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

I love mine on my R6. Not super great on the R5, but that's fine by me. It's not a tiny, stealthy package, but when I'm traveling, I use the R6/24-240 combo probably 85% of the time.

All SOOC JPEGs:

These are sweet. A nice advertisement for the lens.

I really enjoy the RF24-240 on the R6.  Very versatile.

Croomrider wrote:

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.

Second this.

In terms of convenience, portability, versatility and value for money there is very little to say about the 24-240 that is not superlative.

In terms of image quality on a R5, I find it lackluster. Admittedly I set a high bar for it, being used to the RF 1.2 primes and the 100-500. I am not bothered in the least by the need for software corrections. The lens can deliver acceptable images for sure, but they lack the detail and crispiness of the images captured with better (and yes, bigger, heavier and more expensive) lenses.

YMMV maybe my copy is not a top one or maybe if you use it on a R6 the lower resolution will reduce the issues.

Some examples (not meant to illustrate any point! )

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?)

the main thing going for this lens is that it does everything from wideangle to telephoto while not killing photo quality, and does it at a comfortable (not to say "cheap") price.

i do think that someone more serious about their photography, who means to eventually build an arsenal of lenses, should if they can go for the more expensive 24-105L, it's far better optically, and while not as outrageously a "jack of all trades", can handle many situations just fine, plus it's an L lens and feels more solid (even if it isn't really).

ProDude wrote:

roby17269 wrote:

In terms of image quality on a R5, I find it lackluster. Admittedly I set a high bar for it, being used to the RF 1.2 primes and the 100-500. I am not bothered in the least by the need for software corrections. The lens can deliver acceptable images for sure, but they lack the detail and crispiness of the images captured with better (and yes, bigger, heavier and more expensive) lenses.

YMMV maybe my copy is not a top one or maybe if you use it on a R6 the lower resolution will reduce the issues.

Some examples (not meant to illustrate any point! )

Personally I think you're missing the boat. I have to assume you do NOT have a copy of Topaz Sharpen AI. I took your images and ran them through a mild run of Sharpen AI and they freaking came to life with detail. In NO way lacking one bit of it even compared to the more expensive glass. I own several lenses far beyond the cost and are L RF lenses, but still just a pinch of post processing through the likes of Sharpen AI and it's incomparable with no issues whatsoever. I would certainly recommend you get it if you don't have it. I wouldn't want to believe you have it and didn't use it on these images as they need NO apologies when processed accordingly.

Oh well.

I do hope we won't go into a loop like the last time.

You and I have a different opinion about this lens. That's fine with me. Why can't you accept that. There is no law that says that I have to love it like you do.

3 things: 1) when I use my L lenses I get better results that satisfy me without the need of additional processing on top of what I normally do. 2) I have used Topaz in the past and did not like the results (too over the top for my taste)... if I need Topaz then for me that's a drawback... and so no I do not have it. And finally 3) I am not the only one that finds this lens so-so

Now, why would the latter (the lens being so-so) be a strange thing, considering it is, after all, a non-L superzoom, is frankly beyond me. It is better than other consumer superzooms? Yes certainly for what I've seen. Is it a miracle L-quality-for-non-L-price lens? No I'd not agree with that.

This lens is awesome - get it, the 24-105 has slightly better contrast and colour but until you reach the longer lengths where it as a slightly faster aperture there is no reason to own the 24-105 over the 24-240
I have a bad habit of getting the native 24-105mm then almost never using it, this has been another case of this once I got the 24-240mm - as a side note, prefect for shooting out of the side of a helicopter

Also the 24-240 and 14-35mm are making a really capable lightweight combo

roby17269 wrote:

It is better than other consumer superzooms? Yes certainly for what I've seen. Is it a miracle L-quality-for-non-L-price lens? No I'd not agree with that.

I think it's one of Canons best value for money lenses of the whole RF line up. That said, IQ isn't top of the heap. Overall look is nice. When pixel peeping it's easy to see the flaws. Nonetheless it punches above it's class.

For lots of non pixel peepers this is a hell of a lens.

Pixel peepers should look elsewhere to get a light weight wallet, a heavy camera back, and they should accept lot's of lens changes as well.