Don't know why the negative comments re sharpness. Download the CR3 files and have a go yourself (ACR 11.4 has the profile and isn't a beta), rather than looking at the jpegs. In particular, I tried the lake scene (240mm) and the final street scene (24mm). The profile did a good job but a little purple fringing remained, easily removed in ACR. The lake scene is all distant, and needed a bit of dehaze/clarity to bring it up. The street scene needed a little highlight reduction and shadow lift. With those quick adjustments the results were a lot better than the jpegs as posted. I would say the 24mm image was not very different to my 24-105 mark II. While the 240mm lake scene was not up to say a 70-200L image, I would say mainly because it was a distant scene with a little heat shimmer/haze. The 240mm shots of the guitarist were pretty good and with the same quick corrections in ACR would be similar to my 70-200. RP body with this lens - perfect for travel and backup to my 5D4.

Wow, this hit -home- work! I stopped by the performance for a quick listen before returning back to work. I thought about returning to my office to get my camera out, but I was just too busy that day. The band was awesome. I wished I could have stayed. At least I have a few of your photos of the event. Thanks! ;)

I don't think the performance of this lens is up to the standards of the bodies it's designed for. I'd much rather have a smaller range, say something like 28-150mm, with better IQ at each end.

Everybody seems determined in categorising this as the kit lens of the uninitiated. There is another use case (incindentally mine):

I wanted a full frame camera And was already invested in canon lenses so mow I own an RP because it was cheaper and lighter than a 6d mk2. I already own a few "real photographer" lenses. But when I travel with my family I dislike carrying besides water, food and colouring books two zooms and a prime. So this lens is perfect. This way I can use my nice full frame camera both when traveling and when going out specifically to shoot and carrying 5 lenses, two flashes and a tripod.

Also to all the gear snobs around here: sleep well thinking that somewhere in this world is a teenage kid doing more valuable work than yours with a 18-55 kit lens :)

Some of these photos are really nice. Not just "nice for a superzoom lens," but pleasing to look at in general. Good work dpreview staff!

Looks like an awesome general purpose lens. Perfectly fine IQ for day to day stuff. I would love one and a RP camera as a light walkaround. Beats lugging my 5d4 around with a pile of lenses.

Great gallery - I’d want that..
Lenses make me consider Canon

All shots at the long end (240mm) are done wide open at f/6.3.
Maybe you could add some at f/8 or so? This would maybe sharpen things up quite a bit.

What's crazy is these images were taken just a little while back with the Canon G5X II and there isn't a huge difference in the way the pictures look.

https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/6009098889/canon-powershot-g5-x-ii-sample-gallery/0502525690

Thanks for the review. About par for a superzoom. Everytime I see the sample images from these reviews it makes me feel good about my composition and photography skills.

Looking at the samples, I'm satisfied that this lens will deliver reasonable images for most uses associated with my intended use.

Applying minimal processing in LR results in nice images.

I had the Sony 24-240 when I was shooting with A7RII and it was a creditable travel lens. I expect the same will be turn with this RF lens.

I'm hoping I'll have a copy for an upcoming trip to Europe the second week of September.

My preferred shooting approach is F8, 1/250 or higher, auto ISO for walking about. I think this lens will preform well.

Very sharp lens and a good addition to the R camera line. All in one long zoom for travellers or all day use. Bravo, Canon. Good daytime lens.

The bokeh of this lens is better than my expectation, surprised.

While I understand the appeal of this lens for some, as someone who would like to move from aps-c to full frame, I find this lens counterproductive to my reasons for wanting a full frame camera. After looking at the samples, “Good for what it is” just isn’t appealing to me. The minor inconvenience (IMO) of carrying two lenses for better image quality would be worth it to me.

Looking at the samples this lens is good enough for the use it's intended for. Though in some settings the corner sharpness doesn't hold very well iunder 100% magnification, users of this lens will view the photos on their computers, tablets etc. Get realistic and don't forget this is a 10X zoom which doesn't pretend to be an L glass or a prime lens.. .

For a super Zoom (10x Range - 24-240mm) i do think the image quality is good enough. But here lies also the problem, the typical "Fullframe" User doesn't use "soupzooms" of that range. The EOS EP with it's dated Sensor from the 6D II and with this Zoom is quite more expensive, pricey, than say a Sony RX10 Mark IV, plus, the Zeiss Zoom hereby onto the Sony is being tack-sharp at 600mm F4, one does have more Zoom Range even (24-600mm F4) - and it does cost less.

So if one really needs a long Zoom with decent image quality, i do would consider getting a RX10 IV instead of a EOS RP with this 24-240 Zoom.

One can argue, you can change the Lens - but Buyers of such a 10x Zoom Lens would mostly use this Zoom lens for all their photography needs, and buying it exactly therefore.

The "Fullframe" Advantage for great Bokeh, DoF Effect is being lost with such kind of Megazoom, 24-240 RF hereby, and it's a very slow Zoom from Speed. Further, the RX10 IV is lighter.

Good Light, and a fine Week.

For an all-in-one lens of this type, these images are very good.
The first couple of images, in particular, are quite sharp, but there are other very sharp images too.
I don't plan on buying this lens, though. With my collection of Canon "L" glass, and if I must use an adapter, then I'd rather go with the A7R-III instead of the Canon R.
One reason, obviously, is the A7R-III's superiority (to the Canon R), its capabilities, and resolution.
The second reason is that Canon is giving me a good reason to say goodbye. I had invested very heavily in FD lenses, then they were obsolete with the introduction of the EF mount, and I have invested quite heavily here too.
Then they came up with the RF mount, and I no longer can use my EF lenses natively.
Who knows what mount they'll come up with next.
Brand loyalty doesn't seem to pay off with Canon.
I hear the opposing views. No I don't want the 5D-IV either.

Close-up and wide; pretty neat - Zoomed in.... kind of sucks.

This lens shows the typical trade-offs you get when using super zoom lenses.

Theres obviously big tradeoffs in IQ when using a lens with 10x zoom, even on a very capable FF-Sensor. So i really wonder if the image quality is still considerable better than that of a Bridge Camera that will come at the price of the lens and will offer an even bigger range of 24-600mm.
Would be interesting to compare those options.

My impression is, if you want a lens to do it all, better buy a camera that can do it all instead, for the same price.

On a side note, the visit to the race track illustrates the big problem for motorsports shooters very well, The catch fencing, One has to move up to the top of the stands to shoot over the top of the fencing, and suddenly 240mm is to short a focal length, unless you have lots of megapixels to crop away.

I don't think it's a lens for anyone looking to replace a few lenses for one all-around lens. It's a nice kit lens for people who don't own any lenses looking to fill up their focal lengths thinking this is the the only lens they'll ever need to buy for an expensive hobby. Images look fine but lack any character to give you that mesmerizing feeling to draw you into the photo. Looks a little better than smartphone photos with some separation from the background and foreground.

I suspect that the Tamron 16-300 and a Canon/Nikon/Sony 24mp APS-C entry level camera would be a cheaper, more practical choice for 99% of the realistic uses of this lens?

Miracle didn't happen this time. Canon 24-240 is just as bad as Sony. I suspect 24-105 cropped to 240 would probably look better.
On Monday, a tsunami of preorder cancellations will hit every large retailer.

This looks like a great lens for what it is intended to be. I think for a lot of R system owners this will be a must-have lens and a very practical one to own.

As usual, all the shots at the long end are shot wide open. Super-zooms usually sharpen quite a bit when stopped down. F/8 is often enough. As it is now, it's impossible to evaluate the lens' potential at the long end, and the long end is the whole point with a super-zoom, isn't it?

I'm not a fan of superzooms, but IQ seems pretty good considering the very wide range. CA is clearly pretty severe at the wide and long ends, with quite a lot of fringing left even when corrected, but this seems much better in the 35-100 range, where cross-frame sharpness also seems pretty good. The other weak point seems to be sharpness at the longer end, although that's difficult to judge due to the heat haze in many of long focal length shots and potential for motion blur in others. Nevertheless, I suspect it will be better than most other zooms of similar FL range.
If you really need the compositional versatility in one lens and don't need top-level image quality in every shot then it's probably a good option. For others (me included), this isn't going to challenge a double or triple zoom setup.

I have not looked at the pictures, but I think this lens makes sense if moving forward Canon just focuses on full frame.

The issue with APSC now is the lack of lens, size and cost. Yet many APSC shooters remain because of cost and size. The 24-240 is essentially a 15-150 f2.8-f4ish in APSC land which would be a competent lens in the APSC sphere when all you have are f3.5 and above zooms.

I think in the future everyone will move to full frame as a standard, with aperture size used to vary the size and prices of lens so that APSC upgraders can get a step in. And the beauty of this is that it caters to everyone -- people can step in with a cheaper FF camera and lens at the first instance, and then slowly upgrade his lens collection along the way if he so chooses. His current lens will still remain useful unlike a APSC user choosing to upgrade to FF

The era of the superzooms have the optical quality of a coke bottle are long gone. Not my cup of tea but the IQ is actually pretty good. With ever more egregious weight restrictions on a lot of airlines, we may ultimately forced to taking say 2 lenses max on holidays. I'd still have preferred it to be f/5.6 even 24-200 f/3.5-5.6 would be quite desirable and just add a 16-35 f/4 for a nice two lens setup.

Doesn't look too bad. But who on earth would grill oysters????

should be F2.8-F4. start at F4-F6.3 is too slow. Canon R's high iso is not great.

Looks like another fine addition to the growing RF line. This lens may not be for everyone, but I somehow think it would make a good grab and go lens due to its lighter weight than an L lens. It looks like L optical quality, minus the L construction.

Image 20, the dog is driving and posing for the camera at the same time, someone call the pawwlice!

Spectacularly adequate.

This lens is doing a great job to make all the effort to go "full frame" pointless.

If someone feels they need to go FF "because, well, its about the quality isn't it" and then buy this lens, they instantly forego the whole point of going FF in the first place.

Just buy an RX100 and get on with life. It will do all you want to do. Stop pretending you are really into photography.

"All non-essential lens corrections disabled"

What does that even mean?
https://ibb.co/RzKvMyy

Seems like the holy trinity of lens corrections is enabled. Distortion, vignetting, as well as chromatic aberrations. So there are really all corrections active that can be automatically applied.

So why not write "all automatic corrections enabled"

PS: I hope I made it clear. I am NOT against automatic corrections. I think you should enable the automatic trinity for all systems. Just label the images the correct way.

I'm a bit surprised that there aren't some more moderate options out there for FF users.

25-150mm/f4.5-6.3, perhaps?

You would almost certainly end up with higher resolution, significantly less weight, and lower cost all at once.

What a fantastic complement such a lens would be (at maybe ~450g?) to a small f/1.8 prime or two.

More than good enough sharpness for 99.9% of RP users, I would guess.

A wider maximum aperture at the 240mm end would be nice, but that would mean sacrificing the compactness and lightweight.

The price is excessive for a lens designed for a budget camera, but I guess it will drop to a more acceptable level fairly soon, as Canon always launch their products at 30-40% overpriced, and allow market to determine a sensible price a few months later.

Nice starburst through the trees shot, Carey.