# Canon officially announces the RF 24-240mm f/4-6.3 IS STM



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 9, 2019)

> Press Release:
> The All-in-One RF Travel Lens Provides High-End Features Such as Nano USM at an Entry-Level Price Tag
> *MELVILLE, N.Y., July 8, 2019* –Introducing the next travel companion for photographers, Canon U.S.A., Inc., a leader in digital imaging solutions, today announced the sixth lens in the RF family, the RF 24-240mm F4-6.3 IS USM telephoto zoom lens. As the first telephoto zoom lens designed for EOS R and EOS RP full-frame mirrorless cameras, the compact and lightweight 10x zoom RF 24-240mm provides photographers high-quality images and video capture at a budget-friendly price point.
> *Preorder the Canon RF 24-240mm f/4-6.3 IS STM*
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## criscokkat (Jul 9, 2019)

The kit is too expensive, for now. I expect to see this under 2000 by end of August. This is simply to get that early adopter bump and to make sales later look better.


----------



## RobbieHat (Jul 9, 2019)

criscokkat said:


> The kit is too expensive, for now. I expect to see this under 2000 by end of August. This is simply to get that early adopter bump and to make sales later look better.


The kit in the link is already posted at $1999. There is a $200 instant credit with Adorama in the link. What are you waiting for?


----------



## canonical (Jul 9, 2019)

RobbieHat said:


> The kit in the link is already posted at $1999. There is a $200 instant credit with Adorama in the link. What are you waiting for?



It's RP kit with RF 24-105 / 4 L IS , not with 24-240  

Special - Canon EOS RP Mirrorless Digital Camera with Canon RF 24-105mm F4 L IS Lens


----------



## Kit. (Jul 9, 2019)

canonical said:


> It's RP kit with RF 24-105 / 4 L IS , not with 24-240
> 
> Special - Canon EOS RP Mirrorless Digital Camera with Canon RF 24-105mm F4 L IS Lens


"*Lens Included: 24-240mm*"

Obviously a misprint _somewhere_...


----------



## canonical (Jul 9, 2019)

Kit. said:


> "*Lens Included: 24-240mm*"
> 
> Obviously a misprint _somewhere_...



https://www.adorama.com/carpk3.html?utm_source=rflaid64393

yep. But link heading says 24-205 and image shows 24-105 as well.


----------



## lawny13 (Jul 9, 2019)

Kit. said:


> "*Lens Included: 24-240mm*"
> 
> Obviously a misprint _somewhere_...



note a misprint, just confusing. If you follow the link you can see that you can select the 24-105 or the 24-240 or even without lens. 

So the title on the page and the naming of the link is off. It should be something like "Canon EOS RP kit" or something like that. But the most important thing is that the RP and 24-240 is $1999 vs the $2199 for the 24-105 option instead.


----------



## canonical (Jul 9, 2019)

ah yes! Thx. 

1999 USD looks like a sensible price for RP + 24-240 - provided lens is at least "Canon consumer decent".


----------



## NetMage (Jul 9, 2019)

In what world is $899 an entry level price?


----------



## ethanz (Jul 9, 2019)

NetMage said:


> In what world is $899 an entry level price?



For a full frame 10x zoom, that is entry level pricing.


----------



## tron (Jul 9, 2019)

In one case (the kit with EOS RP) Adorama wrongly mentions the 24-240 lens as L.

*Special* - Canon EOS RP Mirrorless Digital Camera with Canon RF 24-240mm F4 L IS Lens

Not to degrade it but it is not an L lens (although it may be an excellent travelling lens).


----------



## 6degrees (Jul 9, 2019)

What is the point for this type of lenses?


----------



## criscokkat (Jul 9, 2019)

Kit. said:


> "*Lens Included: 24-240mm*"
> 
> Obviously a misprint _somewhere_...


Looks like they fixed everything, it shows 24-240mm on all the screens now.

I wonder when we will learn details/reviews of this product? I'm interested to see how far out f4 extends to before increasing to 4.5/5.0/5.6/6.3


*EDIT:*
Right after I posted this I found the information:
YouTube first look video by cameralabs reporting that it's f4 from 24-27mm, f5.6 @ 70mm, and f6.3 @ 109-240mm.

That's actually better than the old nifty-250 on an APS-C camera once you account for f stop differences due to sensor size between those sensors and full frame. If it's just as sharp or better this will be a nice pickup. It won't be as distant as that setup was but by cropping it won't really be that much of a difference.


----------



## flip314 (Jul 9, 2019)

6degrees said:


> What is the point for this type of lenses?



What's the point of anything?


----------



## Kit. (Jul 9, 2019)

6degrees said:


> What is the point for this type of lenses?


To sell the RP bodies.


----------



## flip314 (Jul 9, 2019)

I was going to wait for the 24-70 2.8 and build a system starting there, but this is incredibly tempting. I'll probably end up owning both lenses eventually, just given the convenience of a 10x zoom for certain days (I love my EF-S 18-135, and it's not even that wide of a zoom range)


----------



## c.d.embrey (Jul 9, 2019)

Nikon has released the *NIKKOR Z 50mm f/1.8 S Lens *($596.95 at B&H). I'd pay $596.95 for a *Canon RF 50mm f/1.8 Macro IS STM*, long before I buy a 24-240 f/4-6.3 kit zoom for *$0.02.* A *Canon RF 85mm f/1.8 Macro IS STM *would also be a good addition.


----------



## Trey T (Jul 9, 2019)

6degrees said:


> What is the point for this type of lenses?


For expert shooters that likes to combat the variable aperture. For whatever reasons, vast majority of the people believe that lens with variable aperture like this one is for entry-level shooters, which doesn't make sense to me.


----------



## Dantana (Jul 9, 2019)

The title says STM, but the announcement and Adorama link say nano USM.


----------



## BrightTiger (Jul 9, 2019)

c.d.embrey said:


> Nikon has released the NIKKOR Z 50mm f/1.8 S Lens ($596.95 at B&H). I'd pay $596.95 for a *Canon RF 50mm f/1.8 Macro IS STM*, long before I buy a 24-240 f/4-6.3 kit zoom for *$0.02.* A *Canon RF 85mm f/1.8 Macro IS STM *would also be a good addition.


Bless you heart*. 
The purpose of this lens is vastly different than a fixed 50mm/85mm/ anything else. So, whatever (#12).

* Southern meaning #19 = Midwestern "That's nice" meaning #5 = SoCal "Whatever" meaning #12.


----------



## Tangent (Jul 9, 2019)

Since as a travel zoom it will be in AF most of the time I think the design choice to go with a focus control switch instead of a separate focus ring is a nifty way to optimize size and reduce cost. But I hope this does not become a trend. For moderately priced primes akin to the 35 1.8 I would still want 2 rings, for example.


----------



## degos (Jul 9, 2019)

ethanz said:


> For a full frame 10x zoom, that is entry level pricing.



Tamron 28-300 Di VC ( full-frame ) is $699 retail. It's not a stunning lens, but it's entry-level.

Canon are on the record as saying that to them full-frame mirrorless is all about fat margins. There's your example.


----------



## Kit. (Jul 9, 2019)

degos said:


> Tamron 28-300 Di VC ( full-frame ) is $699 retail. It's not a stunning lens, but it's entry-level.


It's not 24mm wide either.


----------



## canonical (Jul 9, 2019)

criscokkat said:


> it's f4 from 24-27mm, f5.6 @ 70mm, and f6.3 @ 109-240mm.




LOL. so a f/5.6 - f/7.9 lens in reality.


----------



## canonical (Jul 9, 2019)

Kit. said:


> It's not 24mm wide either.



ofc not. All manufacturers lie like crazy with any of their lenses' main specifications. f-stop, focal length. And are allowed to do so. Should be outlawed.


----------



## flip314 (Jul 9, 2019)

canonical said:


> ofc not. All manufacturers lie like crazy with any of their lenses' main specifications. f-stop, focal length. And are allowed to do so. Should be outlawed.



But in this case Tamron is not even _claiming_ it's 24mm. It's marketed as a 28-300mm lens.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jul 9, 2019)

canonical said:


> LOL. so a f/5.6 - f/7.9 lens in reality.



No, because at the wide end you still get F4, which is a lot better than F5.6.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 9, 2019)

c.d.embrey said:


> Nikon has released the NIKKOR Z 50mm f/1.8 S Lens ($596.95 at B&H). I'd pay $596.95 for a Canon RF 50mm f/1.8 Macro IS STM, long before I buy a 24-240 f/4-6.3 kit zoom for $0.02. A Canon RF 85mm f/1.8 Macro IS STM would also be a good addition.


I’d check myself into a mental health facility long before I’d pay $600 for a 50/1.8.


----------



## Dantana (Jul 9, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> I’d check myself into a mental health facility long before I’d pay $600 for a 50/1.8.


$600 sure, but at $596.95 it's a steal.


----------



## deleteme (Jul 9, 2019)

6degrees said:


> What is the point for this type of lenses?


It is a lens for all those who didn't want a 24-70 f2 or a 50 f1.2.
It is "a lens for the rest of us". The fact is that despite our CR bubble there are a ton of RP buyers who will be weeping for joy over this lens.


----------



## tron (Jul 9, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> I’d check myself into a mental health facility long before I’d pay $600 for a 50/1.8.


Ha ha, for this amount of money one can get any canon ef 50 1.8 and put a used 5D or 5DII body behind it!


----------



## c.d.embrey (Jul 9, 2019)

BrightTiger said:


> Bless you heart*.
> The purpose of this lens is vastly different than a fixed 50mm/85mm/ anything else. So, whatever (#12).
> 
> * Southern meaning #19 = Midwestern "That's nice" meaning #5 = SoCal "Whatever" meaning #12.




I didn't realize that there was a rule against requesting stuff*, I'd like to see, in the future.
I'm sorry that this stuff* offended you! Different strokes for different folks, and all that stuff*.

Stuff* is a place holder for another word that starts with "S." Have a nice day


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 9, 2019)

Normalnorm said:


> It is a lens for all those who didn't want a 24-70 f2 or a 50 f1.2.
> It is "a lens for the rest of us". The fact is that despite our CR bubble there are a ton of RP buyers who will be weeping for joy over this lens.


On my last trip I took the EOS R, RF 24-105, and the EF 70-300 L with the adapter. It would have been great to have nearly that entire range in a single lens that’s about the same size as the RF 24-105.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 9, 2019)

c.d.embrey said:


> I didn't realize that there was a rule against requesting stuff*, I'd like to see, in the future.
> I'm sorry that this stuff* offended you! Different strokes for different folks, and all that stuff*.
> 
> Stuff* is a place holder for another word that starts with "S." Have a nice day


Requesting stuff is fine. However, calling stuff other people may value worthless can sometimes make you look like a stuffhead.


----------



## Philrp (Jul 9, 2019)

Aperture

I'm just curious to know how the variable aperture steps up over the range. If it sticks to 4 or 4.5 to or just past 105, this could be a great value.


----------



## canonical (Jul 9, 2019)

Philrp said:


> Aperture
> 
> I'm just curious to know how the variable aperture steps up over the range. If it sticks to 4 or 4.5 to or just past 105, this could be a great value.



would have been nice, yes. But does not seem to be the case. 

see post #13 in this thread: 


criscokkat said:


> YouTube first look video by cameralabs reporting that it's f4 from 24-27mm, f5.6 @ 70mm, and f6.3 @ 109-240mm.


----------



## maves (Jul 9, 2019)

Here's hoping for some more compact and affordable RF primes like the 35m 1.8!


----------



## AJ (Jul 10, 2019)

MTF curves?


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 10, 2019)

6degrees said:


> What is the point for this type of lenses?


because sometimes you can only have one lens with you...…. but more importantly, because superzoom lenses sell quite well!


----------



## pixel8foto (Jul 10, 2019)

6degrees said:


> What is the point for this type of lenses?



I dunno man. It's all too much. Maybe drugs? Or a dolphin?


----------



## pixel8foto (Jul 10, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> On my last trip I took the EOS R, RF 24-105, and the EF 70-300 L with the adapter. It would have been great to have nearly that entire range in a single lens that’s about the same size as the RF 24-105.


+1
Compared to a 6D+24-105, an EOS-R+24-240 would be great, even if a tad less bright when you zoom.
As soon as Canon release a mirrorless 5D with proper knobs, buttons and IBIS, I'll buy that and one of these and then start looking at how it performs with the adaptor and EF lenses.


----------



## danfaz (Jul 10, 2019)

criscokkat said:


> *EDIT:*
> Right after I posted this I found the information:
> YouTube first look video by cameralabs reporting that it's f4 from 24-27mm, f5.6 @ 70mm, and f6.3 @ 109-240mm.



Ugh, I was hoping for f/4 at least up to 105mm, but only until 27mm?


----------



## pixel8foto (Jul 10, 2019)

degos said:


> Tamron 28-300 Di VC ( full-frame ) is $699 retail. It's not a stunning lens, but it's entry-level.
> 
> Canon are on the record as saying that to them full-frame mirrorless is all about fat margins. There's your example.



I question the logic you've applied to reach this conclusion.


----------



## degos (Jul 10, 2019)

pixel8foto said:


> I question the logic you've applied to reach this conclusion.



Go to Amazon.com right now and a sold-by-Amazon 6D and Tamron 28-300 together cost just under $1600, not $2200. That's the true level of full-frame entry-level superzoomage.

Or perhaps you want to splurge on a 6D II with the lens, that'll cost $1900. Still cheaper than this 'affordable' RP kit nonsense.

Canon want to position full-frame as a premium tier, rather than something affordable. Their entire strategy to date with RF reinforces that.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Jul 10, 2019)

criscokkat said:


> The kit is too expensive, for now. I expect to see this under 2000 by end of August. This is simply to get that early adopter bump and to make sales later look better.


I can imagine that we'll see cash back actions in near future including this kit. Here in Germany e.g. Canon runs an "EOS plus X" offer that already includes the EOS R.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Jul 10, 2019)

NetMage said:


> In what world is $899 an entry level price?


Well, with Trump being president in the next turn I can imagine that 900 $ finally could make an entry level price - if you order from Europe


----------



## Chaitanya (Jul 10, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> I’d check myself into a mental health facility long before I’d pay $600 for a 50/1.8.


For a Canon RF 50mm *f/1.8 Macro IS STM*(as stated in OP) $600 sounds like a steal if it does 1:1 mag ratio. Nikon is selling their 60mm f/2.8 macro without image stabilization for ~$600.


----------



## koenkooi (Jul 10, 2019)

Chaitanya said:


> For a Canon RF 50mm *f/1.8 Macro IS STM*(as stated in OP) $600 sounds like a steal if it does 1:1 mag ratio. Nikon is selling their 60mm f/2.8 macro without image stabilization for ~$600.



I bet such a lens will be 1:2 mag like the RF35 and EF50 f/2.5. I also think a 50mm counterpart to the RF35 will have a similar price, so $500.


----------



## Hector1970 (Jul 10, 2019)

It will really help sell RP cameras. It's just the sort of range a beginner would really want.
It would have been unimaginable years ago that you'd fork out $2000 on your first camera kit but there seems to be plenty of beginners for whom it is no issue.
I will be interested to see some real world tests on it.
I'd suspect it will be so-so quality wise - it would be nice if Canon surprised me with it. It's not a cheap lens. You'd hope it could well outperform the equivalent Tamron lens or EF-s 18-200mm zoom


----------



## Pape (Jul 10, 2019)

Hmm it got quite big front lense . I hope its optimized very sharp for 240mm like macrozoom.


----------



## ethanz (Jul 10, 2019)

If you actually watch the video with our pal Rudy, it shows many sample images. They look pretty good, even at 240.


----------



## Architect1776 (Jul 10, 2019)

Pape said:


> Hmm it got quite big front lense . I hope its optimized very sharp for 240mm like macrozoom.



I just hope that Canon avoids any dog lenses in the RF line-up.
With computers and current technology there is no reason for any Canon lens to be a dog.
Yes it might not please pixel peepers (They never are pleased) but good decently sharp photos at 16X20 should not be difficult to do for any new Canon lens.


----------



## lawny13 (Jul 10, 2019)

degos said:


> Tamron 28-300 Di VC ( full-frame ) is $699 retail. It's not a stunning lens, but it's entry-level.
> 
> Canon are on the record as saying that to them full-frame mirrorless is all about fat margins. There's your example.



It’s not an OEM lens. Probably won’t work as well as the canon RF lenses on RF bodies. So tamron can’t exactly charge the same price. So your logic here is a little flawed. 

Not to mention. When the 3rd party manufacturers start producing for RF mount people are free to choose them if they want to. 

BTW most FF superzooms cost in this ball park or more.


----------



## Trey T (Jul 10, 2019)

NetMage said:


> In what world is $899 an entry level price?


Vast majority of pro shoots w/ constant aperture zoom lenses to make their life easier, and the entry-level shooters (newbies) should too. You're right, it's not for entry-level ...


----------



## unfocused (Jul 10, 2019)

If anyone doubts Canon's ability to produce a sharp lens at low cost, they need only pick up an EF-S 55-250 to know that Canon is very capable of doing both sharp and cheap.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 10, 2019)

Trey T said:


> Vast majority of pro shoots w/ constant aperture zoom lenses to make their life easier, and the entry-level shooters (newbies) should too. You're right, it's not for entry-level ...


I disagree. Most ‘entry level’ shooters use one of the many available auto-exposure modes, even if they move off the green box or scene modes, most will be in Av or Tv. Auto-exposure renders a constant-aperture zoom irrelevant, since the changing aperture will be compensated for by another side of the triangle. Heck, with many newer cameras there is auto ISO in M mode with available EC, so even for manual shooters the need for a constant aperture is pretty much nil. 

IMO, the advantage of constant aperture zooms is not that the aperture is constant, but rather that the aperture is relatively faster than a corresponding variable aperture zoom. I shoot with a 24-70/2.8 and a 70-200/2.8 because they’re f/2.8, not f/5.6.


----------



## AJ (Jul 10, 2019)

MTF curves here here: https://www.canonnews.com/canon-rf-24-240mm-f4-63-mtf


----------



## takesome1 (Jul 10, 2019)

c.d.embrey said:


> I didn't realize that there was a rule against requesting stuff*, I'd like to see, in the future.
> I'm sorry that this stuff* offended you! Different strokes for different folks, and all that stuff*.
> 
> Stuff* is a place holder for another word that starts with "S." Have a nice day



It sounds like someone is full of stuff*


----------



## unfocused (Jul 10, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> I disagree. Most ‘entry level’ shooters use one of the many available auto-exposure modes, even if they move off the green box or scene modes, most will be in Av or Tv. Auto-exposure renders a constant-aperture zoom irrelevant, since the changing aperture will be compensated for by another side of the triangle. Heck, with many newer cameras there is auto ISO in M mode with available EC, so even for manual shooters the need for a constant aperture is pretty much nil.
> 
> IMO, the advantage of constant aperture zooms is not that the aperture is constant, but rather that the aperture is relatively faster than a corresponding variable aperture zoom. I shoot with a 24-70/2.8 and a 70-200/2.8 because they’re f/2.8, not f/5.6.


I agree with your assessment. But, adding:

It's kind of silly to talk about any EOS R lens and body as "entry level." The cost of entry into full frame mirrorless by Canon is $2,000 with this lens. This may be "entry level" for the 1%, but for most consumers "entry level" is much more likely to remain an "M" or Rebel DSLR. 

I believe most people buying this lens are likely to know exactly what they are getting.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 10, 2019)

AJ said:


> MTF curves here here: https://www.canonnews.com/canon-rf-24-240mm-f4-63-mtf


Surprisingly good for a FF superzoom lens, particularly one that is not an L quality lens. I bet it sells very well


----------



## Sharlin (Jul 10, 2019)

danfaz said:


> Ugh, I was hoping for f/4 at least up to 105mm, but only until 27mm?



And I was hoping for unicorns and invisibility powder, a wish slightly more realistic than yours. Good luck trying to find a 24-105mm f/4 lens that as a bonus gives you extra zoom range up to 240mm at slightly smaller aperture! The laws of physics are called "laws" for a reason.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 10, 2019)

Sharlin said:


> And I was hoping for unicorns and invisibility powder, a wish slightly more realistic than yours. Good luck trying to find a 24-105mm f/4 lens that as a bonus gives you extra zoom range up to 240mm at slightly smaller aperture! The laws of physics are called "laws" for a reason.


According to the laws of physics, an entry pupil of diameter 38.1mm that gives f/6.3 at 240mm will give f/3.15 at 120mm.


----------



## hamish (Jul 11, 2019)

unfocused said:


> If anyone doubts Canon's ability to produce a sharp lens at low cost, they need only pick up an EF-S 55-250 to know that Canon is very capable of doing both sharp and cheap.



Agree 100%. I have a 200D (SL2) and I love using the EF-S 55-250 as it is so sharp across the full range (slightly less from 200mm+, but still excellent).

I'm someone who is enjoying getting back into photography. As mentioned I have a 200D (SL2) and a few Canon lenses, including the 18-135, 55-250 and 24 prime. My primary uses are travel and walk-around. I do a little bit of birding, but recognise the limitations of the gear I have. Still, it works pretty well (see bird shots from portfolio linked in my profile). 

I don't count $US1999 ($AUD2800) as being anything remotely close to "entry level". If I had a lot more money, I'd be VERY interested in the RP + 24-240 and then mabe add a longer lens for birding/wildlife. I can dream ...


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 11, 2019)

hamish said:


> Agree 100%. I have a 200D (SL2) and I love using the EF-S 55-250 as it is so sharp across the full range (slightly less from 200mm+, but still excellent).
> 
> I'm someone who is enjoying getting back into photography. As mentioned I have a 200D (SL2) and a few Canon lenses, including the 18-135, 55-250 and 24 prime. My primary uses are travel and walk-around. I do a little bit of birding, but recognise the limitations of the gear I have. Still, it works pretty well (see bird shots from portfolio linked in my profile).
> 
> I don't count $US1999 ($AUD2800) as being anything remotely close to "entry level". If I had a lot more money, I'd be VERY interested in the RP + 24-240 and then mabe add a longer lens for birding/wildlife. I can dream ...


Agreed!
Most people around here conside entry level to be under $1000 Canadian, or about $750 US …. and that is for a body and a lens!


----------



## Talys (Jul 11, 2019)

hamish said:


> Agree 100%. I have a 200D (SL2) and I love using the EF-S 55-250 as it is so sharp across the full range (slightly less from 200mm+, but still excellent).
> 
> I'm someone who is enjoying getting back into photography. As mentioned I have a 200D (SL2) and a few Canon lenses, including the 18-135, 55-250 and 24 prime. My primary uses are travel and walk-around. I do a little bit of birding, but recognise the limitations of the gear I have. Still, it works pretty well (see bird shots from portfolio linked in my profile).
> 
> I don't count $US1999 ($AUD2800) as being anything remotely close to "entry level". If I had a lot more money, I'd be VERY interested in the RP + 24-240 and then mabe add a longer lens for birding/wildlife. I can dream ...


For me, the problem with the price is that$2k could go towards a lens that I really wanted that is awesome. So the only way I will buy this one is if it is totally awesome. I am not sure that is possible, but I'm willing to keep an open mind until I see, feel, and try it. At that price, the IQ has to be great, and it must be excellent mechanically.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 11, 2019)

Talys said:


> For me, the problem with the price is that$2k could go towards a lens that I really wanted that is awesome. So the only way I will buy this one is if it is totally awesome. I am not sure that is possible, but I'm willing to keep an open mind until I see, feel, and try it. At that price, the IQ has to be great, and it must be excellent mechanically.


$2K is RP + 24-240. The 24-240 is $900. When you consider that the EF 24-105 f/3.5-5.6 plus EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 combo costs $1100 and the RF superzoom covers nearly that range with similar IQ in a smaller, lighter, cheaper package that doesn’t require lens changes, the RF 24-240 appears to be a good value.


----------



## danfaz (Jul 11, 2019)

Sharlin said:


> And I was hoping for unicorns and invisibility powder, a wish slightly more realistic than yours. Good luck trying to find a 24-105mm f/4 lens that as a bonus gives you extra zoom range up to 240mm at slightly smaller aperture! The laws of physics are called "laws" for a reason.



Wow, thanks for such a friendly and witty comment, fellow board member. You make this a great place to be!
Tamron's old 28-300 does far better than this (though admittedly not what my wish was), with f/4 lasting until around 55mm, and f/5 lasting til around 100mm. 
I'm not too knowledgeable on the physics of lens design, but was my desire _really_ that crazy?


----------



## AlanF (Jul 11, 2019)

danfaz said:


> Wow, thanks for such a friendly and witty comment, fellow board member. You make this a great place to be!
> Tamron's old 28-300 does far better than this (though admittedly not what my wish was), with f/4 lasting until around 55mm, and f/5 lasting til around 100mm.
> I'm not too knowledgeable on the physics of lens design, but was my desire _really_ that crazy?


You were not breaking any laws of physics and that comment about your perfectly reasonable question was uncalled for and unhelpful.


----------



## canonical (Jul 11, 2019)

danfaz said:


> Tamron's old 28-300 does far better than this () with f/4 lasting until around 55mm, and f/5 lasting til around 100mm.
> I'm not too knowledgeable on the physics of lens design, but was my desire _really_ that crazy?



Interesting! Looked up the numbers and did a quick comparison. Looking at hard specs it seems Canon did not really tap into "superior optical design potential of RF mount" with RF 24-240. Waiting to see reviews, maybe they invested mount potential into "superior IQ". However, sample images I saw up to now looked rather soft/low contrast to me beyond 150mm. But will hold judgement for now. 









Sources used for aperture progression info:

Tamron 28-300 VC: 
https://dustinabbott.net/2014/08/tamron-28-300mm-f3-5-6-3-di-vc-pzd/

Canon RF 24-240:




 - around 1:10'

Nikon 28-300
https://kenrockwell.com/nikon/28-300mm.htm

Sony FE 24-240
https://kenrockwell.com/sony/lenses/24-240mm.htm


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 11, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> Surprisingly good for a FF superzoom lens, particularly one that is not an L quality lens. I bet it sells very well


To pre-order or wait for reviews? Hmmmm...


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 11, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> To pre-order or wait for reviews? Hmmmm...


I have yet to see the R body that will tempt me over into the mirrorless camp, but this looks like one of the lenses that would do it for me. The package with the RP looks like a tempting way to get a foot in the door.....


----------



## ethanz (Jul 11, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> To pre-order or wait for reviews? Hmmmm...



Someone has to bite the bullet. Come on and take one for the team, John! You can let us know how it is in real world.


----------



## Photo Hack (Jul 12, 2019)

https://www.adorama.com/tm35150eos.html?utm_source=rflaid64393



Not quite the zoom range but Tamron’s 35-150 f2.8-f4 looks much more tempting than this. 

Kind of a bummer and hoping Canon will make something else in between, even if it costs a little more. A 28-200 f2.8-f4 or 3.5-5.6 more likely?


----------



## Kannon (Jul 12, 2019)

Let us all hope that there's not a big breathing hole in the back of the lens to suck the dust in that the moving inside elements can circulate inside and spit on the sensor. Amen


----------



## unfocused (Jul 12, 2019)

Kannon said:


> Let us all hope that there's not a big breathing hole in the back of the lens to suck the dust in that the moving inside elements can circulate inside and spit on the sensor. Amen


I prefer to worry about real things, not internet myths.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 12, 2019)

Kannon said:


> Let us all hope that there's not a big breathing hole in the back of the lens to suck the dust in that the moving inside elements can circulate inside and spit on the sensor. Amen


Yeah, like that horrible RF 24-105/4L IS dust pump I’ve been using on my EOS R that has led to no dust on the sensor at all.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 13, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> To pre-order or wait for reviews? Hmmmm...



wait for reviews, obviously... I am sure that you do not buy a product based on marketing mambo jumbo. I trust your lens collection is substantial enough as is.
I would wait until The Digital Picture review at least.


----------



## Quirkz (Jul 13, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> wait for reviews, obviously... I am sure that you do not buy product based on marketing mambo jumbo. I trust your lens collection is substantial enough as is.
> I would wait until The Digital Picture review at least.



Ssssshhhhh.... I’m waiting for a review. Let’s just let neuro do that for us


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 13, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> I have yet to see the R body that will tempt me over into the mirrorless camp, but this looks like one of the lenses that would do it for me. The package with the RP looks like a tempting way to get a foot in the door.....



I am ready to swallow the hook, the line and the sinker.. but, I need a 5D IV equivalent body: sensor, ergonomics, weather resistance, size and handling, a joystick, second memory card with price being under US$3500 please.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 13, 2019)

Quirkz said:


> Ssssshhhhh.... I’m waiting for a review. Let’s just let neuro do that for us


nuh. Bryan (a wise man) at The Digital Picture will be up to speed pretty quickly. His reviews are very detailed and excellent from the practicality perspective.
I never offer an advice that I would never have taken myself.

On an unrelated note: I have a SONY product support story to share. Would anyone be interested to hear that? It is a .. saga..


----------



## Quirkz (Jul 13, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> nuh. Bryan (a wise man) at The Digital Picture will be up to speed pretty quickly. His reviews are very detailed and excellent from the practicality perspective.
> I never offer an advice that I would never have taken myself.
> 
> On an unrelated note: I have a SONY product support story to share. Would anyone be interested to hear that? It is a .. saga..



I had to return a Sony Product a few months ago that failed. Took 3 months and countless phone calls. Hope the camera support is better.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 13, 2019)

Quirkz said:


> I had to return a Sony Product a few months ago that failed. Took 3 months and countless phone calls. *Hope the camera support is better.*


Slim chances.. that is how SONY operate: mythology and daydreams when you are a buyer, a cold shower or reality thereafter..


----------



## AlanF (Jul 13, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> nuh. Bryan (a wise man) at The Digital Picture will be up to speed pretty quickly. His reviews are very detailed and excellent from the practicality perspective.
> I never offer an advice that I would never have taken myself.
> 
> On an unrelated note: I have a SONY product support story to share. Would anyone be interested to hear that? It is a .. saga..


My advice to myself is never rely on just one review...


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 13, 2019)

AlanF said:


> My advice to myself is never rely on just one review...



You are correct, Alan. however, TDP can be trusted. I recall that in your experience TDP was incorrect in their judgement more than once in the past. 
I would suggest that TDP is mostly correct with some exceptions here and there. No one is perfect.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 13, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> You are correct, Alan. however, TDP can be trusted. I recall that in your experience TDP was incorrect in their judgement more than once in the past.
> I would suggest that TDP is mostly correct with some exceptions here and there. No one is perfect.


TDP does do on the whole excellent reviews and is a marvellous resource. But, for assessing IQ from lenses, he tends to look at just one copy of a lens with charts, and we all know about the importance of copy variation. I have found the relative performances of my lenses are different from his, and his can be different form lensrentals on multiple copies or say opticallimits on single copies. And, in his own comparison charts, there can be inconsistencies between relative results of lenses on different bodies. I am never ever going to buy a lens again based on a single review.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 13, 2019)

again, you are correct. copy to copy variation can be substantial, however, Bryan's reviews provide a good baseline reference / starting point in our crusade to perfection


----------



## ethanz (Jul 13, 2019)

Of course we want to hear a story about how bad Sony is @SecureGSM spill the beans


----------



## BillB (Jul 13, 2019)

unfocused said:


> I agree with your assessment. But, adding:
> 
> It's kind of silly to talk about any EOS R lens and body as "entry level." The cost of entry into full frame mirrorless by Canon is $2,000 with this lens. This may be "entry level" for the 1%, but for most consumers "entry level" is much more likely to remain an "M" or Rebel DSLR.
> 
> I believe most people buying this lens are likely to know exactly what they are getting.


I don't know how many people will buy the RP + RF 24-240 kit as their first camera purchase. There will be some, but my guess there will be more for whom this kit will be the entry to FF, or for Canon DSLR owners, entry to FF mirrorless. This is a shrinking market, so there aren't many jackpots around.


----------



## pixel8foto (Jul 22, 2019)

degos said:


> Go to Amazon.com right now and a sold-by-Amazon 6D and Tamron 28-300 together cost just under $1600, not $2200. That's the true level of full-frame entry-level superzoomage.
> 
> Or perhaps you want to splurge on a 6D II with the lens, that'll cost $1900. Still cheaper than this 'affordable' RP kit nonsense.
> 
> Canon want to position full-frame as a premium tier, rather than something affordable. Their entire strategy to date with RF reinforces that.



That doesn't prove, as you asserted, that the Canon option is about fat margins (relative to the Tamron or anything else). Maybe the new mirrorless Canon body and superzoom just cost more to make?


----------



## mrzero (Aug 8, 2019)

I know I'm late to the party on this, but I've been staying off CR (to avoid being tempted to spend more money) and this lens on EF is kind of my white whale.



6degrees said:


> What is the point for this type of lenses?



Before autofocus was a thing, the rule in photojournalism and documentary photography was "F/8 and Be There." It is still true today, and given the ISO performance of modern sensors compared to pushing or pulling film, maybe even moreso. Set this lens at f/8 in the daytime and you will be ready for just about anything. Doing that also negates the "variable" aperture.



neuroanatomist said:


> On my last trip I took the EOS R, RF 24-105, and the EF 70-300 L with the adapter. It would have been great to have nearly that entire range in a single lens that’s about the same size as the RF 24-105.



Agreed. However, I've been wanting this type of lens for the EF mount for a long time, so I could do the same thing with my 6D. Even on a crop sensor, it would make a great standard to telephoto zoom (38-384). I realize that they won't be able to translate the exact optics of the RF lens to the EF mount, but I'm hoping a similar EF lens at a similar price point is coming. They've already got the patents out there in the EF mount. The older L lens just isn't practical as a walkaround.


----------



## PCM-madison (Aug 29, 2019)

My preorder has been updated to a September 3 delivery.


----------

