Opinions on RF 24-240...

[MAC]

WOW I could not agree more, the RF 24-105 stm is glued to my R, its my new GP low weight lens.

I came very close to buying this lens when it was on sale for $119. I kind of regret not buying it to use as a small, very lightweight walk around lens. I like the 24-240mm but it is a bit on the heavy side for those days I will be carrying it for 8-10 hours.

for the events I do, I don't even feel the weight all day long of my setup with black rapid strap and/or op-tech shoulder sling strap

but also I don't like bulk, so my small m6II and 11-22 and 32 gets lots of use for walkabout

 

[MAC]

I have owned the RF 24-105 f/4 and it has been my primary travel lens I purchased the RF 24-240 a few months ago but have not shot extensively with it You will find that the 2 lenses you are considering will have better edge sharpness, lower distortion, less CA, less vignetting and faster AF The main benefit of the 24-240 is the great range with a single lens that weighs less and is smaller than the f/4 lenses Choosing lenses is always a compromise and you need to determine what is most important to you

I totally agree that choosing is about compromises, true for a lot of things. In your opinion, since you have used at least 2 of the lenses I asked about. Is there a noticeable difference in overall image quality. I previously used the EF 24-70 F4LIS and 70-200 F4LIS and both delivered nice images without a lot of post processing work. I also like the constant aperture. I am not insinuating the 24-240 is a horrible lens, my own shortcomings far outweigh any of my photo equipment's shortcomings.

In what way do you find it lacking? If you aren’t making large prints, cropping heavily, or viewing critically at 100% on screen, it will probably be fine. The two L lenses you are looking at are excellent, however I’d be inclined to keep the 24-240 as well. Sometimes portability beats excellence - I have the RF 24-105L and 70-200/4L for my R5 but often use my RP and 24-105STM as a lightweight option, and often it’s hard to tell the difference.

I find the images just look a little flat I guess I would call it. I have the R7 with the 18-135 as a lightweight option so I am looking at getting better overall image quality. I purchased the R6 first and got the 24-240 as my first RF lens. Then wound up getting the R7 for reach for sports and there was no body only option when I purchased it. So I think it doesn't make sense to have the 24-240 on the R6 if I have the 18-135 on the R7 for convenience. So I figured the 24-105 and 70-200 f4 combo would be a good option. I just wanted peoples opinions on over all image quality comparisons between the 24-240 and the 2 F4L lenses.

Canon RF 70-200mm F4 L IS USM Lens Image Quality (the-digital-picture.com)

Canon RF 24-105mm F4 L IS USM Lens Image Quality (the-digital-picture.com)

the L's are L's for a reason.

Canon has always made the 24-105mm L lenses the entry level in the series. They have marginal IQ improvements over many non L lenses. After all, if Canon made this lens too good it would steal sales from the more expensive L zooms and primes.

$1299 RF 24-105 L hardly entry level, best 24-105 ever made -- they particularly made the 24 mm so much better than the prior two models

your superzoom is fine outside for hiking, but doesn't have a foot in the door for indoor shots, whereas the f4L's do

There isn't a night and day difference between the EF and RF versions. At $1,299 its way overpriced, IMO. For that matter, most of the RF L lenses are way overpriced. Actually, the RF 24-240mm isn't all that far off the 24-105L over its zoom range. The f stop table shows it the same to 26mm, 1/3 stop slower to 43mm, 2/3 of a stop slower to 68mm and a stop slower from 70mm-104mm. Then it is just 1.3 stops slower out to 240mm. If this difference is critically important then the person probably should be using a f/2.8, or wider, lens. In the vast majority of shooting situations the f stop differences between these two lenses from 24-104mm isn't all that noteworthy if relevant at all.

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

“the RF 24-105 L is Professional, premium, one of the most important lenses, better in almost every metric to its EF counterparts, can be used indoors, colors great, jack of all trades, not a better choice for a one lens setup”

as reviewed by one of the best reviewers on the net

If a reviewer on the net says its so then who are we to question it. You do know that the RF 24-240mm can simulate wider aperture bokeh better than than a 24-105mm lens through the use of compression. In reality there is little practical difference between these two lenses and as I stated earlier, if these differences are that important then the person should be using a different zoom lens that is likely way more expensive than either of these two.

disparaging comments against one of the best reviewers on the net doesn't help your bias case - once again, you defend what you have, that is a heavy outdoor hiking lens and don't know light gathering and L quality. I'd use the apsc 18-150 instead for reach and lighter setup which is what the Op is talking about doing -- to stay on topic

Where i go, I would never take your super zoom indoors without sufficient light. As Dustin shows, he uses RF 24-105 L indoors at events, which I do also, since the F4L has its foot in the door, and your superzoom needs twice the light

Abbott does decent reviews but he is far from perfect.

and your opinions are perfect, I get it

None of them are perfect.

If one is shooting indoors in poor light then f/4 is not going to do miracles.

dxo PL with AI did miracles for me

Been there, done that and the results aren't great.

with what setup in the old days?

A person had better have f/2.8 lenses at a minimum for this use.

in old days, but Abbott makes a point about modern times

As I said, the f stop table for the 24-240mm isn't far off the 24-105mmL for a good bit of the range they share.

good luck with that

The 24-105mmL is better but the gap between it and the 24-240mm is minimal in most shooting situations.

1 stop at 100 mm is not minimal. Have you ever priced the difference between an F2.8 lens and an f4 lens at these focal lengths - f4 vs f5.6 matters

Plus, the big equalizer between these two lenses is the extra 135mm of reach for the 24-240mm.

f5.6 - f6.3 makes the 24-240 useless at the long end indoors without light - indoors you need a different lens

The 24-105mmL has nothing in its bag of tricks to nullify this huge advantage of the 24-240mm.

the best 24-105 ever made has its foot in the door with modern technology and software as dustin said - which you discount with your perferct opinions

 

[MikeJ9116]

I have owned the RF 24-105 f/4 and it has been my primary travel lens I purchased the RF 24-240 a few months ago but have not shot extensively with it You will find that the 2 lenses you are considering will have better edge sharpness, lower distortion, less CA, less vignetting and faster AF The main benefit of the 24-240 is the great range with a single lens that weighs less and is smaller than the f/4 lenses Choosing lenses is always a compromise and you need to determine what is most important to you

I totally agree that choosing is about compromises, true for a lot of things. In your opinion, since you have used at least 2 of the lenses I asked about. Is there a noticeable difference in overall image quality. I previously used the EF 24-70 F4LIS and 70-200 F4LIS and both delivered nice images without a lot of post processing work. I also like the constant aperture. I am not insinuating the 24-240 is a horrible lens, my own shortcomings far outweigh any of my photo equipment's shortcomings.

In what way do you find it lacking? If you aren’t making large prints, cropping heavily, or viewing critically at 100% on screen, it will probably be fine. The two L lenses you are looking at are excellent, however I’d be inclined to keep the 24-240 as well. Sometimes portability beats excellence - I have the RF 24-105L and 70-200/4L for my R5 but often use my RP and 24-105STM as a lightweight option, and often it’s hard to tell the difference.

I find the images just look a little flat I guess I would call it. I have the R7 with the 18-135 as a lightweight option so I am looking at getting better overall image quality. I purchased the R6 first and got the 24-240 as my first RF lens. Then wound up getting the R7 for reach for sports and there was no body only option when I purchased it. So I think it doesn't make sense to have the 24-240 on the R6 if I have the 18-135 on the R7 for convenience. So I figured the 24-105 and 70-200 f4 combo would be a good option. I just wanted peoples opinions on over all image quality comparisons between the 24-240 and the 2 F4L lenses.

Canon RF 70-200mm F4 L IS USM Lens Image Quality (the-digital-picture.com)

Canon RF 24-105mm F4 L IS USM Lens Image Quality (the-digital-picture.com)

the L's are L's for a reason.

Canon has always made the 24-105mm L lenses the entry level in the series. They have marginal IQ improvements over many non L lenses. After all, if Canon made this lens too good it would steal sales from the more expensive L zooms and primes.

$1299 RF 24-105 L hardly entry level, best 24-105 ever made -- they particularly made the 24 mm so much better than the prior two models

your superzoom is fine outside for hiking, but doesn't have a foot in the door for indoor shots, whereas the f4L's do

There isn't a night and day difference between the EF and RF versions. At $1,299 its way overpriced, IMO. For that matter, most of the RF L lenses are way overpriced. Actually, the RF 24-240mm isn't all that far off the 24-105L over its zoom range. The f stop table shows it the same to 26mm, 1/3 stop slower to 43mm, 2/3 of a stop slower to 68mm and a stop slower from 70mm-104mm. Then it is just 1.3 stops slower out to 240mm. If this difference is critically important then the person probably should be using a f/2.8, or wider, lens. In the vast majority of shooting situations the f stop differences between these two lenses from 24-104mm isn't all that noteworthy if relevant at all.

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

There is more to a lens than f stop. If you take photos where distortion, CA , focus speed and edge sharpness are critical than the f/4 lenses will provide greater performance than the super zooms and budget lenses. Everyone has there own shooting requirements that goes well beyond the f stops. Yes some of the above can be corrected via software but that is also a consideration based on the photographer's requirements.

I own a good copy of the EF 24-105mmL and the differences between it and the 24-240mm are minimal. At some focal lengths the 24-240mm is better. You must not be familiar with the AF of the 24-240mm because it has Canon's best AF system which is Nano USM. The same that is found in the RF L lenses. The IS is five stops which is up with the best RF L lenses. CA can be dealt with in PP and isn't an issue with this lens. The edge sharpness advantage for the 24-105mmL is limited to the 24-25mm focal lengths. Beyond this the 24-240mm holds its own against the 24-105mmL through their common focal length. Where the 24-105mmL falls way short is it has nothing to compete with the extra 135mm reach of the 24-240mm.

yeah right, you used 17-55 f2.8 on crop for years indoors which is FF equivalent of f4.5

What is better on a crop camera... the 17-55mm or the 24-105mmL regarding low light performance? If you are going to gear shame someone then at least think it through.

and you continually talk about wanting an RF-s f2.8 zoom for an R7 - which would be the FF equivalent of f4.5 - but Canon will not give it to you

I have f1.4, f2, f2.8 lenses - the f4 lens on FF gets by sometimes indoors - as I said, it has its foot in the door needing just twice the light of my f2.8 lenses which as Dustin says and he shows an example that I also have real event shots like he is talking about and showing, can be handled with FF and modern NR software (like dxo PL6) by increasing the iso by a stop - Dustin shows it and you discount his and my points claiming it doesn't matter compared to your stellar 24-240

your 24-240 lens at f5.6 would need four times the light of a f2.8 lens at Dustin's 100 mm focal length he took the shot in his video

and your f6.3 long setting is useless for movement indoors without light - you'd need a whooping 8 times the light indoors of an f2.8 lens

for outdoors in good light, as I've said, for some the RF 24-240 makes sense as a hiking lens - I get that for this outdoor hiking application

for me though the RF 24 - 105 F4L + RF 100-400 combo makes more sense for both foot in the door and hiking applications.

We are talking about two FF lenses on FF cameras. Where did I say it doesn't matter? I have said the differences are marginal and nearly non existent at many focal lengths. I even stated the 24-105mm was better at 24-25mm. Comparing a f/2.8 lens to the 24-240mm for indoor shooting hasn't even been brought up in this thread until you just did it for some unknown reason. This said, the 24-105mm at f/4 isn't a good indoors lens either. Especially for action shooting. I have used the EF 24-105mmL on a FF camera for many years and can say this from experience.

What lens(es) a person choses all comes down to how much gear they want to lug around and how many lens changes they like to do. Right now we are comparing the performance of the 24-240mm to the 24-105mmL. When you throw in multiple lenses then the topic morphs into something completely different.

 

[MikeJ9116]

I have owned the RF 24-105 f/4 and it has been my primary travel lens I purchased the RF 24-240 a few months ago but have not shot extensively with it You will find that the 2 lenses you are considering will have better edge sharpness, lower distortion, less CA, less vignetting and faster AF The main benefit of the 24-240 is the great range with a single lens that weighs less and is smaller than the f/4 lenses Choosing lenses is always a compromise and you need to determine what is most important to you

I totally agree that choosing is about compromises, true for a lot of things. In your opinion, since you have used at least 2 of the lenses I asked about. Is there a noticeable difference in overall image quality. I previously used the EF 24-70 F4LIS and 70-200 F4LIS and both delivered nice images without a lot of post processing work. I also like the constant aperture. I am not insinuating the 24-240 is a horrible lens, my own shortcomings far outweigh any of my photo equipment's shortcomings.

In what way do you find it lacking? If you aren’t making large prints, cropping heavily, or viewing critically at 100% on screen, it will probably be fine. The two L lenses you are looking at are excellent, however I’d be inclined to keep the 24-240 as well. Sometimes portability beats excellence - I have the RF 24-105L and 70-200/4L for my R5 but often use my RP and 24-105STM as a lightweight option, and often it’s hard to tell the difference.

I find the images just look a little flat I guess I would call it. I have the R7 with the 18-135 as a lightweight option so I am looking at getting better overall image quality. I purchased the R6 first and got the 24-240 as my first RF lens. Then wound up getting the R7 for reach for sports and there was no body only option when I purchased it. So I think it doesn't make sense to have the 24-240 on the R6 if I have the 18-135 on the R7 for convenience. So I figured the 24-105 and 70-200 f4 combo would be a good option. I just wanted peoples opinions on over all image quality comparisons between the 24-240 and the 2 F4L lenses.

Canon RF 70-200mm F4 L IS USM Lens Image Quality (the-digital-picture.com)

Canon RF 24-105mm F4 L IS USM Lens Image Quality (the-digital-picture.com)

the L's are L's for a reason.

Canon has always made the 24-105mm L lenses the entry level in the series. They have marginal IQ improvements over many non L lenses. After all, if Canon made this lens too good it would steal sales from the more expensive L zooms and primes.

$1299 RF 24-105 L hardly entry level, best 24-105 ever made -- they particularly made the 24 mm so much better than the prior two models

your superzoom is fine outside for hiking, but doesn't have a foot in the door for indoor shots, whereas the f4L's do

There isn't a night and day difference between the EF and RF versions. At $1,299 its way overpriced, IMO. For that matter, most of the RF L lenses are way overpriced. Actually, the RF 24-240mm isn't all that far off the 24-105L over its zoom range. The f stop table shows it the same to 26mm, 1/3 stop slower to 43mm, 2/3 of a stop slower to 68mm and a stop slower from 70mm-104mm. Then it is just 1.3 stops slower out to 240mm. If this difference is critically important then the person probably should be using a f/2.8, or wider, lens. In the vast majority of shooting situations the f stop differences between these two lenses from 24-104mm isn't all that noteworthy if relevant at all.

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

“the RF 24-105 L is Professional, premium, one of the most important lenses, better in almost every metric to its EF counterparts, can be used indoors, colors great, jack of all trades, not a better choice for a one lens setup”

as reviewed by one of the best reviewers on the net

If a reviewer on the net says its so then who are we to question it. You do know that the RF 24-240mm can simulate wider aperture bokeh better than than a 24-105mm lens through the use of compression. In reality there is little practical difference between these two lenses and as I stated earlier, if these differences are that important then the person should be using a different zoom lens that is likely way more expensive than either of these two.

disparaging comments against one of the best reviewers on the net doesn't help your bias case - once again, you defend what you have, that is a heavy outdoor hiking lens and don't know light gathering and L quality. I'd use the apsc 18-150 instead for reach and lighter setup which is what the Op is talking about doing -- to stay on topic

Where i go, I would never take your super zoom indoors without sufficient light. As Dustin shows, he uses RF 24-105 L indoors at events, which I do also, since the F4L has its foot in the door, and your superzoom needs twice the light

Abbott does decent reviews but he is far from perfect.

and your opinions are perfect, I get it

None of them are perfect.

If one is shooting indoors in poor light then f/4 is not going to do miracles.

dxo PL with AI did miracles for me

Been there, done that and the results aren't great.

with what setup in the old days?

A person had better have f/2.8 lenses at a minimum for this use.

in old days, but Abbott makes a point about modern times

As I said, the f stop table for the 24-240mm isn't far off the 24-105mmL for a good bit of the range they share.

good luck with that

The 24-105mmL is better but the gap between it and the 24-240mm is minimal in most shooting situations.

1 stop at 100 mm is not minimal. Have you ever priced the difference between an F2.8 lens and an f4 lens at these focal lengths - f4 vs f5.6 matters

Plus, the big equalizer between these two lenses is the extra 135mm of reach for the 24-240mm.

f5.6 - f6.3 makes the 24-240 useless at the long end indoors without light - indoors you need a different lens

The 24-105mmL has nothing in its bag of tricks to nullify this huge advantage of the 24-240mm.

the best 24-105 ever made has its foot in the door with modern technology and software as dustin said - which you discount with your perferct opinions

When you fragment your response so much I can't be bothered to give a thorough reply. It turns the thread into a mess.

 

[MikeJ9116]

WOW I could not agree more, the RF 24-105 stm is glued to my R, its my new GP low weight lens.

I came very close to buying this lens when it was on sale for $119. I kind of regret not buying it to use as a small, very lightweight walk around lens. I like the 24-240mm but it is a bit on the heavy side for those days I will be carrying it for 8-10 hours.

for the events I do, I don't even feel the weight all day long of my setup with black rapid strap and/or op-tech shoulder sling strap

but also I don't like bulk, so my small m6II and 11-22 and 32 gets lots of use for walkabout

I don't know how old you are but when I was younger I carried around pounds of gear. The older I get the less I care to carry. Hence my gravitating to APS-C and wanting APS-C lenses to further reduce weight and size of gear. I bought the M200 kit when Canon put it on clearance prices and have found it to be quite useful so far. It is the first piece of M gear I have bough in the past 5-6 years and will be the last. TBH, top end smart phones have almost made even cameras like the M200 obsolete.

 

[tkbslc]

I currently own the RF 24-240 and though I don't think it's a bad lens, I don't find it very good. I am considering selling the lens and purchasing the RF 24-105 F4L and 70-200 F4L I am not an extreme pixel peeper, but I do appreciate quality lenses. I do not mind lens changing so convenience is not an issue. I guess what I want to know is will I see a noticeable image quality difference if I make the switch?

I went from 24-240 to 24-105/70-200 f4 pair.

24-240 is weak at both ends. Really bad corners with lots of CA at the wide and long ends. But in the middle, it is REALLY good. It doesn't give up anything to the L zooms.

The L zooms are more consistent through their range and have faster aperture. Long end of the 24-105 and the 70-200mm f4 can do nice subject isolation. I use them for portraits a lot. 24-240 aperture gets really dark past about 50mm.

The 24-240 is about the same size as the 70-200mm f4, and 24-105 is just a hair smaller. So you will basically be carrying two 24-240 lenses in your bag now. Although I find often I can just go out with one or the other depending on my plans for the day. I don't always need both.

L zooms have weather sealing and much better build, handling and balance.

Short version: The noticeable image quality difference is mainly at both extremes of the zoom range and in the faster aperture. There are build and handling benefits. I would say in general L zooms have nicer overall feel to the image which probably comes down to superior coatings, etc, but this is minor. L zoom pair does double the lenses you have to carry.

 

[gimp_dad]

I currently own the RF 24-240 and though I don't think it's a bad lens, I don't find it very good. I am considering selling the lens and purchasing the RF 24-105 F4L and 70-200 F4L I am not an extreme pixel peeper, but I do appreciate quality lenses. I do not mind lens changing so convenience is not an issue. I guess what I want to know is will I see a noticeable image quality difference if I make the switch?

I do own both the RF24-105/4LIS and the RF24-240 (at this very moment I am traveling and the superzoom is attached to my R5 in my work backpack).

24-240:

• sharp
• compact for such a large range
• not too heavy
• no need to change lenses for majority of travel, hike, etc. activities
• if you have space you can get more background blur (at 240/6.3) than the 24-105
• contrast/color/flare control not as good
• I struggle to get the colors I want in post
• bokeh isn't that great (busy and broken or outlined OOF objects)

24-105/4

• sharp
• exceptional color, contrast, flare control
• performs better with people due to F4 (this isn't a pro event lens though)
• bokeh is actually pretty good
• weather resistance and durability

If I'm shooting stationary objects (day or night) I probably want F8-11 anyway and I am unlikely to achieve handheld results at night (I frequently prop the camera on things since I don't usually carry a tripod around with me when out and about). So at night shooting objects I don't see that much advantage to a larger aperture, UNLESS I am taking a picture of a person with a landmark in the background. In this case, it's handheld, the background blur matters and even if asking the subject to hold still I can't go slower than 1/40s shutter speed. One stop can matter here (F2.8 would obviously be even better in this case but life is full of compromises, I am not carrying my RF28-70/2L on any fun trip with my family and friends). Indoors, that 1 stop advantage matters even more when shooting handheld.

Overall, I find both lenses to be interesting compromises but I personally tend to end up taking the RF24-105/4LIS most of the time because I'll take the modest IQ benefits over the additional FL range (I'm already compromising IQ vs my non-travel setup). Also, the build robustness benefit should not be overlooked. I fell hard while riding a rented Lime scooter in Paris. I had my camera (not in any bag) over my shoulder (cross body strap configuration) with the lens pointing down and my camera against my hip. I hit *hard* and the lens took the brunt (in addition to my pride and the big bruise on my hip). The RF24-105/4LIS was gashed and the camera had an error message when I tried to turn it on. I turned the camera off, removed and reinstalled the lens and it miraculously worked flawlessly after that! The sound it made when it hit the cobblestones with my full weight on it had me 100% sure it would be completely destroyed.

 

[Wingsfan]

I have owned the RF 24-105 f/4 and it has been my primary travel lens I purchased the RF 24-240 a few months ago but have not shot extensively with it You will find that the 2 lenses you are considering will have better edge sharpness, lower distortion, less CA, less vignetting and faster AF The main benefit of the 24-240 is the great range with a single lens that weighs less and is smaller than the f/4 lenses Choosing lenses is always a compromise and you need to determine what is most important to you

I totally agree that choosing is about compromises, true for a lot of things. In your opinion, since you have used at least 2 of the lenses I asked about. Is there a noticeable difference in overall image quality. I previously used the EF 24-70 F4LIS and 70-200 F4LIS and both delivered nice images without a lot of post processing work. I also like the constant aperture. I am not insinuating the 24-240 is a horrible lens, my own shortcomings far outweigh any of my photo equipment's shortcomings.

In what way do you find it lacking? If you aren’t making large prints, cropping heavily, or viewing critically at 100% on screen, it will probably be fine. The two L lenses you are looking at are excellent, however I’d be inclined to keep the 24-240 as well. Sometimes portability beats excellence - I have the RF 24-105L and 70-200/4L for my R5 but often use my RP and 24-105STM as a lightweight option, and often it’s hard to tell the difference.

Can confirm....I have both the RF24-105 L and STM, and for general " low demand" photography in good light, there is minimal difference between the two. There are some points where my stm is actually sharper ( I appear to have a rather good copy, despite- or maybe because- I got it refurbished from Canon for $119!). But anything indoors, or where I need to keep ISO low for maximum detail, and the 24-105f4L comes out. But the stm version is so small and light I can take it almost anywhere very easily.

Gordon Laing did a nice comparison of the 24-105f7.1 and 24-240, so check that out.

I do like the 24-105f4L, but I don't love it. I think I appreciate the stm version a little more since it was so cheap, and optically good relative to my expectations... but I do love my RF70-200F4 outright.

I also shoot m43 extensively, with pro grade glass. I think the high end glass helps more with that format than it does with FF, at least in my limited experience.

 

[dmanthree]

I currently own the RF 24-240 and though I don't think it's a bad lens, I don't find it very good. I am considering selling the lens and purchasing the RF 24-105 F4L and 70-200 F4L I am not an extreme pixel peeper, but I do appreciate quality lenses. I do not mind lens changing so convenience is not an issue. I guess what I want to know is will I see a noticeable image quality difference if I make the switch?

I went from 24-240 to 24-105/70-200 f4 pair.

24-240 is weak at both ends. Really bad corners with lots of CA at the wide and long ends. But in the middle, it is REALLY good. It doesn't give up anything to the L zooms.

The L zooms are more consistent through their range and have faster aperture. Long end of the 24-105 and the 70-200mm f4 can do nice subject isolation. I use them for portraits a lot. 24-240 aperture gets really dark past about 50mm.

The 24-240 is about the same size as the 70-200mm f4, and 24-105 is just a hair smaller. So you will basically be carrying two 24-240 lenses in your bag now. Although I find often I can just go out with one or the other depending on my plans for the day. I don't always need both.

L zooms have weather sealing and much better build, handling and balance.

Short version: The noticeable image quality difference is mainly at both extremes of the zoom range and in the faster aperture. There are build and handling benefits. I would say in general L zooms have nicer overall feel to the image which probably comes down to superior coatings, etc, but this is minor. L zoom pair does double the lenses you have to carry.

Agreed on all points. I tried that superzoom, and, honestly, I thought it was pretty bad. I'd read other reviews that seemed to contradict my experience, but, well, the images speak for themselves. And when compared with the IQ of that pair you (and I) have, well, there's simply no comparison in any way.

 

[dmanthree]

The difference is pronounced. If you like quality lenses, skip the 24-240. There are only a couple of reasons to get it, but IQ is not one of them.

 

[MAC]

I have owned the RF 24-105 f/4 and it has been my primary travel lens I purchased the RF 24-240 a few months ago but have not shot extensively with it You will find that the 2 lenses you are considering will have better edge sharpness, lower distortion, less CA, less vignetting and faster AF The main benefit of the 24-240 is the great range with a single lens that weighs less and is smaller than the f/4 lenses Choosing lenses is always a compromise and you need to determine what is most important to you

I totally agree that choosing is about compromises, true for a lot of things. In your opinion, since you have used at least 2 of the lenses I asked about. Is there a noticeable difference in overall image quality. I previously used the EF 24-70 F4LIS and 70-200 F4LIS and both delivered nice images without a lot of post processing work. I also like the constant aperture. I am not insinuating the 24-240 is a horrible lens, my own shortcomings far outweigh any of my photo equipment's shortcomings.

In what way do you find it lacking? If you aren’t making large prints, cropping heavily, or viewing critically at 100% on screen, it will probably be fine. The two L lenses you are looking at are excellent, however I’d be inclined to keep the 24-240 as well. Sometimes portability beats excellence - I have the RF 24-105L and 70-200/4L for my R5 but often use my RP and 24-105STM as a lightweight option, and often it’s hard to tell the difference.

I find the images just look a little flat I guess I would call it. I have the R7 with the 18-135 as a lightweight option so I am looking at getting better overall image quality. I purchased the R6 first and got the 24-240 as my first RF lens. Then wound up getting the R7 for reach for sports and there was no body only option when I purchased it. So I think it doesn't make sense to have the 24-240 on the R6 if I have the 18-135 on the R7 for convenience. So I figured the 24-105 and 70-200 f4 combo would be a good option. I just wanted peoples opinions on over all image quality comparisons between the 24-240 and the 2 F4L lenses.

Canon RF 70-200mm F4 L IS USM Lens Image Quality (the-digital-picture.com)

Canon RF 24-105mm F4 L IS USM Lens Image Quality (the-digital-picture.com)

the L's are L's for a reason.

Canon has always made the 24-105mm L lenses the entry level in the series. They have marginal IQ improvements over many non L lenses. After all, if Canon made this lens too good it would steal sales from the more expensive L zooms and primes.

$1299 RF 24-105 L hardly entry level, best 24-105 ever made -- they particularly made the 24 mm so much better than the prior two models

your superzoom is fine outside for hiking, but doesn't have a foot in the door for indoor shots, whereas the f4L's do

There isn't a night and day difference between the EF and RF versions. At $1,299 its way overpriced, IMO. For that matter, most of the RF L lenses are way overpriced. Actually, the RF 24-240mm isn't all that far off the 24-105L over its zoom range. The f stop table shows it the same to 26mm, 1/3 stop slower to 43mm, 2/3 of a stop slower to 68mm and a stop slower from 70mm-104mm. Then it is just 1.3 stops slower out to 240mm. If this difference is critically important then the person probably should be using a f/2.8, or wider, lens. In the vast majority of shooting situations the f stop differences between these two lenses from 24-104mm isn't all that noteworthy if relevant at all.

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

There is more to a lens than f stop. If you take photos where distortion, CA , focus speed and edge sharpness are critical than the f/4 lenses will provide greater performance than the super zooms and budget lenses. Everyone has there own shooting requirements that goes well beyond the f stops. Yes some of the above can be corrected via software but that is also a consideration based on the photographer's requirements.

I own a good copy of the EF 24-105mmL and the differences between it and the 24-240mm are minimal. At some focal lengths the 24-240mm is better. You must not be familiar with the AF of the 24-240mm because it has Canon's best AF system which is Nano USM. The same that is found in the RF L lenses. The IS is five stops which is up with the best RF L lenses. CA can be dealt with in PP and isn't an issue with this lens. The edge sharpness advantage for the 24-105mmL is limited to the 24-25mm focal lengths. Beyond this the 24-240mm holds its own against the 24-105mmL through their common focal length. Where the 24-105mmL falls way short is it has nothing to compete with the extra 135mm reach of the 24-240mm.

yeah right, you used 17-55 f2.8 on crop for years indoors which is FF equivalent of f4.5

What is better on a crop camera... the 17-55mm or the 24-105mmL regarding low light performance? If you are going to gear shame someone then at least think it through.

what kind of question is this?

you have access to both FF and crop

the EF 24 -105 f4's were inferior and I never wanted one and they were not good on crop bodies, but the RF 24-105 F4 L with nano focus and control ring became the best 24-105 ever made and is very enjoyable on a FF RF body. I'd take this setup any day over the 17-55 on a crop body which is the FF equivalent of 27 - 88 F 4.5 - not wide enough, not long enough and F4.5 not F4

and you continually talk about wanting an RF-s f2.8 zoom for an R7 - which would be the FF equivalent of f4.5 - but Canon will not give it to you

I have f1.4, f2, f2.8 lenses - the f4 lens on FF gets by sometimes indoors - as I said, it has its foot in the door needing just twice the light of my f2.8 lenses which as Dustin says and he shows an example that I also have real event shots like he is talking about and showing, can be handled with FF and modern NR software (like dxo PL6) by increasing the iso by a stop - Dustin shows it and you discount his and my points claiming it doesn't matter compared to your stellar 24-240

your 24-240 lens at f5.6 would need four times the light of a f2.8 lens at Dustin's 100 mm focal length he took the shot in his video

and your f6.3 long setting is useless for movement indoors without light - you'd need a whooping 8 times the light indoors of an f2.8 lens

for outdoors in good light, as I've said, for some the RF 24-240 makes sense as a hiking lens - I get that for this outdoor hiking application

for me though the RF 24 - 105 F4L + RF 100-400 combo makes more sense for both foot in the door and hiking applications.

We are talking about two FF lenses on FF cameras. Where did I say it doesn't matter? I have said the differences are marginal and nearly non existent at many focal lengths.

The L has better MFD and better colors and constant F4 and great 24 mm IQ -- many things add up

I even stated the 24-105mm was better at 24-25mm.

yes indeed, Canon worked to make the RF version the best at 24 mm where I use the lens extensively

here are some of my photos with the lens -all indoors

Comparing a f/2.8 lens to the 24-240mm for indoor shooting hasn't even been brought up in this thread until you just did it for some unknown reason.

this comment doesn't make sense -- the op wants the pros and cons - indoors is a strength of the RF 24-105 L over the RF 24-240

This said, the 24-105mm at f/4 isn't a good indoors lens either.

it has its foot in the door as my pics show. I also use it for folks at the podium speaking as Dustin demonstrated also in his review

Especially for action shooting.

I have other lenses for action shooting

I have used the EF 24-105mmL on a FF camera for many years and can say this from experience.

well I did not go there with the inferior EF's

What lens(es) a person choses all comes down to how much gear they want to lug around and how many lens changes they like to do. Right now we are comparing the performance of the 24-240mm to the 24-105mmL. When you throw in multiple lenses then the topic morphs into something completely different.

if you can read, the op brought up multiple lens scenarios. The op was forced to buy the RF 18-150 when the R7 was purchased since body only was not an option. The op also had the RF 24-240 with an RF FF body and the op wanted to know if selling the RF 24-240 lens made sense to get the RF 24-105 F4 L and RF 70-200 F4 L.

talking about multiple lenses isn't a morph - it is the topic

for me I recommend the RF 24-105 F4 L + RF 100-400 combo, but I go long. The op may find the RF 24-105 F4L + RF 70-200 F4L perfect for what they do

 

[jcr67]

I have owned the RF 24-105 f/4 and it has been my primary travel lens I purchased the RF 24-240 a few months ago but have not shot extensively with it You will find that the 2 lenses you are considering will have better edge sharpness, lower distortion, less CA, less vignetting and faster AF The main benefit of the 24-240 is the great range with a single lens that weighs less and is smaller than the f/4 lenses Choosing lenses is always a compromise and you need to determine what is most important to you

I totally agree that choosing is about compromises, true for a lot of things. In your opinion, since you have used at least 2 of the lenses I asked about. Is there a noticeable difference in overall image quality. I previously used the EF 24-70 F4LIS and 70-200 F4LIS and both delivered nice images without a lot of post processing work. I also like the constant aperture. I am not insinuating the 24-240 is a horrible lens, my own shortcomings far outweigh any of my photo equipment's shortcomings.

In what way do you find it lacking? If you aren’t making large prints, cropping heavily, or viewing critically at 100% on screen, it will probably be fine. The two L lenses you are looking at are excellent, however I’d be inclined to keep the 24-240 as well. Sometimes portability beats excellence - I have the RF 24-105L and 70-200/4L for my R5 but often use my RP and 24-105STM as a lightweight option, and often it’s hard to tell the difference.

I find the images just look a little flat I guess I would call it. I have the R7 with the 18-135 as a lightweight option so I am looking at getting better overall image quality. I purchased the R6 first and got the 24-240 as my first RF lens. Then wound up getting the R7 for reach for sports and there was no body only option when I purchased it. So I think it doesn't make sense to have the 24-240 on the R6 if I have the 18-135 on the R7 for convenience. So I figured the 24-105 and 70-200 f4 combo would be a good option. I just wanted peoples opinions on over all image quality comparisons between the 24-240 and the 2 F4L lenses.

Canon RF 70-200mm F4 L IS USM Lens Image Quality (the-digital-picture.com)

Canon RF 24-105mm F4 L IS USM Lens Image Quality (the-digital-picture.com)

the L's are L's for a reason.

Canon has always made the 24-105mm L lenses the entry level in the series. They have marginal IQ improvements over many non L lenses. After all, if Canon made this lens too good it would steal sales from the more expensive L zooms and primes.

$1299 RF 24-105 L hardly entry level, best 24-105 ever made -- they particularly made the 24 mm so much better than the prior two models

your superzoom is fine outside for hiking, but doesn't have a foot in the door for indoor shots, whereas the f4L's do

There isn't a night and day difference between the EF and RF versions. At $1,299 its way overpriced, IMO. For that matter, most of the RF L lenses are way overpriced. Actually, the RF 24-240mm isn't all that far off the 24-105L over its zoom range. The f stop table shows it the same to 26mm, 1/3 stop slower to 43mm, 2/3 of a stop slower to 68mm and a stop slower from 70mm-104mm. Then it is just 1.3 stops slower out to 240mm. If this difference is critically important then the person probably should be using a f/2.8, or wider, lens. In the vast majority of shooting situations the f stop differences between these two lenses from 24-104mm isn't all that noteworthy if relevant at all.

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

There is more to a lens than f stop. If you take photos where distortion, CA , focus speed and edge sharpness are critical than the f/4 lenses will provide greater performance than the super zooms and budget lenses. Everyone has there own shooting requirements that goes well beyond the f stops. Yes some of the above can be corrected via software but that is also a consideration based on the photographer's requirements.

I own a good copy of the EF 24-105mmL and the differences between it and the 24-240mm are minimal. At some focal lengths the 24-240mm is better. You must not be familiar with the AF of the 24-240mm because it has Canon's best AF system which is Nano USM. The same that is found in the RF L lenses. The IS is five stops which is up with the best RF L lenses. CA can be dealt with in PP and isn't an issue with this lens. The edge sharpness advantage for the 24-105mmL is limited to the 24-25mm focal lengths. Beyond this the 24-240mm holds its own against the 24-105mmL through their common focal length. Where the 24-105mmL falls way short is it has nothing to compete with the extra 135mm reach of the 24-240mm.

yeah right, you used 17-55 f2.8 on crop for years indoors which is FF equivalent of f4.5

What is better on a crop camera... the 17-55mm or the 24-105mmL regarding low light performance? If you are going to gear shame someone then at least think it through.

what kind of question is this?

you have access to both FF and crop

the EF 24 -105 f4's were inferior and I never wanted one and they were not good on crop bodies, but the RF 24-105 F4 L with nano focus and control ring became the best 24-105 ever made and is very enjoyable on a FF RF body. I'd take this setup any day over the 17-55 on a crop body which is the FF equivalent of 27 - 88 F 4.5 - not wide enough, not long enough and F4.5 not F4

and you continually talk about wanting an RF-s f2.8 zoom for an R7 - which would be the FF equivalent of f4.5 - but Canon will not give it to you

I have f1.4, f2, f2.8 lenses - the f4 lens on FF gets by sometimes indoors - as I said, it has its foot in the door needing just twice the light of my f2.8 lenses which as Dustin says and he shows an example that I also have real event shots like he is talking about and showing, can be handled with FF and modern NR software (like dxo PL6) by increasing the iso by a stop - Dustin shows it and you discount his and my points claiming it doesn't matter compared to your stellar 24-240

your 24-240 lens at f5.6 would need four times the light of a f2.8 lens at Dustin's 100 mm focal length he took the shot in his video

and your f6.3 long setting is useless for movement indoors without light - you'd need a whooping 8 times the light indoors of an f2.8 lens

for outdoors in good light, as I've said, for some the RF 24-240 makes sense as a hiking lens - I get that for this outdoor hiking application

for me though the RF 24 - 105 F4L + RF 100-400 combo makes more sense for both foot in the door and hiking applications.

We are talking about two FF lenses on FF cameras. Where did I say it doesn't matter? I have said the differences are marginal and nearly non existent at many focal lengths.

The L has better MFD and better colors and constant F4 and great 24 mm IQ -- many things add up

I even stated the 24-105mm was better at 24-25mm.

yes indeed, Canon worked to make the RF version the best at 24 mm where I use the lens extensively

here are some of my photos with the lens -all indoors

Comparing a f/2.8 lens to the 24-240mm for indoor shooting hasn't even been brought up in this thread until you just did it for some unknown reason.

this comment doesn't make sense -- the op wants the pros and cons - indoors is a strength of the RF 24-105 L over the RF 24-240

This said, the 24-105mm at f/4 isn't a good indoors lens either.

it has its foot in the door as my pics show. I also use it for folks at the podium speaking as Dustin demonstrated also in his review

Especially for action shooting.

I have other lenses for action shooting

I have used the EF 24-105mmL on a FF camera for many years and can say this from experience.

well I did not go there with the inferior EF's

What lens(es) a person choses all comes down to how much gear they want to lug around and how many lens changes they like to do. Right now we are comparing the performance of the 24-240mm to the 24-105mmL. When you throw in multiple lenses then the topic morphs into something completely different.

if you can read, the op brought up multiple lens scenarios. The op was forced to buy the RF 18-150 when the R7 was purchased since body only was not an option. The op also had the RF 24-240 with an RF FF body and the op wanted to know if selling the RF 24-240 lens made sense to get the RF 24-105 F4 L and RF 70-200 F4 L.

talking about multiple lenses isn't a morph - it is the topic

for me I recommend the RF 24-105 F4 L + RF 100-400 combo, but I go long. The op may find the RF 24-105 F4L + RF 70-200 F4L perfect for what they do

I went and ordered the 2 lenses today. I fugure the R7 with the 18-135 covers me when I want compactness/convenience. From what I've read and samples Iv'e seen the 2 F4L lenses look very good. I do not mind changing lenses for what the shooting requires most times. I also have the EF 100-400 mk2 for more reach which I really like and works great on both the R6 and R7 with adapter. Also think the combination of the 24-105L on the R6 and the 70-200L on the R7 will be a great quality combination for most of my shooting.

 

[jcr67]

The difference is pronounced. If you like quality lenses, skip the 24-240. There are only a couple of reasons to get it, but IQ is not one of them.

I ordered them today, looking forward to trying them out.

 

[MAC]

I have owned the RF 24-105 f/4 and it has been my primary travel lens I purchased the RF 24-240 a few months ago but have not shot extensively with it You will find that the 2 lenses you are considering will have better edge sharpness, lower distortion, less CA, less vignetting and faster AF The main benefit of the 24-240 is the great range with a single lens that weighs less and is smaller than the f/4 lenses Choosing lenses is always a compromise and you need to determine what is most important to you

I totally agree that choosing is about compromises, true for a lot of things. In your opinion, since you have used at least 2 of the lenses I asked about. Is there a noticeable difference in overall image quality. I previously used the EF 24-70 F4LIS and 70-200 F4LIS and both delivered nice images without a lot of post processing work. I also like the constant aperture. I am not insinuating the 24-240 is a horrible lens, my own shortcomings far outweigh any of my photo equipment's shortcomings.

In what way do you find it lacking? If you aren’t making large prints, cropping heavily, or viewing critically at 100% on screen, it will probably be fine. The two L lenses you are looking at are excellent, however I’d be inclined to keep the 24-240 as well. Sometimes portability beats excellence - I have the RF 24-105L and 70-200/4L for my R5 but often use my RP and 24-105STM as a lightweight option, and often it’s hard to tell the difference.

I find the images just look a little flat I guess I would call it. I have the R7 with the 18-135 as a lightweight option so I am looking at getting better overall image quality. I purchased the R6 first and got the 24-240 as my first RF lens. Then wound up getting the R7 for reach for sports and there was no body only option when I purchased it. So I think it doesn't make sense to have the 24-240 on the R6 if I have the 18-135 on the R7 for convenience. So I figured the 24-105 and 70-200 f4 combo would be a good option. I just wanted peoples opinions on over all image quality comparisons between the 24-240 and the 2 F4L lenses.

Canon RF 70-200mm F4 L IS USM Lens Image Quality (the-digital-picture.com)

Canon RF 24-105mm F4 L IS USM Lens Image Quality (the-digital-picture.com)

the L's are L's for a reason.

Canon has always made the 24-105mm L lenses the entry level in the series. They have marginal IQ improvements over many non L lenses. After all, if Canon made this lens too good it would steal sales from the more expensive L zooms and primes.

$1299 RF 24-105 L hardly entry level, best 24-105 ever made -- they particularly made the 24 mm so much better than the prior two models

your superzoom is fine outside for hiking, but doesn't have a foot in the door for indoor shots, whereas the f4L's do

There isn't a night and day difference between the EF and RF versions. At $1,299 its way overpriced, IMO. For that matter, most of the RF L lenses are way overpriced. Actually, the RF 24-240mm isn't all that far off the 24-105L over its zoom range. The f stop table shows it the same to 26mm, 1/3 stop slower to 43mm, 2/3 of a stop slower to 68mm and a stop slower from 70mm-104mm. Then it is just 1.3 stops slower out to 240mm. If this difference is critically important then the person probably should be using a f/2.8, or wider, lens. In the vast majority of shooting situations the f stop differences between these two lenses from 24-104mm isn't all that noteworthy if relevant at all.

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

There is more to a lens than f stop. If you take photos where distortion, CA , focus speed and edge sharpness are critical than the f/4 lenses will provide greater performance than the super zooms and budget lenses. Everyone has there own shooting requirements that goes well beyond the f stops. Yes some of the above can be corrected via software but that is also a consideration based on the photographer's requirements.

I own a good copy of the EF 24-105mmL and the differences between it and the 24-240mm are minimal. At some focal lengths the 24-240mm is better. You must not be familiar with the AF of the 24-240mm because it has Canon's best AF system which is Nano USM. The same that is found in the RF L lenses. The IS is five stops which is up with the best RF L lenses. CA can be dealt with in PP and isn't an issue with this lens. The edge sharpness advantage for the 24-105mmL is limited to the 24-25mm focal lengths. Beyond this the 24-240mm holds its own against the 24-105mmL through their common focal length. Where the 24-105mmL falls way short is it has nothing to compete with the extra 135mm reach of the 24-240mm.

yeah right, you used 17-55 f2.8 on crop for years indoors which is FF equivalent of f4.5

What is better on a crop camera... the 17-55mm or the 24-105mmL regarding low light performance? If you are going to gear shame someone then at least think it through.

what kind of question is this?

you have access to both FF and crop

the EF 24 -105 f4's were inferior and I never wanted one and they were not good on crop bodies, but the RF 24-105 F4 L with nano focus and control ring became the best 24-105 ever made and is very enjoyable on a FF RF body. I'd take this setup any day over the 17-55 on a crop body which is the FF equivalent of 27 - 88 F 4.5 - not wide enough, not long enough and F4.5 not F4

and you continually talk about wanting an RF-s f2.8 zoom for an R7 - which would be the FF equivalent of f4.5 - but Canon will not give it to you

I have f1.4, f2, f2.8 lenses - the f4 lens on FF gets by sometimes indoors - as I said, it has its foot in the door needing just twice the light of my f2.8 lenses which as Dustin says and he shows an example that I also have real event shots like he is talking about and showing, can be handled with FF and modern NR software (like dxo PL6) by increasing the iso by a stop - Dustin shows it and you discount his and my points claiming it doesn't matter compared to your stellar 24-240

your 24-240 lens at f5.6 would need four times the light of a f2.8 lens at Dustin's 100 mm focal length he took the shot in his video

and your f6.3 long setting is useless for movement indoors without light - you'd need a whooping 8 times the light indoors of an f2.8 lens

for outdoors in good light, as I've said, for some the RF 24-240 makes sense as a hiking lens - I get that for this outdoor hiking application

for me though the RF 24 - 105 F4L + RF 100-400 combo makes more sense for both foot in the door and hiking applications.

We are talking about two FF lenses on FF cameras. Where did I say it doesn't matter? I have said the differences are marginal and nearly non existent at many focal lengths.

The L has better MFD and better colors and constant F4 and great 24 mm IQ -- many things add up

I even stated the 24-105mm was better at 24-25mm.

yes indeed, Canon worked to make the RF version the best at 24 mm where I use the lens extensively

here are some of my photos with the lens -all indoors

Comparing a f/2.8 lens to the 24-240mm for indoor shooting hasn't even been brought up in this thread until you just did it for some unknown reason.

this comment doesn't make sense -- the op wants the pros and cons - indoors is a strength of the RF 24-105 L over the RF 24-240

This said, the 24-105mm at f/4 isn't a good indoors lens either.

it has its foot in the door as my pics show. I also use it for folks at the podium speaking as Dustin demonstrated also in his review

Especially for action shooting.

I have other lenses for action shooting

I have used the EF 24-105mmL on a FF camera for many years and can say this from experience.

well I did not go there with the inferior EF's

What lens(es) a person choses all comes down to how much gear they want to lug around and how many lens changes they like to do. Right now we are comparing the performance of the 24-240mm to the 24-105mmL. When you throw in multiple lenses then the topic morphs into something completely different.

if you can read, the op brought up multiple lens scenarios. The op was forced to buy the RF 18-150 when the R7 was purchased since body only was not an option. The op also had the RF 24-240 with an RF FF body and the op wanted to know if selling the RF 24-240 lens made sense to get the RF 24-105 F4 L and RF 70-200 F4 L.

talking about multiple lenses isn't a morph - it is the topic

for me I recommend the RF 24-105 F4 L + RF 100-400 combo, but I go long. The op may find the RF 24-105 F4L + RF 70-200 F4L perfect for what they do

I went and ordered the 2 lenses today. I fugure the R7 with the 18-135 covers me when I want compactness/convenience. From what I've read and samples Iv'e seen the 2 F4L lenses look very good. I do not mind changing lenses for what the shooting requires most times. I also have the EF 100-400 mk2 for more reach which I really like and works great on both the R6 and R7 with adapter. Also think the combination of the 24-105L on the R6 and the 70-200L on the R7 will be a great quality combination for most of my shooting.

congrats!

your 24 - 320 FOV with L lenses is awesome!

 

[KENTGA]

I've totally moved to mirrorless from Canon DSLR and have RP, R5 & R7. I have the 24-105 f4 but haven't used it since I got the 24-240. It's just so easy for an 81 year old to use. I have the 18-150 on the R7.

Kent

 

[davel33]

I've totally moved to mirrorless from Canon DSLR and have RP, R5 & R7. I have the 24-105 f4 but haven't used it since I got the 24-240. It's just so easy for an 81 year old to use. I have the 18-150 on the R7.

Kent

DING DING DING Give the man a prise You have a few years on me but I feel the same. BUT I have found a lens that is good to use when you dont need the 120mm+ range. The super cheap RF 24-105 stm was on sale a few weeks ago for $119 refurb. They have now bumped the price to $229 and its sold out.

Below is my first test of the RF 24-105 STM in a semi dark room. I will be going back some time next week with a tripod. IT seems that a camera is more dangerous to some people than a gun, So I like to check before shooting with a tripod or flash

--
"Just one more Lens, I promise....."
Dave

 

[jcr67]

Got a surprise quick delivery(1 day)today of the 24-105 and 70-200 F4L's. First impressions, usual good L fit and finish, build quality seems very good. Biggest surprise is how lightweight they are, especially the 70-200. I know there's a lot of plastic in place of where most EF L lenses used metal which really shows up in the weight. I've worked in manufacturing my entire life and have seen plastic engineering come a long way so I am not opposed to the use of plastic to save weight, as long as it is high quality incoming material which I'm sure Canon uses. I just took a couple snaps around the house so no opinion on IQ yet. I will return to this thread after I get a better idea of the overall IQ and let anyone else considering the lenses talked about know what I think of them.

 

[MAC]

WOW I could not agree more, the RF 24-105 stm is glued to my R, its my new GP low weight lens.

I came very close to buying this lens when it was on sale for $119. I kind of regret not buying it to use as a small, very lightweight walk around lens. I like the 24-240mm but it is a bit on the heavy side for those days I will be carrying it for 8-10 hours.

for the events I do, I don't even feel the weight all day long of my setup with black rapid strap and/or op-tech shoulder sling strap

but also I don't like bulk, so my small m6II and 11-22 and 32 gets lots of use for walkabout

I don't know how old you are but when I was younger I carried around pounds of gear. The older I get the less I care to carry. Hence my gravitating to APS-C and wanting APS-C lenses to further reduce weight and size of gear. I bought the M200 kit when Canon put it on clearance prices and have found it to be quite useful so far. It is the first piece of M gear I have bough in the past 5-6 years and will be the last. TBH, top end smart phones have almost made even cameras like the M200 obsolete.

for me, the m200 was maybe in vogue before iphone 13/14

for me, I chose the RP and think Canon will continue to make small FF bodies, as Sony is also with the A7c ( a FF sensor in an APSc body)

The op just got his two L's and they are relatively small for great L quality from 24 -320 fov on the two bodies the op has. If Canon releases the right FF sensor in an apsc sized body with the right features, I'll go for the Rf 70-200 F4L as well, and maybe even the RF 14-35 as the trinity