Which zoom lens/lenses (24-105, 24-240, 70-200 etc)?

I am looking for a nice zoom lens or two to complete my travel and hiking kit. I have a Canon R6 and the following RF lenses currently: 15-30mm STM, 16mm STM, 50mm STM, 85mm STM.

I am mainly debating between the RF 24-240mm f/4.5-6.3 IS USM, vs RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 STM + RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM. Locally, the price for either kit would be about the same ($900).

The benefits of the 24-240mm is I would have only one lens that could do pretty much all I need. But with the two lens setup would gain almost twice the focal length. I'm guessing telephoto range (around 200mm+) would be better on the RF 100-400 as well.

A third option is to get the 70-200mm f/4L. It could probably become more of a hassle though as I can't just walk outside with one lens attached to the camera and expect to capture most of what I want/need.

So here are the kits I could do and fit in my camera bag, combining with the lenses I already own:

Kit #1 (24-105 + 100-400mm):

1. RF 15-30mm f/4.5-6.3 (already own)
2. RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 ($249)
3. RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 ($599)

Pros: Long reach (up to 400mm), higher quality on the telephoto shots. In situations where I might not need more than 100mm, the 24-105mm is considerably more light and compact versus the 24-240.
Cons: One extra lens to carry (in most cases), and the 100-400mm is quite large and heavy. Also IQ on the 24-105mm is questionable compared to the 24-240. But would like to hear some experiences.

Kit #2 (24-240mm):

1. RF 15-30mm f/4.5-6.3 (already own)
2. RF 24-240mm f/4.5-6.3 ($899)

Pros: Less lenses to carry. Might be fine just going out with the 24-240mm alone, since I don't shoot much below 24mm anyway. I also have the RF 16mm prime that I could more easily bring along instead of the 15-30.
Cons: Less reach (240 vs 400mm), probably slightly lower IQ in the 160-240mm range. This lens is also considerably bigger and heavier (almost twice as heavy) as the 24-105mm STM. So in cases where I don't need more than 100mm, it would be more cumbersome to use the 24-240.

Kit #3 (70-200mm):

1. RF 15-30mm f/4.5-6.3 (already own)
3. RF 50mm f/1.8 (already own)
4. RF 70-200mm f/4L ($1399)

Pros: Highest image quality on the 70-200mm focal range. This lens is also slightly smaller and lighter than both the 24-240 and the 100-400.
Cons: No "do-it-all" lens. I would have to carry at least two lenses every time I go out. Also this kit is considerably more expensive than the others.

Do you need the 200-400mm focal length range when you travel/hike?

I'm unsure I can answer your question, but maybe I can give you some information. I have made comments inline below.

LennyLevino wrote:

I am looking for a nice zoom lens or two to complete my travel and hiking kit. I have a Canon R6 and the following RF lenses currently: 15-30mm STM, 16mm STM, 50mm STM, 85mm STM.

I am mainly debating between the RF 24-240mm f/4.5-6.3 IS USM, vs RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 STM + RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM. Locally, the price for either kit would be about the same ($900).

I generally like the RF 24-240 as a walk-around do-everything lens. The much better and faster focusing is a big advantage over the 24-105 STM.  The RF24-240 is very sharp in the center, even wide open but does suffer in the corners, particularly at either end of the zoom range. In most normal shooting, you probably will not notice the difference.

The RF24-240 is the first RF lens I bought, and I still use it even though I have gone on to buy over $15,000 of RF lenses. It is the most "fun" lens I have, but I would say the RF100-400 is a better "value" based on image quality. I would have kicked to the curb the RF24-105 STM.

The benefits of the 24-240mm is I would have only one lens that could do pretty much all I need. But with the two lens setup would gain almost twice the focal length. I'm guessing telephoto range (around 200mm+) would be better on the RF 100-400 as well.

Yes, the RF 100-400 has visibly (on close inspection) better image quality over its entire range that overlaps the RF24-240. I bought the 100-400 as a "long travel lens" as I already had the RF100-500L (and if I have room/weight, I will take the RF100-500 mostly for the extra range and edge in image quality).

A third option is to get the 70-200mm f/4L. It could probably become more of a hassle though as I can't just walk outside with one lens attached to the camera and expect to capture most of what I want/need.

So here are the kits I could do and fit in my camera bag, combining with the lenses I already own:

Kit #1 (24-105 + 100-400mm):

1. RF 15-30mm f/4.5-6.3 (already own)
2. RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 ($249)
3. RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 ($599)

Pros: Long reach (up to 400mm), higher quality on the telephoto shots. In situations here I might not need more than 100mm, the 24-105mm is considerably more light and compact versus the 24-240.
Cons: One extra lens to carry (in most cases), and the 100-400mm is quite large and heavy. Also IQ on the 24-105mm is questionable compared to the 24-240. But would like to hear some experiences.

I would suggest saving your money for a better mid-range zoom or spending more on the RF24-240. As said above, the RF100-400, I think, is the best "value" based on price and image quality that I have seen in any RF lens. It compares favorably in image quality, focus speed, and IS to L lenses (It probably would have been considered an L lens 10 years ago).

Overall, I would suggest buying fewer but better lenses.

Kit #2 (24-240mm):

1. RF 15-30mm f/4.5-6.3 (already own)
2. RF 24-240mm f/4.5-6.3 ($899)

Pros: Less lenses to carry. Might be fine just going out with the 24-240mm alone, since I don't shoot much below 24mm anyway. I also have the RF 16mm prime that I could more easily bring along instead of the 15-30.
Cons: Less reach (240 vs 400mm), probably slightly lower IQ in the 160-240mm range. This lens is also considerably bigger and heavier (almost twice as heavy) as the 24-105mm STM. So in cases where I don't need more than 100mm, it would be more cumbersome to use the 24-240.

I like this better than getting the 24-105STM

Kit #3 (70-200mm):

1. RF 15-30mm f/4.5-6.3 (already own)
3. RF 50mm f/1.8 (already own)
4. RF 70-200mm f/4L ($1399)

I would get the RF100-400 instead of the RF70-200f4. On my last big trip, I found my RF70-200f2.8L stayed in the bag or at the hotel. I would typically pack the RF15-35, RF24-70, and RF100-500L. For my uses (others love the lens), the 70-200f4 is neither fish nor fowl, it is not a very long telephoto, and F4 is not particularly fast for indoor or portrait use. What kills both the RF70-200L lenses for me is that neither accepts a TC. As such, it kept loosing our when I only wanted to carry 3 lenses.

Pros: Highest image quality on the 70-200mm focal range. This lens is also slightly smaller and lighter than both the 24-240 and the 100-400.
Cons: No "do-it-all" lens. I would have to carry at least two lenses every time I go out. Also this kit is considerably more expensive than the others.

Interpol wrote:

Do you need the 200-400mm focal length range when you travel/hike?

I don't know. I've never owned a telephoto longer than 135mm (and I have never brought this along while hiking anyway). Currently I bring RF 15-30, Sigma 40mm 1.4 (I will sell this one) and RF 85mm f2.

The RF24-240 is the first RF lens I bought, and I still use it even though I have gone on to buy over $15,000 of RF lenses. It is the most "fun" lens I have, but I would say the RF100-400 is a better "value" based on image quality. I would have kicked to the curb the RF24-105 STM.

Ok, so the 24-240 is considerably better in terms of IQ vs the 24-105, in the focal range 24-105? So I'd be better off with a 24-240, and then adding a 100-400 on top of it down the line if I want more reach and/or better IQ at the telephoto lengths?

Lets say I could only use my 24-240 in the range of 24-105 (since I would hypothetically own the 100-400mm as well), the IQ would still be that much better that it would justify the extra cost and size/weight over the 24-105?

Overall, I would suggest buying fewer but better lenses.

I would get the RF100-400 instead of the RF70-200f4. On my last big trip, I found my RF70-200f2.8L stayed in the bag or at the hotel. I would typically pack the RF15-35, RF24-70, and RF100-500L. For my uses (others love the lens), the 70-200f4 is neither fish nor fowl, it is not a very long telephoto, and F4 is not particularly fast for indoor or portrait use. What kills both the RF70-200L lenses for me is that neither accepts a TC. As such, it kept loosing our when I only wanted to carry 3 lenses.

The 100-400mm sounds very good indeed. I guess I should pick this up regardless.

How about this then (a new proposal); RF 24-105mm f/4L + RF 100-400mm? This would be way more expensive than the other kits but do you think it'd be worth it? Or would you rather still have 24-240 + 100-400?

Kit #4 (16 - 400mm):

1. RF 16mm 2.8 (wide angle coverage, landsacpes and creative shots)
2. RF 24-105mm f/4L (everyday lens)
3. RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 (animals + general purpose tele)
4. RF 50mm f/1.8 (Portrait) or RF 85mm f/2.0 (Portrait / Macro)

This will cover basically everything of the non specialised use-cases with a decent quality. Can be upgraded with RF 14-35mm f/4L, but this will increase overall cost and weight.

Or of course the break your back and bank kit:

Kit #5 (14 - 500mm):

1. RF 14-35mm f/4L
2. RF 24-70mm f/2.8L
3. RF 100-500mm
4. RF 85mm f/2.0

Replace 1. with the 15-30mm f/2.8L, 2. with the 28-70 f/2L and 4. with the 85mm f/1.2L and add 5. RF 100 f/2.8L for "the full package".

Laqup wrote:

Kit #4 (16 - 400mm):

1. RF 16mm 2.8 (wide angle coverage, landsacpes and creative shots)
2. RF 24-105mm f/4L (everyday lens)
3. RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 (animals + general purpose tele)
4. RF 50mm f/1.8 (Portrait) or RF 85mm f/2.0 (Portrait / Macro)

This will cover basically everything of the non specialised use-cases with a decent quality. Can be upgraded with RF 14-35mm f/4L, but this will increase overall cost and weight.

I actually ordered the 14-35mm once, but cancelled in last minute and got the 15-30 instead. I've realized I don't care so much for super wide angle shots anyway. The 15-30 might've even been unnecessary as well, since I owned the 16 f2.8 already. The 15-30 is pretty good in the 24-30mm range though, so if I had a zoom that was weak in this range (like the 24-240) then it wouldn't matter that much.

Anyway, tell me more about the 24-105mm f/4L. From what I've seen and heard, it doesn't seem to be a particularly sharp lens. Much softer than Nikon's and Sony's offerings. DXOMark claims it can only resolve 16 megapixels (should be enough for me though since I only have 20mp in my R6). But nonetheless I've heard it has good "rendering" (contrast, colors and "3D pop"), would you agree with that?

I wish I could rent these lenses to try them out, but unfortunately that is not possible where I currently live.

Or of course the break your back and bank kit:

Kit #5 (14 - 500mm):

1. RF 14-35mm f/4L
2. RF 24-70mm f/2.8L
3. RF 100-500mm
4. RF 85mm f/2.0

Replace 1. with the 15-30mm f/2.8L, 2. with the 28-70 f/2L and 4. with the 85mm f/1.2L and add 5. RF 100 f/2.8L for "the full package".

Yeah that would've been nice :-).

I wish Canon would make a 20-70mm f/4L, similar in size and price to the Sony variant.

I would recommend the 24-240mm lens. It is usually with me along with a wide angle. Honestly, since I got that lens back at the end of last year I have not used my 24-105mm f/4 L & RF 100-400mm lens combo much.

LennyLevino wrote:

Anyway, tell me more about the 24-105mm f/4L. From what I've seen and heard, it doesn't seem to be a particularly sharp lens. Much softer than Nikon's and Sony's offerings. DXOMark claims it can only resolve 16 megapixels (should be enough for me though since I only have 20mp in my R6). But nonetheless I've heard it has good "rendering" (contrast, colors and "3D pop"), would you agree with that?

The 24-105mm is a decent performer. It might be a bit weaker overall at the wide end than the Sony lens but even DXOMark mentions that it improves for longer focal lengths and even achieves the same performance as some lenses of the competition on a higher megapixel body (!). This is an achievement. Always consider that DXOMark scores are not normalized for sensor resolution, meaning the more megapixel the sensor has, the better the score will be. If they would repeat the test on a R5 you would see overall higher numbers and better scores. The "16 Megapixel" metric is not a hard cap, but will improve with sensor resolution as well. In terms of rendering you get what you pay for. Meaning it will be better than the 24-105 STM and 24-240 but worse than the e.g. the 28-70 in the overlapping range.

Check out the review by opticallimits, one of the more serious review-sites:

https://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/1056-canonrf24105f4is?start=2

A quote from their review:
"Just like other standard zoom lenses, it has its flaws, but it is clearly one of the better, if not the best lens in this specific class. Canon emphasized the performance at the wide end of the range with an evenly high - in fact, very high - sharpness across the image field."

and

"A more natural competitor is available over at Sony - the FE 24-105mm f/4 G OSS. The Sony lens is more expensive. Quality-wise it's hard to compare the two because we tested the Sony lens on a 42mp sensor compared to just 30mp on the EOS R. The Canon lens should have an edge, though."

That being said I have rarely used this lens when I got the RF 28-70. Before that I actually enjoyed it, especially for an all purpose walkaround lens for vacations.

LennyLevino wrote:

The RF24-240 is the first RF lens I bought, and I still use it even though I have gone on to buy over $15,000 of RF lenses. It is the most "fun" lens I have, but I would say the RF100-400 is a better "value" based on image quality. I would have kicked to the curb the RF24-105 STM.

Ok, so the 24-240 is considerably better in terms of IQ vs the 24-105, in the focal range 24-105?

That I don't know, but from what I remember reading a few years ago, the image quality is similar between the 24-105 STM and the RF24-240 USM over the same range. The big advantage of the RF24-240 is the USM focusing, which is faster and more likely to lock, and the extra zoom range.

So I'd be better off with a 24-240, and then adding a 100-400 on top of it down the line if I want more reach and/or better IQ at the telephoto lengths?

If you eventually get better lenses, the RF24-240 would be a "keeper," whereas the RF24-105 STM is a bit of a throwaway.

Lets say I could only use my 24-240 in the range of 24-105 (since I would hypothetically own the 100-400mm as well), the IQ would still be that much better that it would justify the extra cost and size/weight over the 24-105?

Overall, I would suggest buying fewer but better lenses.

I would get the RF100-400 instead of the RF70-200f4. On my last big trip, I found my RF70-200f2.8L stayed in the bag or at the hotel. I would typically pack the RF15-35, RF24-70, and RF100-500L. For my uses (others love the lens), the 70-200f4 is neither fish nor fowl, it is not a very long telephoto, and F4 is not particularly fast for indoor or portrait use. What kills both the RF70-200L lenses for me is that neither accepts a TC. As such, it kept loosing our when I only wanted to carry 3 lenses.

The 100-400mm sounds very good indeed. I guess I should pick this up regardless.

If you don't have eyes, the budget, or the willingness to carry the weight of the RF100-500, the RF100-400  is a great pick.  From everything I have seen, it is the best lens for the money, particularly if you can pick it up on sale.

How about this then (a new proposal); RF 24-105mm f/4L + RF 100-400mm? This would be way more expensive than the other kits but do you think it'd be worth it? Or would you rather still have 24-240 + 100-400?

That's a tougher one. A lot depends on how you think you will buy in the future. As with the RF70-200F4, it is neither fish nor fowl at f4.  I would (and did) pick the RF24-240 over the RF24-105f4. But a lot of people like the RF24-105 f4L. I eventually bought the RF24-70f2.8, so it would be redundant, but even with that lens and the RF70-200f2.8L, I find reasons to keep using the RF24-240. If you are never going to get the RF24-70f2.8L, then the RF24-105f4L is probably not a bad choice, but it depends a lot on your preferences and future plans.

A big caveat, these comments are for what I like to shoot. Other people shooting different things may differ.

You might want to watch some of Christopher Frost's videos on RF lenses.

In particular, he reviewed the RF24-105f4L. https://youtu.be/dYaPpqmkZms

This reviewer seemed to think the STM's optical quality was similar to the f4L other than the f-number: https://youtu.be/ySzMkQ0Sjik

Here is one that covers the 24-240 vs. the 4L https://youtu.be/i-HxrbQVWyg

There are a lot of online reviews you might want to search for yourself. If you watch enough of them, you will become totally confused as to which to get 😁.

My zoom lens setup is a 16-35, a 24-70 and a 70-200.

But for wide and medium focal length, I feel that prime lenses work fine. I don’t need to cover every possible focal length; I have feet for that. In my opinion, you don’t need to own every possible focal length from 15 to 500mm.

One area where zoom is indispensable is sports and wildlife, because you have fast moving subjects and a fixed length lens can be difficult to work with.

Another thing to consider is thin depth of field, which the zooms don’t offer.  Your 50 and 85 will be very good at that.

24-240mm is a great all-in-one lens, possibly the best ever such lens, and will suit most needs. Having said that, RF 100-400 is noticeably sharper in the 100-240 range. If you really want sharper photos in that range 100-400 is worth a look. If I’m taking photos on tripod in that range I’ll always take the 100-400. Also, 24-240 is noticeably superior to RF 24-105 STM from my experience. They all have pros and cons so your decision will come down to what you value most.

Laqup wrote:

LennyLevino wrote:

Anyway, tell me more about the 24-105mm f/4L. From what I've seen and heard, it doesn't seem to be a particularly sharp lens. Much softer than Nikon's and Sony's offerings. DXOMark claims it can only resolve 16 megapixels (should be enough for me though since I only have 20mp in my R6). But nonetheless I've heard it has good "rendering" (contrast, colors and "3D pop"), would you agree with that?

The 24-105mm is a decent performer. It might be a bit weaker overall at the wide end than the Sony lens but even DXOMark mentions that it improves for longer focal lengths and even achieves the same performance as some lenses of the competition on a higher megapixel body (!). This is an achievement. Always consider that DXOMark scores are not normalized for sensor resolution, meaning the more megapixel the sensor has, the better the score will be. If they would repeat the test on a R5 you would see overall higher numbers and better scores. The "16 Megapixel" metric is not a hard cap, but will improve with sensor resolution as well. In terms of rendering you get what you pay for. Meaning it will be better than the 24-105 STM and 24-240 but worse than the e.g. the 28-70 in the overlapping range.

Check out the review by opticallimits, one of the more serious review-sites:

https://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/1056-canonrf24105f4is?start=2

A quote from their review:
"Just like other standard zoom lenses, it has its flaws, but it is clearly one of the better, if not the best lens in this specific class. Canon emphasized the performance at the wide end of the range with an evenly high - in fact, very high - sharpness across the image field."

and

"A more natural competitor is available over at Sony - the FE 24-105mm f/4 G OSS. The Sony lens is more expensive. Quality-wise it's hard to compare the two because we tested the Sony lens on a 42mp sensor compared to just 30mp on the EOS R. The Canon lens should have an edge, though."

That being said I have rarely used this lens when I got the RF 28-70. Before that I actually enjoyed it, especially for an all purpose walkaround lens for vacations.

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

both sony and canon are similarly priced $1299

the walkaround use and supplement with primes when necessary is the use case

BBR5 wrote:

I've found the 24-240 to be great for travel. I wouldn't consider any difference in IQ between it and the 24-105 STM to be a deciding factor. The difference in size and weight between the two is noticeable.

The reach of the 100-400 is a significant advantage for wildlife. But you'll notice the length when carrying it.

I have no experience with the 70-200L.

Dustin Abbot wrote a very useful review of the 24-240. I recommend it if you shoot with the lens:

https://dustinabbott.net/2020/04/canon-rf-24-240mm-f4-6-3-is-review/

It’s definitely a very nice walk about lens if the size/weight doesn’t bother you. I wouldn’t get one because I already have lenses in that range. I’m also old-school, and such zooms traditionally sacrifice image quality, but we live an era of digital corrections which fix that.

What’s important to understand is that 240mm is not long enough for many telephoto cases. For instance, most MLB parks allow you to bring cameras. If you are right in front at first or third base, you can get great shots of 1st and 2nd base with a 240. But that’s it! If your seats are farther back, or if you want to get other shots, you’ll want the reach of a 100-400 or, better yet, the RF100-500.  That’s true for most outdoor sports, unless it’s high school baseball/softball where you’re allowed close access.  It’s also the case with most wildlife photography.  
For me, the 70-200 is something I use in large concert venues and for portraits.  I’ve used it for sports photography, often with a teleconverter. I don’t recommend it

This week, I’m going on vacation and bringing just one lens, so it’s the 24-70. Maybe the 24-240 would be better? But I’m not expecting to shoot wildlife or sporting events.

Then again, I think anyone who buys the 100-500 L has probably shot enough wildlife or sports to know why they’re buying it.

I had the 24-240 with RP. It is a great combo and on paper it is all amazing. I also bought the 100-400 as well. I am in alignment with every one's comments on the PQ. I still sold the 24-240 because it is not portable enough combo for me. Many trips that I took the lens, it is a bit too big that I was leaving it at the hotel room. If this is no issue, then I, as well, recommend this lens!

24-105 STM, 100-400 is my current preferred combo and the 100-400 gets into back pack only when I am sure that I need the range. Otherwise, as a hobby photographer, the ease and weight matters to me more than the zoom reach.

Hate to disagree with above poster but I have RP, R5 and R7. I have 24-105 f4 and 24-240 and have not used the 24-105 since I put the 24-240 on the R5. I am a 95% landscape shooter.

Also I'm 81 and prefer a camera zoom rather than a foot zoom.

Kent

LennyLevino wrote:

I am looking for a nice zoom lens or two to complete my travel and hiking kit. I have a Canon R6 and the following RF lenses currently: 15-30mm STM, 16mm STM, 50mm STM, 85mm STM.

I am mainly debating between the RF 24-240mm f/4.5-6.3 IS USM, vs RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 STM + RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM. Locally, the price for either kit would be about the same ($900).

The benefits of the 24-240mm is I would have only one lens that could do pretty much all I need. But with the two lens setup would gain almost twice the focal length. I'm guessing telephoto range (around 200mm+) would be better on the RF 100-400 as well.

A third option is to get the 70-200mm f/4L. It could probably become more of a hassle though as I can't just walk outside with one lens attached to the camera and expect to capture most of what I want/need.

So here are the kits I could do and fit in my camera bag, combining with the lenses I already own:

Kit #1 (24-105 + 100-400mm):

1. RF 15-30mm f/4.5-6.3 (already own)
2. RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 ($249)
3. RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 ($599)

Pros: Long reach (up to 400mm), higher quality on the telephoto shots. In situations where I might not need more than 100mm, the 24-105mm is considerably more light and compact versus the 24-240.
Cons: One extra lens to carry (in most cases), and the 100-400mm is quite large and heavy. Also IQ on the 24-105mm is questionable compared to the 24-240. But would like to hear some experiences.

Kit #2 (24-240mm):

1. RF 15-30mm f/4.5-6.3 (already own)
2. RF 24-240mm f/4.5-6.3 ($899)

Pros: Less lenses to carry. Might be fine just going out with the 24-240mm alone, since I don't shoot much below 24mm anyway. I also have the RF 16mm prime that I could more easily bring along instead of the 15-30.
Cons: Less reach (240 vs 400mm), probably slightly lower IQ in the 160-240mm range. This lens is also considerably bigger and heavier (almost twice as heavy) as the 24-105mm STM. So in cases where I don't need more than 100mm, it would be more cumbersome to use the 24-240.

Kit #3 (70-200mm):

1. RF 15-30mm f/4.5-6.3 (already own)
3. RF 50mm f/1.8 (already own)
4. RF 70-200mm f/4L ($1399)

Pros: Highest image quality on the 70-200mm focal range. This lens is also slightly smaller and lighter than both the 24-240 and the 100-400.
Cons: No "do-it-all" lens. I would have to carry at least two lenses every time I go out. Also this kit is considerably more expensive than the others.

I would go with the 24-105mm f/4.0 L.  It might be your most used lens, so I wouldn't skimp on quality there.  If you find 105mm too short you can always add the RF 100-400mm later on.