RF 24-105/4 vs 24-240 for hiking

christ0f wrote:

Hi! I'm about to get a lens for my R and 16-35/4 setup. Quite tempted with the L, but maybe the 10x zoom is not that bad. Long reach is something I like to have, but I can not sacrifice the quality on the 24mm that I'm going to probably use a lot despite having wide angle as second one. It's not only about the sharpness cause I value good contrast a lot and what I saw in YT the 24-105 will suit me, I'm not sure about the other one.

Any advices?

Thanks!

Well I've owned both.   24-240mm is pretty good, if you use software with a proper lens profile.   But the weak points are at both ends.  24mm is pretty mediocre due to the massive corrections needed.  It's not "bad", but it isn't at the 24-105 level.  And The 24-240mm gets fairly week past about 150mm.     I stuck with the 24-105L because it is very consistently good through the range.    24-240 going from mediocre at wide end, to stellar in mid range, to mediocre at long end.

I love my 24-240 it's a very good lens and mine certainly is not weak past 150

Royd63uk wrote:

I love my 24-240 it's a very good lens and mine certainly is not weak past 150

I never said you can't take decent pictures with it, but take pictures of the same thing at 100mm and 240mm (moving to match framing). You'll see how much weaker the lens is at 240mm, especially outside dead center.

Use a 70-300mm IS II or L or a 70-200mm f4 and it becomes even more apparent.

You are free to like the lens, but you still have to be honest about it's performance. It's not anywhere near an L lens.

Try both and make a decision. I have RF 24-70 and RF 70-200 f/2.8 and RF 24-240 and the f2.8 zooms are definitely better but the 10X zoom is surprisingly good despite the massive lens corrections required.

If this is your go-to lens beyond 35mm then I would recommend the RF 24-105L.

Royd63uk wrote:

I love my 24-240 it's a very good lens and mine certainly is not weak past 150.

I agree. It certainly isn't as good as a 70-200mmL lens but it is far from bad and is quite good in my experience. Also, aside from the corrections at 24mm is isn't that far off from the 24-105mmL lens through its range. Even then it isn't all that horrible at 24mm with the extreme corners the only areas that are affected all that much. Also, the f-stop table for the 24-240mm isn't all that far off the f/4.0 of the L lens in the 24-104mm range as shown below.

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 24-26mm you lose nothing, from 27-43mm you lose 1/3 stop, from 44-69mm you lose 2/3 stop and one stop from 70mm-104mm. 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. Since hiking is mostly done in daylight conditions the small difference in f stop is inconsequential.

Add in that the 24-240mm has excellent IS and AF and it is an extremely good walk around, hiking and general purpose lens. There is a strong argument to pick it over the 24-105mmL. IMO, what it gives up in the 24-105mm range to the 24-105mmL lens is more than made up by the additional 135mm reach it provides and the IQ it delivers in that range.

I was just pointing out is is a very usable good walk around lens with good image quality

Royd63uk wrote:

I was just pointing out is is a very usable good walk around lens with good image quality

I don't think I claimed otherwise.

My main points were that

a) the 24-240 is worse at both ends than it is in the middle of the range

b) the 24-105 is better at 24mm and more consistent through the zoom range.

Never did I say that the 24-240 was bad. In fact, I said the exact words- "It's not "bad", but it isn't at the 24-105 level"

tkbslc wrote:

Royd63uk wrote:

I was just pointing out is is a very usable good walk around lens with good image quality

I don't think I claimed otherwise.

My main points were that

a) the 24-240 is worse at both ends than it is in the middle of the range

To be fair, I think the comparison needs to be made at 24mm and 105mm between the two lenses. Anything above 105mm is a win for the 24-240mm lens. At 105mm the 24-240mm lens is quite good and very close to the 24-105mmL in IQ from what I have seen here and in reviews. I don't own the L lens so I can't say this based on personal experience. I do own a good copy of the EF 24-105mmL and the RF 24-240mm lens does compete closely with it for most of its range. This said, I do think the RF version is better than the EF version so my experience isn't a direct comparison for the RF versions.

b) the 24-105 is better at 24mm and more consistent through the zoom range.

Once out of the severe correction focal lengths, which happens right off 24mm, things tighten up a good bit between the two lenses. What lens one chooses all comes down to how useful the extra 135mm of reach is to the user.

Never did I say that the 24-240 was bad. In fact, I said the exact words- "It's not "bad", but it isn't at the 24-105 level"