon prime lens like I did.

I have taken a picture of a brick wall with EF 24mmf1.4L II lens and the RF 24-240mm at the same time using the lenses on a tripod mounted EOS R and compared the the raw images the RF 24-240 at the 24 mm marking covers a field 8% bigger than the EF 24mm lens. Roughly 22.5mm FL. When you look at the SOOC JPEG Image of the RF lens when doing this it nearly identical to the image the EF lens makes, i.e. 24mm. Below are the SOOC Corrected JPEG image from EOS R and a screen shot the the RAW image of the same uncorrected RAW file (see the corners and the amount of edges cut off by the correction as well are the removal of the distortions):

thank you for you time to do the test.
Will be glad to see raw files of 24 vr 24-240 at infinity

I justed test indoors my RF24-240mm (it is raining outside) using my EOS R which my common default for this body.   I manually focused from minimum to maximum and too three pictures at MFD, six feet away and infinity.   The focus breathing is very small the coverage using 24mm FL varies  only 1-2% at most in the SOOC JPEGs. So the 24mm setting is varying at most .1mm.  If you were thinking this is why my brick wall RAW and JPEG images show 22.5mm in RAW and 24mm in SOOC JPEG will have a significant difference at infinity I can tell you the focus effect and infinity would be no significant difference.  When sun is shining I might be able to do your infinity outside test if I hear a plauseable benefit of what I will learn from that experiment.

bernie r wrote:

RDM5546 wrote:

ProDude wrote:

pdqgp wrote:

I am glad to see however, that it's working for you and if Amazing is the word that describes it in your use, then there's nothing wrong with that. My wife calls me amazing at times too but I've yet to get that consistent review from everyone but then, it only matters to one person just like this lens to you.

Cheers.

Sorry for the hyperbole but after my initial experience with a decentered copy I suppose I may have gone off the deep end with excitement that the replacement copy was so very much better it was like getting over the Flu. Normal was GREAT! However it is interesting to note how much this lens is battered by so many yet the professional reviewers out there, while pointing out it's weaknesses (as they do with virtually ALL lenses) that they also end up commenting they are keeping it for those times one is running around and are able to capture things they would otherwise have missed. That has significant value.

I'll stand by the fact that at pretty much across the board that up to 1/2 the image in the file mostly in the center is dang sharp and needs NO apologies. Sure, the corners are not perfect, but frankly in most cases that's not the end all be all critical factor of a good lens.

Glad your wife approves of you as special.

I have owned several 10X lenses and none are as great as primes from end to end of the focal range but this one is the best 10X zoom I have owned. So for me it is amazing for a handy range 10X zoom. I had a big white EF 35-350mmL USM I paid more than $2000 for in 1993 that I just sold after getting this lens. I took some great shots with that big white lens but this much cheaper RF Lenses is amazing and it was not amazing but just good in the center wide open. I hope the RF 24-240mm lasts me 28 years and still sell for pretty high price like the 35-350L did. I got change back on my upgrade to the RF 24-240!! enough change for me to buy the RF 35mmf1.8 and the RF 50mmf1.8 two more RF lenses idiots like to whine about being less than perfect in their opinion!!

Did you just call a 35-350mm a 'big white'?

What's these then..?

Lovely and maybe obscene?

J A C S, I totally agree about being overly processed. I can barely tell what's in the image.

Kent