Talk up (or down) the RF 24–240mm F4-6.3

This lens came up in the thread when I was asking whether the move to R6 from 6D was a good idea (it was) and whether I can get by with my EF lenses or need to start moving over to RF.

Speed notwithstanding, this seems like a good street and travel lens. Street -- maybe iffy because of size if you are conscious of what you appear like with your camera; I love strolling with my tiny Sony a6500 in a leather case with the logo blacked out and with a toy 35mm lens, I look so innocent and old school.

At $899 (and no L designation), it seems one the cheapest way to build up one's RF lineup. Do you get what you pay for or do you get more? Sample images greatly appreciated, especially street and travel.

(God, when did $899 for a lens become cheap?)

Lots of reviews and sample images abound.  Just know that it’s designed to work with lens corrections to make a 10x zoom possible.  Personally, I’m a big fan.

I think these are all with the lens in question.  Definitely with the RP.

Your metadata says they are. A wonderful variety illustrating the versatility of the lens.

atolk wrote:

This lens came up in the thread when I was asking whether the move to R6 from 6D was a good idea (it was) and whether I can get by with my EF lenses or need to start moving over to RF.

Speed notwithstanding, this seems like a good street and travel lens. Street -- maybe iffy because of size if you are conscious of what you appear like with your camera; I love strolling with my tiny Sony a6500 in a leather case with the logo blacked out and with a toy 35mm lens, I look so innocent and old school.

For street the RF 35mm f/1.8 IS stm and 50mm stm are perfect. Use fast shutter speeds & stop down and let the the very good high ISO noise performance of the R6 do it's job.

At $899 (and no L designation), it seems one the cheapest way to build up one's RF lineup.

You own the 70-200mm f/2.8 mkII. That lens will be sharper, especially from 150-200mm.

Do you get what you pay for or do you get more? Sample images greatly appreciated, especially street and travel.

When you want great IQ between 24-35mm in your standard zoom you might look elsewhere. If you're expecting performance at EF 70-200mm f/2.8 mkII like levels you might be disappointed.  The 24-105mm stm is less heavy, and for a standard zoom that might matter, as those lenses tend to be 80% of the time on your camera, also with longer walks etc.

Other than that I think you can't go wrong with this lens.

(God, when did $899 for a lens become cheap?)

I’m in trouble. Seems I “need” another lens. Maybe will time it to/justify it by the next trip.

Thanks, I think.

atolk wrote:

This lens came up in the thread when I was asking whether the move to R6 from 6D was a good idea (it was) and whether I can get by with my EF lenses or need to start moving over to RF.

Speed notwithstanding, this seems like a good street and travel lens. Street -- maybe iffy because of size if you are conscious of what you appear like with your camera; I love strolling with my tiny Sony a6500 in a leather case with the logo blacked out and with a toy 35mm lens, I look so innocent and old school.

At $899 (and no L designation), it seems one the cheapest way to build up one's RF lineup. Do you get what you pay for or do you get more? Sample images greatly appreciated, especially street and travel.

(God, when did $899 for a lens become cheap?)

Overall, I think the RF24-240 is the best value RF lens. It is a great walk-around lens for when you can't be changing lenses.  That said, it is a pretty big lens.

From one of my posts on the subject in: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65777977

I got my RF24-240 as part of a kit with the RP. I liked both so much that I ended up getting R5 and many RF-L lenses (15-35f2.8, 24-70f2.8, 70-200f2.8, 100f2.8 macro, 100-500). When I pack a bag to go out shooting, the RF24-240 is always in the bag, and I will drop some of the other lenses based on what I am shooting. The RF24-240 is always there just in case, and it also works well for me as the lens I put on the RP as a backup camera. The 10x zoom range with fast AF and great IS makes it a great utility lens.

The RF24-240 is very sharp in the center. Even though it loses sharpness in the corners, it still has high contrast. Its sweet spot is from about 70-135mm and does get soft in the corners at both ends of the zoom range. It does lose resolution in the corners at the wide end with the distortion correction, and that resolution can't be gotten back by stopping down.

It has USM AF, which is much better than Canon's STM in my experience, and has exceptionally good image stabilization, something particularly important with the RP camera. Both the RF35mm and all the RF50mm don't have stabilization.

At the risk of pedantry, I know it’s an old post you brought to this discussion, but the RF 35 does have IS.  😁

I bought the 24-240 as part of a kit with an RP. It's a very versatile lens and you get a lot for the money.

With that said, when I got my R5 I did some lens tests with a lot of pixel peeping. My copy of the 24-240 will not keep up with the RF24-70, RF70-200 f2.8, or any of the primes I compared it to. I'm not saying I expected it to, but just know that there is a noticeable difference, at least on a 45MP camera. My main interest when testing was for landscape type shots and all were compared at F8 on a tripod shooting the same scene and comparing at most common focal lengths. I shot in RAW and compared in Lightroom with corrections enabled.

I'm not trying to dis the lens, but just know that there is a difference that you can see if looking closely.

I hear mostly positive comments about this lens, a pitty (if the rumor is right) that Canon couldn’t manage a similar focal range in the new RF-S lens, something like 15-150 mm instead of 18-150 mm.

JustUs7 wrote:

At the risk of pedantry, I know it’s an old post you brought to this discussion, but the RF 35 does have IS. 😁

Oops, sorry about that. I don't know why I wrote that the RF35 didn't have stabilization.

Coming from EF-M, I tried 24-240mm with RP both used as FF set for travel, but in the end I concluded that it is too bulky and heavy for my taste and sold them. YMMV.

The lens IQ is quite nice though.

Hsd1965 wrote:

... But for all my hikes and trips where I am not sure of the situation I am getting in to and I don't want to carry additional lenses, I always grab this lens. Always very satisfied with the results.

Main reason I bought the RF 24-240mm, along with the US$719.99 price at
Canon Refurbished Lenses.

All the online review sites I have read provided positive reviews; from reviews that provided JPG+RAW samples I downloaded and PP on my system.

Been posted previously, just posting again in case someone has not read:

Dustin Abbott Canon RF 24-240mm F4-6.3 IS Review

Scott Kelby Field Report: The New Canon 24-240mm RF-Mount Lens

Jon