# Canon RF 24-240mm f/4-6.3 IS USM sample gallery



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 18, 2019)

> DPReview has posted a sample gallery of images from the upcoming RF 24-240mm f/4-6.3 IS USM, a lens that will likely be quite popular with EOS R shooters.
> The sample gallery over at DPReview shows this new superzoom is quite capable and should become a favourite amongst travel shooters and folks that want one affordable lens to do it all. Check out the images at DPReview.
> Preorder the Canon RF 24-240mm f/4-6.3 IS USM at Adorama



Continue reading...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 18, 2019)

The first thing that caught my eye was how uncomfortable the out of focus areas were. They grabbed my attention more than the areas that were sharply in focus. This is a lens that requires you to be careful with compositions and not allow foreground or background out of focus objects to dominate.

I have, like many other R users been waiting to see exactly what the lens can do. A 10:1 zoom is definitely a compromise, I've had the two "L" 10:1 zooms and was generally pleased with the image quality including out of focus areas. Those lenses were huge and expensive, so I wondered what I'd get for a popularly priced lens.

Right now, my 24-70 L II has been on my camera almost permanently. It is very good, but seems to lack something compared to using it with my 5D MK IV.


----------



## Jethro (Aug 18, 2019)

The first two picture are interesting: the first one does have a harsh (out of focus) background, although the close up (out of focus) background in the second I personally would be happy with. I'm not really in the market for it, but I think I'd be a bit equivocal if I was.


----------



## josephandrews222 (Aug 19, 2019)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> The first thing that caught my eye was how uncomfortable the out of focus areas were. They grabbed my attention more than the areas that were sharply in focus. This is a lens that requires you to be careful with compositions and not allow foreground or background out of focus objects to dominate.
> 
> I have, like many other R users been waiting to see exactly what the lens can do. A 10:1 zoom is definitely a compromise, I've had the two "L" 10:1 zooms and was generally pleased with the image quality including out of focus areas. Those lenses were huge and expensive, so I wondered what I'd get for a popularly priced lens.
> 
> Right now, my 24-70 L II has been on my camera almost permanently. It is very good, but seems to lack something compared to using it with my 5D MK IV.



no snark intended: Can you elaborate a bit on "Right now, my 24-70 L II has been on my camera almost permanently. It is very good, but seems to lack something compared to using it with my 5D MK IV."

Thanks.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 19, 2019)

Pictures show what we already know - it is versatile. The quality seems decent without serious inspection.

Jack


----------



## LSXPhotog (Aug 19, 2019)

Man I love reading the comments on DPReview. Possibly the most ignorant collection of photography enthusiasts on the internet.


----------



## BillB (Aug 19, 2019)

LSXPhotog said:


> Man I love reading the comments on DPReview. Possibly the most ignorant collection of photography enthusiasts on the internet.


Not photography enthusiasts. Photographic equipment enthusiasts.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 19, 2019)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> The first thing that caught my eye was how uncomfortable the out of focus areas were. They grabbed my attention more than the areas that were sharply in focus.


Not enough cats in focus.

Bokeh is ugly, but many pictures seem to be a bit overexposed.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 19, 2019)

I would not have used several of those images to show the capabilities of a lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 19, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> I would not have used several of those images to show the capabilities of a lens.


Perhaps the motivations of those showing the capabilities of the lens should be considered.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 19, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Perhaps the motivations of those showing the capabilities of the lens should be considered.


Your bias is showing. I wouldn't read too much into this. "We need to fill a sample gallery with a bunch of shots using this lens, let's hit the usual spots and subjects: musicians, street portraits, water, scenery, etc." Probably shot them all in an afternoon focusing on whatever caught their attention. Not great photography, but also representative of the types of subjects and skill set of the target audience.

Frankly, all these sample galleries tend to be useless.


----------



## bitcars (Aug 19, 2019)

I can see the lens being quite versatile, with useful telephoto/wide angle in a pinch. Paired with a RP, it could easily outperform IQ of anything at this price range.

Chromatic aberration seems pretty good overall from 40mm - 180mm. To me the pictures within 50mm - 150mm look the best. Very little color fringing, sharp from edge to edge, and a lot of details.

However, on both the widest (24-32mm) and narrowest (200-240mm) ends, CA becomes pretty noticeable, especially towards the edges of the lens. Sometimes the fringing green/magenta lines are wide enough to see without zoom in. I think this may be the biggest issue of this super zoom lens.

In-body processing seems to remove quite a bit of the color fringing (at least for some pictures at 24mm), though it is not perfect.

I know someone will complaint about the bokeh quality. Surely it isn't as buttery as a RF 80mm at 1.2, but most of these pictures are shot at F5 and higher anyway, at such aperture who would expect the background to melt away? With that said, subject separation looks very natural to me. e.g. The dragonfly picture (shot at 240mm) looks quite pleasant at a glance. The issue is when you zoom in, the color fringing is eating away the micro details.


----------



## ozturert (Aug 19, 2019)

Pictures at 240mm f6.3 look horrible in the gallery but I downloaded RAW files of some of those and processesed in ACR, now they look A LOT better than OOC Jpegs. I mean, a lot. The latest ACR also has a profile for the 24-240mm.


----------



## littleB (Aug 19, 2019)

Two main points should be addressed by this DPR gallery.

1. Canon is *******.
2. The dynamic range of Canon lenses is so much worse than of Sonies. See point 1 for the rest of details.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 19, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Perhaps the motivations of those showing the capabilities of the lens should be considered.


It looks like they only had the lens for a very short time and rushed around to get the pictures. Shooting action through a chain link fence says more about the photographer (and venue restrictions) than it does about the lens. You can take bad images with the finest equipment.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 19, 2019)

bitcars said:


> I know someone will complaint about the bokeh quality. Surely it isn't as buttery as a RF 80mm at 1.2, but most of these pictures are shot at F5 and higher anyway, at such aperture who would expect the background to melt away?


The problem is that the bokeh balls have a noticeable unpleasant structure.



bitcars said:


> The dragonfly picture (shot at 240mm) looks quite pleasant at a glance.


One of the many pictures that look overexposed.


----------



## navastronia (Aug 19, 2019)

Bokeh is unremarkable, but definitely not horrible or even worth mentioning, IMO.

Images appear less sharp and CA becomes overwhelming around 150mm or so.

Overall, this seems like a perfect kit lens.


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 19, 2019)

navastronia said:


> Bokeh is unremarkable, but definitely not horrible or even worth mentioning, IMO.
> 
> Images appear less sharp and CA becomes overwhelming around 150mm or so.
> 
> Overall, this seems like a perfect kit lens.



for a $900.00 lens? uhm, I am going to catch some serious flames over this, but I am thoroughly unimpressed. this is a kit lens? Yes. A perfect one? Hell, no..


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 19, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> for a $900.00 lens? uhm, I am going to catch some serious flames over this, but I am thoroughly unimpressed. this is a kit lens? Yes. A perfect one? Hell, no..


I would not take this as a good example of the capabilities of the lens. It looks like things were rushed and processing may not have been optimal. Wait till the lens makes it out into the real world and you start seeing sample images on this (and other) forums. I have seen better images taken with crop cameras and the 18-200, a lens that nobody has described as stellar...… I can't imagine this combo not being better.


----------



## navastronia (Aug 19, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> I would not take this as a good example of the capabilities of the lens. It looks like things were rushed and processing may not have been optimal. Wait till the lens makes it out into the real world and you start seeing sample images on this (and other) forums. I have seen better images taken with crop cameras and the 18-200, a lens that nobody has described as stellar...… I can't imagine this combo not being better.





unfocused said:


> Your bias is showing. I wouldn't read too much into this. "We need to fill a sample gallery with a bunch of shots using this lens, let's hit the usual spots and subjects: musicians, street portraits, water, scenery, etc." Probably shot them all in an afternoon focusing on whatever caught their attention. Not great photography, but also representative of the types of subjects and skill set of the target audience.
> 
> Frankly, all these sample galleries tend to be useless.



The whole point of DPReview's galleries is that they're amateurish; the photos are never great, and certainly show off the equipment more than any photographer's abilities. The majority of the time, an experienced shooter will make better images than those found on DPR


----------



## navastronia (Aug 19, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> for a $900.00 lens? uhm, I am going to catch some serious flames over this, but I am thoroughly unimpressed. this is a kit lens? Yes. A perfect one? Hell, no..



Is there a better full frame, one-lens solution available for a mirrorless system?


----------



## jolyonralph (Aug 19, 2019)

navastronia said:


> Is there a better full frame, one-lens solution available for a mirrorless system?



The Sony FE 24-240 ?


----------



## navastronia (Aug 19, 2019)

jolyonralph said:


> The Sony FE 24-240 ?



1/3 of a stop brighter and 4 years older, but not much to brag about re: image quality.









Sony FE 24-240mm f/3.5-6.3 OSS


View Sony FE 24-240mm f/3.5-6.3 OSS from DPReview.




www.dpreview.com


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 19, 2019)

navastronia said:


> Is there a better full frame, one-lens solution available for a mirrorless system?


Yes, 24-105/4. What’s your point anyway?


----------



## YuengLinger (Aug 19, 2019)

I think they look pretty good for a lens with this range. The price will come down. Personally, I'll pass because of the tight aperture at the long end; I'd rather sacrifice the length even when travelling and go with the 24-105mm for a one-lens solution.


----------



## navastronia (Aug 19, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> Yes, 24-105/4. What’s your point anyway?



More expensive and half the focal length range. My point, in regard to your first reply, is that if you want more out of a kit lens, you're not really talking about kit lenses anymore.

You claim this lens doesn't impress you. Why should it?


----------



## bitcars (Aug 19, 2019)

Kit. said:


> One of the many pictures that look overexposed.



Not sure why exposure is dragged into a lens discussion? Are we also going to talk about ISO and dynamic range too? Because there are a lot left to be desired in that department as well..

Doesn't matter the style used or how amateurish the photographer look, we are looking at lens performance here. Harsh light actually helps expose issues in sharpness, detail, chromatic aberration. If everything is soft and well lid, posed and framed all artsy fartsy, then people are going to say "Oh now DP review just try to pick some easy scenes, of course the lens can perform well."


----------



## bitcars (Aug 19, 2019)

jolyonralph said:


> The Sony FE 24-240 ?


Sorry but the Sony lens does not seem to match the IQ in what we see from the RF 24-240. Its images are much softer throughout the entire zoom range, but offered at the same price.



SecureGSM said:


> Yes, 24-105/4. What’s your point anyway?



Looking at sample pictures from DP review, at around 100mm I feel RF 24-240 looks better than RF 24-105/4. They have about the same sharpness but AC is controlled better from 24-240 mm.

Other pluses for a 24-240mm:
Reaches much further, cheaper, and lighter (big plus for travel).


----------



## melgross (Aug 19, 2019)

jolyonralph said:


> The Sony FE 24-240 ?


Not exactly a very good lens.


----------



## melgross (Aug 19, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> Yes, 24-105/4. What’s your point anyway?


This is a 10:1 lens for $900. It seems that people don’t want to keep that in mind. It’s actually fairly cheap for what it is. And it seems to be pretty good for what it is. Not everybody makes a big deal out bokeh. In fact, most people would never notice so called good bokeh from bad.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 19, 2019)

navastronia said:


> The whole point of DPReview's galleries is that they're amateurish; the photos are never great, and certainly show off the equipment more than any photographer's abilities.


The G5X II gallery looks good.



bitcars said:


> Not sure why exposure is dragged into a lens discussion?


Because overexposure not only leads to loss of details in highlights, but also makes lens deficiencies (flare, ugly bokeh, color fringing...) more pronounced?


----------



## Dantana (Aug 19, 2019)

It looked like a gallery of vacation snaps to me, which is how I would expect a lot of people would use this lens. I'm not sure what people on this board expect sometimes.

The dragonfly looks proper on my work monitor, though the surroundings might be a bit over. More of a bad composition thing in my opinion.

Hard to really tell a whole lot except that it's not horrible. I think we'd see that if it was.

I hope it's a nice bit of glass for what it is. I had the 18-200 when I was on crop and I was never in love with it even though it was convenient.


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 19, 2019)

Dantana said:


> [..]
> 
> The dragonfly looks proper on my work monitor, though the surroundings might be a bit over. More of a bad composition thing in my opinion.
> [..]



My issue with the dragonfly shot it that it's shot at 1/1000s at f/6.3, instead of say f/11 and slower shutter speed. It makes it hard to judge if something is slightly outside the DoF or just plain soft.

Having said that, running it through DPP with all corrections enabled (except DLO, no profile for download yet) makes it look quite good. I haven't tried LR with the new adobe lens profile yet.


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 19, 2019)

navastronia said:


> More expensive and half the focal length range. My point, in regard to your first reply, is that if you want more out of a kit lens, you're not really talking about kit lenses anymore.
> 
> You claim this lens doesn't impress you. Why should it?


24-105/4 is a kit lens as well but a really good one instead. 
Yes, x10 zoom is a difficult one. 
The point in case though: I don’t see this lens being a good value at all.


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 19, 2019)

bitcars said:


> Sorry but the Sony lens does not seem to match the IQ in what we see from the RF 24-240. Its images are much softer throughout the entire zoom range, but offered at the same price.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I see you point: Other pluses for a 24-240mm:
Reaches much further, cheaper, and lighter (big plus for travel)
Fair enough  no comments.


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 19, 2019)

melgross said:


> This is a 10:1 lens for $900. It seems that people don’t want to keep that in mind. It’s actually fairly cheap for what it is. And it seems to be pretty good for what it is. Not everybody makes a big deal out bokeh. In fact, most people would never notice so called good bokeh from bad.


Thanks for the note. Goes to demonstrate that law of physics hard to defeat. Hence I shoot with 24-70 +70-200 combo instead. 
However, I dare to say: I dislike what I see and found some of the images to be revolting in terms of rendition, micro contrast and overall saturation. 
Travelling? 24-105/4 would cover me in 90% of all my cases. 
Alternative: 24-70/4 + 70-200/4
Yes, a bit more expensive. Around AUD 2000 for a kit used or refurb.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 20, 2019)

melgross said:


> This is a 10:1 lens for $900. It seems that people don’t want to keep that in mind. It’s actually fairly cheap for what it is. And it seems to be pretty good for what it is. Not everybody makes a big deal out bokeh. In fact, most people would never notice so called good bokeh from bad.


I'm one of the latter, which is why I was suprised that it seemed to jump out at me. Of course, a photographer learns to work within the limitations of his equipment and would not publish a photo where the intended subject was not what caught your eye.

However, in defense of DPR, they are right to show us what the lens can and can't do. Its not supposed to be anything more than reporting. The bad bokeh does not disqualify the lens from use, I've seen much worse, its just something to be aware of when composing.

A image from my Canon EF 35-350. Bokeh is not great, but by darkening the background, the worst of it is hidden.

A used 35-350 L goes on ebay for $500-700 in good condition, but its not a carry around lens for sure.


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 20, 2019)

That is actually a lovely image Mt SP. thank you.


----------



## Mark D5 TEAM II (Aug 20, 2019)

Methinks some people are too harsh on a 10x *non-L* kit zoom...


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 20, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Perhaps the motivations of those showing the capabilities of the lens should be considered.


If the motivations of those showing the capabilities of the lens needs to be considered, it would have been a lot better if they had taken the time to explain those motivations.


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 20, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> If the motivations of those showing the capabilities of the lens needs to be considered, it would have been a lot better if they had taken the time to explain those motivations.



From a purely procedural standpoint I find it awkward that cameras and lenses with the option to *disable* lens corrections get penalized over the ones where you cannot disable them.
For the cameras that do have that option it would be nice to show SOOC jpegs with and without corrections for a similar scene.


----------



## melgross (Aug 20, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> Thanks for the note. Goes to demonstrate that law of physics hard to defeat. Hence I shoot with 24-70 +70-200 combo instead.
> However, I dare to say: I dislike what I see and found some of the images to be revolting in terms of rendition, micro contrast and overall saturation.
> Travelling? 24-105/4 would cover me in 90% of all my cases.
> Alternative: 24-70/4 + 70-200/4
> Yes, a bit more expensive. Around AUD 2000 for a kit used or refurb.


Again, this is a 10:1 zoom for $900. Revolting? Seriously?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 20, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> If the motivations of those showing the capabilities of the lens needs to be considered, it would have been a lot better if they had taken the time to explain those motivations.


I suspect the motivation in this case was to take a bunch of pictures of various subjects in a limited amount of time. 

I’m personally interested in the lens, but I’m reserving judgement until more thorough evaluations are available.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 20, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> I suspect the motivation in this case was to take a bunch of pictures of various subjects in a limited amount of time.
> 
> I’m personally interested in the lens, but I’m reserving judgement until more thorough evaluations are available.



I agree! Take this lens and an RP and there is nothing that comes close in the bang-for-the-buck! As to quality, I am sure that it will beat the 18-200 crop lens, but how much? I will be very curious to see some of the images on this site after the lens is released.


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 20, 2019)

melgross said:


> Again, this is a 10:1 zoom for $900. Revolting? Seriously?


It does, to my eyes. 10:1 or not. Sorry. 

$450 will buy you a refurb or slightly used 24-70 f4 with extra $450 left in your pocket towards 70-200/4 lens refurb or slightly used currently available brand new at around $500 brand new.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 21, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> $450 will buy you a refurb or slightly used 24-70 f4 with extra $450 left in your pocket towards 70-200/4 lens refurb or slightly used currently available brand new at around $500 brand new.


That’s twice the weight and twice the bulk, and lots of lens changes. I suspect the target market for this lens is choosing portability and convenience over optimal IQ. That is the motivation for my interest, at least.

On my last trip, juggling the 24-105/4, 70-300L and three kids on an island beach was a PITA. The 24-240 would have been ideal. 

For photography-based travel (or solo business travel where photography is an option), even if I end up getting the 24-240, I’d likely still take the RF 24–105, along with the TS-E 17 and possibly the 11-24L.


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 21, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> That’s twice the weight and twice the bulk, and lots of lens changes. I suspect the target market for this lens is choosing portability and convenience over optimal IQ. That is the motivation for my interest, at least.
> 
> On my last trip, juggling the 24-105/4, 70-300L and three kids on an island beach was a PITA. The 24-240 would have been ideal.
> 
> For photography-based travel (or solo business travel where photography is an option), even if I end up getting the 24-240, I’d likely still take the RF 24–105, along with the TS-E 17 and possibly the 11-24L.



I would just go with a M5/6 or MkII when available. at all. plus 15-45 EF-m lens or even 15-85 EF-S adapted or 18-135 of the same. That’s for beach. 24-240 seems to be to much of a compromise. 24-150-ish would of been a nice range to have with hopefully a bit better optical quality offered. 
I am personally extremely interested in m5/6 II with 15-45 plus 70-200/4 as a kit. 
Potentially Sigma 18-35/1.8 + 50-100/1.8 when that becomes available on EF-m or even adapted immediately. Really really keen to understand how is that going to work out for natural and flashlight photography.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 21, 2019)

littleB said:


> Two main points should be addressed by this DPR gallery.
> 
> 1. Canon is *******.
> 2. The dynamic range of Canon lenses is so much worse than of Sonies. See point 1 for the rest of details.


OMG! Sonies vs Bronies... are they the same species?  I won't post the link, but just go to YouTube and search for Bronies the Musical. It is a real subculture.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 21, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> Yes, 24-105/4. What’s your point anyway?


Yup! It isn't a superzoom, but is a fine lens. Got one with my R, but sold it two weeks later to help get a prime. Good lens.


----------



## dcm (Aug 21, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> I would just go with a M5/6 or MkII when available. at all. plus 15-45 EF-m lens or even 15-85 EF-S adapted or 18-135 of the same. That’s for beach. 24-240 seems to be to much of a compromise. 24-150-ish would of been a nice range to have with hopefully a bit better optical quality offered.
> I am personally extremely interested in m5/6 II with 15-45 plus 70-200/4 as a kit.
> Potentially Sigma 18-35/1.8 + 50-100/1.8 when that becomes available on EF-m or even adapted immediately. Really really keen to understand how is that going to work out for natural and flashlight photography.



I think the real question for me is M?/18-150 n(29-240 equiv) or R?/24-240 for a general purpose one lens setup? I already have the M setup, along with the 11-22 when I want to go wide, a 70-300 when I want to go long, and primes for low light and macro. Also have 1DX2 with zooms from 11-400 and some primes when I am a bit more serious about what I'm doing and don't mind the weight/bulk. 

Still, like Neuro, there are some situations where an R? might be interesting fit between the others. I'll be upgrading an M body and adding an R body before too long. I'm fortunate that I can afford to do both. I also can wait till the next M and R releases to see what makes the best fit. Looks like there are going to be plenty of options.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 21, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> That’s twice the weight and twice the bulk, and lots of lens changes. I suspect the target market for this lens is choosing portability and convenience over optimal IQ. That is the motivation for my interest, at least.
> 
> On my last trip, juggling the 24-105/4, 70-300L and three kids on an island beach was a PITA. The 24-240 would have been ideal.
> 
> For photography-based travel (or solo business travel where photography is an option), even if I end up getting the 24-240, I’d likely still take the RF 24–105, along with the TS-E 17 and possibly the 11-24L.


Exactly, a one lens solution for many applications. A wide and fast lens is still nice to have while traveling, but for most vacation type users, it may be a good choice.

I'm expecting to get one, just waiting to see what respected photographers think. I see a 10% discount already thru the employee discount store. That is about the same as the B&H price after they rebate the sales tax when you use their credit card.


----------



## geffy (Sep 1, 2019)

disappointing, i will continue with my 35 to 350 or m series 18 150 as a one stop for now, hopefully a better body will come with a super zoom lens as the technology is already there, 35 lenses is quite a collection and mood often accompanies suitability with choice, the future is zooms with a couple of fixed, already the 100 to 400 is a one stop for the physically fit, wheres the granddad lens, in grandma canon?


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 1, 2019)

DPP 40.10.50 (The Canon Hong Kong site has it) supports DLO for the RF24-240, it shows a moderate improvement e.g. the hairs on the dragonfly in the DPReview gallery look sharper. The BBQ inspector and two-people-walking shots are now free of CA as well.
Reports on the DPReview forum mention heavy focus breathing, at close focus distance the 240mm has the same field of few as the EF70-200. Further away the FoV does seem narrower.

I'm still undecided if I want to get this vs the EF70-200F4L IS II.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 1, 2019)

dcm said:


> I think the real question for me is M?/18-150 n(29-240 equiv) or R?/24-240 for a general purpose one lens setup? I already have the M setup, along with the 11-22 when I want to go wide, a 70-300 when I want to go long, and primes for low light and macro. Also have 1DX2 with zooms from 11-400 and some primes when I am a bit more serious about what I'm doing and don't mind the weight/bulk.
> 
> Still, like Neuro, there are some situations where an R? might be interesting fit between the others. I'll be upgrading an M body and adding an R body before too long. I'm fortunate that I can afford to do both. I also can wait till the next M and R releases to see what makes the best fit. Looks like there are going to be plenty of options.


I think that for me it’s going to be the M6/18-150 as the one lens setup. It is small enough to use almost anywhere and even fits the “snack hatch” in my touring kayak.


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 19, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> That’s twice the weight and twice the bulk, and lots of lens changes. I suspect the target market for this lens is choosing portability and convenience over optimal IQ. That is the motivation for my interest, at least.
> 
> On my last trip, juggling the 24-105/4, 70-300L and three kids on an island beach was a PITA. The 24-240 would have been ideal.
> 
> For photography-based travel (or solo business travel where photography is an option), even if I end up getting the 24-240, I’d likely still take the RF 24–105, along with the TS-E 17 and possibly the 11-24L.



This professional seems happy with the compromises.









Testing the New Canon RF 24-240mm Over Three Weeks in Pakistan


I can't even begin to describe how excited I was about trying out the new Canon RF 24-240mm f/4-6.3 IS. Full disclosure: I’m a Canon Ambassador and two




petapixel.com







> In my opinion, this lens would be a reason to consider switching to the Canon mirrorless system.




Sometimes I think people look for deficiencies purely because they can and because they know it is a new lens. If we did not know it was a new 24-240, I suspect many people would not be so critical and instead take it as face value and think 'nice shot'.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Sep 23, 2019)

So glad I didn't read these reviews and simply bought the RF 24-240mm. I shot over 200 shots with it at Stowe Gardens last weekend and I have to say I was very pleased with the results used with my EOS R. Sure you have to keep in mind its a £ 899.00 lens and being a 10-1 will always be a bit of a compromise. But as a single walk around lens that doesn't break your back carrying it all afternoon its ideal and will definitely be my vacation package.


----------



## BbBbBbBbBb (Sep 25, 2019)

I have had the RF 24-240 for a few weeks now. It’s a good lens. I enjoy it. Here are the pros and cons:

Pros:
1. Long range with consistent sharp shots. 

2. Quick and quiet auto focus.

3. Build quality. It may not be an L series lens, but it has a nice tight barrel. It maybe a lot of plastic, but it doesn’t feel cheap. It’s pretty light. Good for the back when traveling.

4. 5 stop Image Stabilization is incredible. I tested it out by going on a ride similar to Dumbo at Disneyland with my kid and seeing if I could get shots of my wife eating while my daughter bounced me up and down. While the shots weren’t perfect, they were still somewhat in focus. It’s far more forgiving than any of my prior lenses. Works great with video. Nearly every shot is in focus hand held. If it’s not it’s usually user error. Can’t say that about any of my other lenses.

5. Between 35-200 I can get shots that really captures the clarity and sharpness I look for in most shots. 200-240 can create some decent portraits while losing the background. In terms of sharpness I would put it far ahead of non L zoom lenses, but behind some of the shorter focal L series zooms. The EF 50mm F/1.8 is a perfect companion to bring along as a two lens travel pack.

Cons:

1. Heavy vignetting at 24-30. They have profile corrections for the lens, but distortion corrections can make photos look a bit flat if it’s not a minor adjustment. Some might not mind, but I keep my lens at 35 and above when possible.

2. It’s not the RF 24-70 2.8 IS or the RF 70-200 2.8 IS. It takes great shots, but sometimes it’s missing that special factor that makes you drool. This is why a good prime lens needs to be in the bag. Every once in a while you need to just take a jaw dropping shot and this lens will get you a really good gourmet pizza instead of the steak you were looking for.

3. Slow. 4.0 on the low end that quickly goes to 5.0 and eventually over 6.0 by about 180. It’s a different kind of lens than most. If you are looking for consistent shots it might be best to stick the aperture at 5.5 and above. The EOS R frame can do well up to 12800 with noise levels with this lens, but it is strangely dark. It captures a lot of detail with noise corrections take off the frame, but photo editing software is a must unless you stick with JPEGs and turn on all the corrections. A unique lens to be sure.

4. This should have been a 35-240 lens. The 240 end doesn’t bother me at all. It’s great for scoping out my kid from across the play yard or catching a family member in a moment without being noticed. It keeps pretty good clarity at that end as well. The wide side is a fish eye being stretched. It is easily adjusted in Lightroom, but then you get all the issues of distortion corrections.

Final thoughts: I compared the lens against EF-s lenses such as the 17-55 2.8, 10-18, and EF lenses such as the EF 50mm 1.8 EF 24-70mm L II and the 100mm L IS. Also compared it with the RF 24-105. The 100 mm by far had the best shots and it wasn’t close. The 24-70 was sharper to a lesser degree. Has the it factor missing from the 24-240. The 50 mm still surprises me with how sharp it is. Required companion for 24-240. EF-s lenses just looked like they didn’t belong in the same group. Selling them the first chance I get. The RF 24-105 is more consistent in its range. Brighter and faster, but also shorter range. I didn’t see a significant difference between the two lenses from about 35-105 in sharpness. The 24-105 was slightly sharper, but it’s not in an overtly obvious way. I bought the lens for 400 as part of a package with the EOS R and at that price I got more value than what I paid. At 900 it becomes a value trade off between the RF 24-105. If you need range 24-240 is great. If you want weather sealing, more speed, and and a more consistent aperture the 24-105 is the better deal.


----------



## Bennymiata (Sep 26, 2019)

I also just bought the lens a couple of days ago, together with an R as there are really good promo pricing going on in Sydney.
I've got an EF24-105 and the 28-70 is very appealing to me, except the price, so I thought I'd get the 24-240 as a walk around lens.
I wasn't expecting too much from it, but it really surprises me with its colour and contrast. The images are very similar to my 24-105L and the focus hit rate of this lens compared to my 24-105 on my 5D3 is definitely better.
There is a lot of mechanical vignetting in the 24mm-32mm range, but only in the RAW images and not the jpegs.

Here's some examples. The top shot is from the original RAW and the other one is the jpeg off the card.





Here's a flower I shot today with the 24-240.
Not bad for a walk-around lens.


----------



## flip314 (Sep 26, 2019)

Bennymiata said:


> There is a lot of mechanical vignetting in the 24mm-32mm range, but only in the RAW images and not the jpegs.



Wow, usually when people complain about vignetting they're overexaggerating, but you're not kidding... Those corners look BLACK without the correction.


----------



## Kit. (Sep 26, 2019)

flip314 said:


> Wow, usually when people complain about vignetting they're overexaggerating, but you're not kidding... Those corners look BLACK without the correction.


They _are_ black. The lens is wider than 24, and 24 is obtained by distortion correction, which involves cropping.


----------



## StoicalEtcher (Sep 26, 2019)

Bennymiata said:


> There is a lot of mechanical vignetting in the 24mm-32mm range, but only in the RAW images and not the jpegs.


I'm not an expert on optical design and nomenclature, but isn't vignetting "light fall-off" towards the corners of a shot? - What your shot shows looks more like something actually blocking the shot (like the edge of the lens!), in the same way that a poorly fitted hood or deep screw-on filter might.

Either way doesn't really matter ultimately - you get black corners, and the jpeg/correction to 24mm is ok - but I don't think "vignetting" is right - it looks like "obstruction".


----------



## Bennymiata (Sep 26, 2019)

It does seem to be mechanical blocking rather than light fall-off in the corners.
The pic I showed was at F6.3. It will be worse wide open.
I'll try to take somemore shots at 24mm and wide open.

The lens is quite good apart from this problem, and worth the money.


----------



## flip314 (Sep 26, 2019)

Bennymiata said:


> It does seem to be mechanical blocking rather than light fall-off in the corners.
> The pic I showed was at F6.3. It will be worse wide open.
> I'll try to take somemore shots at 24mm and wide open.
> 
> The lens is quite good apart from this problem, and worth the money.



There are always compromises in super-zooms, but this one seems potentially excessive... Several people have recommended shooting no wider than 35mm, but the 24-35mm range is quite useful. No doubt it's probably still good enough in a pinch.

Are the full corrections applied in the EVF? Does the view look like the JPG or the RAW?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 26, 2019)

StoicalEtcher said:


> I'm not an expert on optical design and nomenclature, but isn't vignetting "light fall-off" towards the corners of a shot? - What your shot shows looks more like something actually blocking the shot (like the edge of the lens!), in the same way that a poorly fitted hood or deep screw-on filter might.


Optical vignetting is light fall off due to the lens design. Mechanical vignetting is when something physically blocks the periphery of the image, such as too thick a stack of filters. The latter is what appears to be happening with the 24-240, although it does seem that is by Canon’s design.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 26, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Optical vignetting is light fall off due to the lens design. Mechanical vignetting is when something physically blocks the periphery of the image, such as too thick a stack of filters. The latter is what appears to be happening with the 24-240, although it does seem that is by Canon’s design.



How does Canon have any control over how many filters people put on?

Or is it (potentially) something that's part of the lens assembly (the actual casing) or the lens hood?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 26, 2019)

SteveC said:


> How does Canon have any control over how many filters people put on?
> 
> Or is it (potentially) something that's part of the lens assembly (the actual casing) or the lens hood?


“The latter” was in reference to mechanical vignetting versus optical vignetting (a stack of filters is merely an example of one cause of mechanical vignetting). .Something within the lens itself is physically blocking the light from filling the aperture. Almost certainly a necessary compromise of the super zoom design and price point of the lens.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 27, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> “The latter” was in reference to mechanical vignetting versus optical vignetting (a stack of filters is merely an example of one cause of mechanical vignetting). .Something within the lens itself is physically blocking the light from filling the aperture. Almost certainly a necessary compromise of the super zoom design and price point of the lens.



So basically, anything in the lens design that isn't the actual glass parts that could partially obstruct the light path could be mechanical vignetting...but if the optics design itself is causing the image to be too small in diameter (i.e., it won't cover the sensor) or makes it dark near the corners, that's optical vignetting.

I guess, either way--it was a decision by Canon, and they figured it could be counter-acted in software, hence JPEGs that look just fine. But they have had massive corrections done on them, and such will likely introduce loss of (for lack of my knowing the right term) fidelity of the image. I am thinking (at this point) Canon pushed the range of the zoom too far (10x) for this to be a truly <I>optically</I> high quality lens--the hardware can't by itself do what is being asked of it. (I tread on thin ice here and may be using the wrong words to convey my meaning, or both.)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 27, 2019)

SteveC said:


> So basically, anything in the lens design that isn't the actual glass parts that could partially obstruct the light path could be mechanical vignetting...but if the optics design itself is causing the image to be too small in diameter (i.e., it won't cover the sensor) or makes it dark near the corners, that's optical vignetting.
> 
> I guess, either way--it was a decision by Canon, and they figured it could be counter-acted in software, hence JPEGs that look just fine. But they have had massive corrections done on them, and such will likely introduce loss of (for lack of my knowing the right term) fidelity of the image. I am thinking (at this point) Canon pushed the range of the zoom too far (10x) for this to be a truly <I>optically</I> high quality lens--the hardware can't by itself do what is being asked of it. (I tread on thin ice here and may be using the wrong words to convey my meaning, or both.)


Agreed. I had the 28-300L — similar IQ to 24-105L lenses, but a big, heavy lens. Getting a 10x range in a package not much bigger than a 24-105 means compromising IQ.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 27, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Agreed. I had the 28-300L — similar IQ to 24-105L lenses, but a big, heavy lens. Getting a 10x range in a package not much bigger than a 24-105 means compromising IQ.



I have the Tamron 18-200 (for M mount). It undoubtedly distorts, too, but not as badly. This is likely because of the fact that it's APS-C, though. Imagine applying a 1.6 crop to the RAW file above, the result wouldn't look nearly as bad because the worst distortion is towards the edges. (Incidentally, it's fatter than the Canon standard width for its M lenses...I think if Canon ever decides to widen the scope of EF-M lenses to bring in things that EF-S APS-C users are used to having access to, it's going to have to allow them to be fatter.)


----------



## Act444 (Sep 27, 2019)

flip314 said:


> There are always compromises in super-zooms, but this one seems potentially excessive...



It is...

Don't think a design like this would have worked on the EF system - the OVF view would be obscured as well. 

Not sure what the advantage of doing it like this is TBH. 
__________

I had the 28-300L for a little while and used it with a 6D (20MP). It was super convenient, but it was also big, heavy, attention-grabbing and the IQ was just....average. Not bad - especially for its class, but the difference was very visible when I went back to the 70-200. Ultimately I decided carrying all that weight just to get average IQ wasn't worth it, even with the convenience factor - and sold it. Still glad I got to experiment with it though, as it was a lens I dreamed of using for a while prior. That being said, I'd likely feel differently if I shot professionally, because I can't overstate how great it was to go from wide to super-tele in less than 2 seconds...made "getting the shot" that much easier.


----------



## BbBbBbBbBb (Sep 27, 2019)

flip314 said:


> There are always compromises in super-zooms, but this one seems potentially excessive... Several people have recommended shooting no wider than 35mm, but the 24-35mm range is quite useful. No doubt it's probably still good enough in a pinch.
> 
> Are the full corrections applied in the EVF? Does the view look like the JPG or the RAW?
> [/





StoicalEtcher said:


> I'm not an expert on optical design and nomenclature, but isn't vignetting "light fall-off" towards the corners of a shot? - What your shot shows looks more like something actually blocking the shot (like the edge of the lens!), in the same way that a poorly fitted hood or deep screw-on filter might.
> 
> Either way doesn't really matter ultimately - you get black corners, and the jpeg/correction to 24mm is ok - but I don't think "vignetting" is right - it looks like "obstruction".


I may post pictures later if I get a chance, but the lens shoots at 22mm with an image similar to the back side of a spoon meant to be corrected to 24mm. It’s hard to see when there are no people in the photo, but it really is a fisheye lens from 24-30 without corrections. With the corrections the photos are a bit flat and seem a bit 2 dimensional. Reminds me of the 18mm end of the 10-18mm. Lightroom and Photoshop have profile fixes that auto correct the image through crop and distortion correction that gets it to 24 and you can apply your own corrections using a slider.

The lens corrections are done very well, but the image is not the same as it would be if you were to take a few steps back and shoot at 35 instead. It’s not simply a photo with the corners blocked. It’s as if the photo was on a dome pushing out in the center. That’s undesirable if you are taking pictures of people.

In reality this lens is three lenses. Fisheye with corrections makes it an acceptable 24-30, excellent zoom 31-200, good telephoto zoom 201-240. Again, the 24-30 end can be corrected and it’s nice to have when you need it, but ideally you stay in the 31-200 range. If they had made this a 31-200 range lens it could be an L series. That said, I have gotten spoiled by the range and I wouldn’t trade this for a 24-105 any time soon.


----------



## Kit. (Sep 27, 2019)

BbBbBbBbBb said:


> The lens corrections are done very well, but the image is not the same as it would be if you were to take a few steps back and shoot at 35 instead.


Isn't that true for every 24mm lens?


----------



## SteveC (Sep 27, 2019)

BbBbBbBbBb said:


> I may post pictures later if I get a chance, but the lens shoots at 22mm with an image similar to the back side of a spoon meant to be corrected to 24mm. It’s hard to see when there are no people in the photo, but it really is a fisheye lens from 24-30 without corrections. With the corrections the photos are a bit flat and seem a bit 2 dimensional. Reminds me of the 18mm end of the 10-18mm. Lightroom and Photoshop have profile fixes that auto correct the image through crop and distortion correction that gets it to 24 and you can apply your own corrections using a slider.
> 
> The lens corrections are done very well, but the image is not the same as it would be if you were to take a few steps back and shoot at 35 instead. It’s not simply a photo with the corners blocked. It’s as if the photo was on a dome pushing out in the center. That’s undesirable if you are taking pictures of people.
> 
> In reality this lens is three lenses. Fisheye with corrections makes it an acceptable 24-30, excellent zoom 31-200, good telephoto zoom 201-240. Again, the 24-30 end can be corrected and it’s nice to have when you need it, but ideally you stay in the 31-200 range. If they had made this a 31-200 range lens it could be an L series. That said, I have gotten spoiled by the range and I wouldn’t trade this for a 24-105 any time soon.



Seems to me the best two lens solution is that 24-105, and the 100-400 L II on an adapter.

However if one can live with the correction "flatness" this is probably the best zoom range you're going to get out of one lens.


----------



## BbBbBbBbBb (Sep 27, 2019)

Still working on a 24mm pic, but here are some other pics showing off the quality at different ranges between 32mm - 222mm. This is all from roughly the same vantage point. The fish photo is 240mm ISO 12800 F/6.3 1/125. The Turtle is ISO 12800 62mm F/5.6 1/125. If you want more details on the other photos let me know. These are unedited versions originally shot in RAW CR3 format with in unit noise correction turned off.


----------



## BbBbBbBbBb (Sep 30, 2019)

As I previously stated, I am posting what was originally a RAW 24mm pic. It's not the best, but it will have to do. It is a pic completed inside the La Brea Tarpits museum at ISO 3200 24mm F/4.5 1/100 sec without in frame noise correction or any post production adjustments. With the IS I could have adjusted the shutter speed down to grab more light and lower the ISO or shot at F/8 or F11, but it was a quick shot in-between shooting a running moving object. (my kid) The first shot is without the lens correction. The second is with the default profile corrections in Lightroom:



As you can see in the first photo the corners are black and the center is curved due to distortion.



The second photo is a pretty massive difference. If you look closely the scene is slightly cropped on all sides. This is moving the shot from what I estimate is 22mm to 24mm. The bubble in the center of the shot is corrected and as you should notice the walls are no longer curved. With the profile corrections it's not terrible. Additional adjustments can be made for further correction if you don't like the level of distortion or vignetting correction. Overall I would say it does an acceptable job at 24-30 with the profile corrections. I had another lens with me, but it never left my bag because the size of the displays inside this particular museum were massive and I found myself constantly bouncing between closeup and wide shots in a period of seconds. I really am enjoying this lens.


----------

