Is it better to get Canon RF 24–240mm F4-6.3 USM instead of RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 STM Lens for Canon R6 Mark II?

[compiler]

Is it better to get Canon RF 24–240mm F4-6.3 USM instead of RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 STM Lens for Canon R6 Mark II for day-to-day shooting? Is the 24-240 mm lens more heavy and bulky?

 

[Kamoshika]

Is it better to get Canon RF 24–240mm F4-6.3 USM instead of RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 STM Lens for Canon R6 Mark II for day-to-day shooting? Is the 24-240 mm lens more heavy and bulky?

Thae 24-240 (750g) is 355g heavier. So you'd be carrying around an extra 350ml bottle of water. Personally, I'd prefer the extra reach of the larger lens, especially for travel. I currently have the RF 24-105 f4L USM at 700g and I don't find it all that difficult to carry around all day. So an extra 50g would be nothing. Actually, I've been thinking about getting the RF 24–240mm F4-6.3 USM, but I have my eye on other lenses and a wife frowning on my camera expenses.

 

[compiler]

Thae 24-240 (750g) is 355g heavier. So you'd be carrying around an extra 350ml bottle of water. Personally, I'd prefer the extra reach of the larger lens, especially for travel. I currently have the RF 24-105 f4L USM at 700g and I don't find it all that difficult to carry around all day. So an extra 50g would be nothing. Actually, I've been thinking about getting the RF 24–240mm F4-6.3 USM, but I have my eye on other lenses and a wife frowning on my camera expenses.

If you started from scratch with only R6 Mark II body, what lens would you select for the day to day shooting?

 

[VanDyck]

Is it better to get Canon RF 24–240mm F4-6.3 USM instead of RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 STM Lens for Canon R6 Mark II for day-to-day shooting? Is the 24-240 mm lens more heavy and bulky?

The RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 STM has the center focus macro feature which could be handy. This and the lighter weight has swayed me to the RF 24-105 STM as a general purpose walk around lens.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

 

[Kamoshika]

If you started from scratch with only R6 Mark II body, what lens would you select for the day to day shooting?

Probably not. The RF 24-105 f4L USM, even though I haven't been using it for that long, seems to hit a sweet spot in terms of weight, focal length, aperture and IQ.

 

[ChRiSiS]

If you started from scratch with only R6 Mark II body, what lens would you select for the day to day shooting?

I would be really torn.

When I got my R5 in 2020 I purchased the RF 24-105 F4 L IS to go with it. I still love that lens. I have since picked up a RF 24-240 F4-6.3 IS USM as a travel/walk-around lens and I am completely in love. With the R5 it truly is a one-lens travel solution. On a recent trip to Toronto I paired it with my RF 14-35 F4 L IS lens and the combination was simply sublime. I plan to do the same for my upcoming trip to Northern Italy/Southern France in May/June.

Bottom line, I would lean towards the RF 24-240 over the STM lens. The weight difference is simply not that much and the difference in versatlity is enormous. If the costs were not an issue then I might go with the RF 24-105 L plus the RF 70-200 F2.8 L (or the F4 L), but I don’t personaLuly see a world where I choose the RF 24-105 F4-7.1 STM lens.

Chris

 

[Grahamk]

I used to have the EF-S 10-22m F3.5-4.5, EF 24-70 F4 L and EF 70-200 F4 L as travel lenses but opted for the RF 24-240 F4-6.3 IS USM when I bought my R6 having tried this combination before purchase via the Canon Test Drive scheme - I also borrowed the RF 70-200 F4 L at the same time. I like to travel fairly light these days and the RF 24-240 F4-6.3 IS USM along with the RF 16mm, which easily slips into a pocket, make a great combination.

 

[compiler]

Canon EOS R6 Mark II body plus Canon RF 24–240mm F4-6.3 USM Lens, Black are $3400 while Canon - EOS R6 Mark II Mirrorless Camera with RF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Lens – Black is $3600. Should the RF 24-105 mm f/4 USM lens kit be a better choice?

 

[ChRiSiS]

Canon EOS R6 Mark II body plus Canon RF 24–240mm F4-6.3 USM Lens, Black are $3400 while Canon - EOS R6 Mark II Mirrorless Camera with RF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Lens – Black is $3600. Should the RF 24-105 mm f/4 USM lens kit be a better choice?

I think a lot depends on whether you plan to get, and can afford, other lenses. If this is going to be your only lens for a while then the 24-240 gives you the most flexibility. If you’re planning on getting, say the 70-200 F4 L then I would get the 24-105 L.

 

[AKVet]

Probably not. The RF 24-105 f4L USM, even though I haven't been using it for that long, seems to hit a sweet spot in terms of weight, focal length, aperture and IQ.

Agreed!

 

[Gnhntn]

I have both the 24-105 L and the 24-240. I travel a lot for work, and enjoy getting out on weekends and seeing new things which is why I picked up the 24-240. Most times that is the only lens I take with me, unless I have specific plans where i may ant something longer, or wider but 95% of the time it is just the 24-240 that goes with me. If I could only have 1 RF lens it would be the 24-240 due to the versatility it brings to the table.

 

[Ferenc MÓGOR]

I've had my R6 MK1 with the RF 24-240mm F4-6.3 IS USM lens from day one and never regretted having this lens, which is my only lens for the time being. I mainly do landscapes/cityscapes, so the 240mm is a must for me. FYR, here are four shots I took from the same spot in the lovely town of Lisbon, Portugal to test and see how this super zoom lens performs. 24/38/76/240mm respectively. YMMV.

 

[AndrewC]

I have both the RF 24-105/4L and the RF 24-240. I used to take the 24-105/4L out for walking around and general photography (it came with my R6 at purchase) but once I got the 24-240, it became my go-to lens. The focal range of the lens is most useful to me and in situations where I need a little extra reach, putting the R6 in crop-mode gives a reach of close to 400mm, albeit at reduced resolution but still nice image quality. The overall difference in the quality of my images between the two lenses isn't significant enough for me to want to trade the 24-240 for the 24-105/4L for general photography. It pretty much stays glued to my R6.

Andy

 

[RDM5546]

I have both RF24-105L and 24-240. The 24-240 is my favorite walking around lens it is likely low light or lots of video.

 

[Only RF]

I've had my R6 MK1 with the RF 24-240mm F4-6.3 IS USM lens from day one and never regretted having this lens, which is my only lens for the time being. I mainly do landscapes/cityscapes, so the 240mm is a must for me. FYR, here are four shots I took from the same spot in the lovely town of Lisbon, Portugal to test and see how this super zoom lens performs. 24/38/76/240mm respectively. YMMV.

Cool. We spend 2 months in Portugal every winter. I don't have that lens but I really like my RF 24-105 F4. Having more reach would have it's benefits.

Porto

 

[Only RF]

I had at the EF 24-105 f4 which I really liked until I got my first FF. I never liked the outside distortion at 24mm even if I could fix it. I shot events for several years so I sold it and picked up the EF 24-70 2.8 II IS. Now that was a lens. Wow.

I was torn between the RF 24-105 f4 and the RF 24-70. Mostly by the cost. I have to say the RF 24-105 has gone beyond my expectations. No reach past 105? Just crop it in. I still may get the 24-24 as I am intrigued by it.

 

[arnoldtom]

I generally take only my Canon RF 24–240mm F4-6.3 USM when I go on vacation or someplace new and don't want to carry several lenses. Unless you're a pixel peeper or really need a faster lens, I'd keep it.

 

[Grahamk]

I have the same approach as Tom but also take the RF 16mm, which easily slips into a pocket. The two make a great combination.

 

[ChRiSiS]

I have the same approach as Tom but also take the RF 16mm, which easily slips into a pocket. The two make a great combination.

For my trip to Italy and France last year I was really torn as to what gear to take with me. We would be traveling by Tour Bus between 4 major locations (Assisi and Luca in Italy, Nice and Aix en Provence in the south of France). I would be anttending a number of concerts, mostly inside rather darkish cathedrals (my wife is a classical singer with a concert group) so I needed something that would work in enclosed spaces, plus be able to pick out individuals in the group. I anlso needed a walk anround lens for the sights we would see along the way.

After much agonising I decided to go with a two lens kit of my RF 14-35 F4L and my RF 24-240 coupled with my R5. I’m very happy with the choice. The alternatives (14-35, 24-105 F4 L, 70-200 F2.8) would have been both heavier, bulkier, and also given up reach at the long end. The same was true except for the long end reach if I substituted the RF 100-500 for the 70-200.

In the end it was the perfect combo, with great mage quality, good reach, relatively compact and excellent ergonmics.

Chris