RF 24-240mm as an All-Purpose Walk-Around?

[Olar]

I like the sound of the 24-240mm focal range as a general walk-around but don't like what a couple of YouTube reviewers had to say. I've just purchased an R6 and plan to use my EF 24-105 F/4 with my EF 70-200 F/4 kept handy for when that extra reach is needed. I would love to have a single lens only particularly for hiking.
Any first hand comments out there?

 

[Jake Shoots Birds]

I have the 24-105mm f4 but had a 24-200mm Nikon Z with my Z6 before changing and I missed that as a walkaround lens, so when Canon had refurbs available I picked one up. My only nits are the chromatic aberration and visible lens rim at 24mm. Now, if you turn on profile corrections in Camera Raw or use the Canon software this is "corrected", but it still bugs me. That said, I expected trade-offs and the convenience of the zoom range makes up for it.

 

[Greg]

I have the 24-105mm f4 but had a 24-200mm Nikon Z with my Z6 before changing and I missed that as a walkaround lens, so when Canon had refurbs available I picked one up. My only nits are the chromatic aberration and visible lens rim at 24mm. Now, if you turn on profile corrections in Camera Raw or use the Canon software this is "corrected", but it still bugs me. That said, I expected trade-offs and the convenience of the zoom range makes up for it.

When I read about that in DP Review and later experienced it myself, I thought it was a manufacturer's excuse to have a licence to make inferior lenses. It's possible if the lens was perfect optically it could have cost 3x as much. Other than the recognised faults I cannot see any degradation post software zoomed in on my 28 inch 4k monitor

 

[Dman!470]

Thanks TMac99. Took a gander through your gallery of excellent images. You have convinced me the 24-240 would not disappoint. Cheers.

Olar, thanks for starting this discussion. I was seriously debating purchasing the 24-240mm and after reading this post I have decided to make the jump. I will try this one as my walkabout lenses and see how it goes. I using my 35mm f1.8 stm as my go to lenses on my R6. I have the kit 24-104 stm and enjoy the pictures but SO many times I want just a bit more reach.

 

[photogal_la]

I like the sound of the 24-240mm focal range as a general walk-around but don't like what a couple of YouTube reviewers had to say. I've just purchased an R6 and plan to use my EF 24-105 F/4 with my EF 70-200 F/4 kept handy for when that extra reach is needed. I would love to have a single lens only particularly for hiking.
Any first hand comments out there?

I have both of those EF lenses myself, and I too am trying to figure out how to transition to R lenses. In my transition from an 80D body to an R5 and and R6, probably the most difficult thing for me to adjust to has been losing the 1.6x boost in lens length now that I am shooting full-frame. I have found the 70-200mm lens to be of little use – it's slower than the Sigma 150-600mm that I bought in May (BEFORE I decided to go with mirrorless bodies) and I don't find very sharp either. But the 150-600mm is a real bear for me to carry around. I use it for wildlife shooting but need something more manageable for every day – and my 24-105mm doesn't feel long enough now that I have lost the length boost I got from my 80D.

Any suggestions?

 

[Greg]

I have both of those EF lenses myself, and I too am trying to figure out how to transition to R lenses. In my transition from an 80D body to an R5 and and R6, probably the most difficult thing for me to adjust to has been losing the 1.6x boost in lens length now that I am shooting full-frame. I have found the 70-200mm lens to be of little use – it's slower than the Sigma 150-600mm that I bought in May (BEFORE I decided to go with mirrorless bodies) and I don't find very sharp either. But the 150-600mm is a real bear for me to carry around. I use it for wildlife shooting but need something more manageable for every day – and my 24-105mm doesn't feel long enough now that I have lost the length boost I got from my 80D.

Any suggestions?

A multiplier comes to mind, as long as you can cope with the slower f stops.

What are you doing with the pictures after you finish with any post work? If you are not going to print larger than A3 you will probably get away with using a smaller lens and crop and enlarge. If pin sharp and A2 and over prints you are going into the realms beyond my ken. You will need lenses as big as you, and possibly your assistant , can manage plus a heavy tripod.

 

[photogal_la]

A multiplier comes to mind, as long as you can cope with the slower f stops.

What are you doing with the pictures after you finish with any post work? If you are not going to print larger than A3 you will probably get away with using a smaller lens and crop and enlarge. If pin sharp and A2 and over prints you are going into the realms beyond my ken. You will need lenses as big as you, and possibly your assistant , can manage plus a heavy tripod.

I’m told that extenders/telecoverters are not a great idea for zoom lenses – in addition to losing that precious atop of light, you also see noticeable loss of sharpness. If and when I bite the bullet and buy a fast prime lens I will definitely keep a 1.4x or 2x teleconverter on hand. But in the meantime, I’m still looking for the best possible compromise for versatile every-day use.

 

[Greg]

I’m told that extenders/telecoverters are not a great idea for zoom lenses – in addition to losing that precious atop of light, you also see noticeable loss of sharpness. If and when I bite the bullet and buy a fast prime lens I will definitely keep a 1.4x or 2x teleconverter on hand. But in the meantime, I’m still looking for the best possible compromise for versatile every-day use.

In that case, I repeat, what do you do with your photos? Unless you are a commercial seller of your work is anyone going to notice?

 

[photogal_la]

In that case, I repeat, what do you do with your photos? Unless you are a commercial seller of your work is anyone going to notice?

I don’t do any commercial work. Occasionally I will print something large (30ish x 40ish in) for my own walls

In that case, I repeat, what do you do with your photos? Unless you are a commercial seller of your work is anyone going to notice?

I am definitely not a commercial seller. I do make high-quality coffee table books of my images for myself, and there are some that I will have printed by a professional lab up to 30ish by 40ish inches to hang on my walls. That said, even when looking at images on screen, I can generally see a difference in sharpness and smoothness of bokeh between images shot with a fast prime lens versus the ones I have been shooting with my Sigma 150-600mm. I totally get that you can’t get absolutely everything you want in a single lens, and aside from the exorbitant cost my concern with the prime lens is its weight and bulk. For now I’m just trying to figure out if the new Canon RF 24-240mm would be a good replacement for my EF f/4 24-105 and EF f/4 70-200 – particularly for landscapes when I have lens stopped down and am using a tripod anyway.

 

[Greg]

I don’t do any commercial work. Occasionally I will print something large (30ish x 40ish in) for my own walls

I am definitely not a commercial seller. I do make high-quality coffee table books of my images for myself, and there are some that I will have printed by a professional lab up to 30ish by 40ish inches to hang on my walls. That said, even when looking at images on screen, I can generally see a difference in sharpness and smoothness of bokeh between images shot with a fast prime lens versus the ones I have been shooting with my Sigma 150-600mm. I totally get that you can’t get absolutely everything you want in a single lens, and aside from the exorbitant cost my concern with the prime lens is its weight and bulk. For now I’m just trying to figure out if the new Canon RF 24-240mm would be a good replacement for my EF f/4 24-105 and EF f/4 70-200 – particularly for landscapes when I have lens stopped down and am using a tripod anyway.

I find reading reviews by DP Review and similar publications you can obtain good statistical points of view. Generally, asking individuals is too random and, not want to offend anyone, ill informed including myself.

For good technical comparison Google 'compare camera lens'. You will easily find a comparison website that you enter your lens details and the RF lens and it shows the differences between all the manufacturers specifications.

My personal opinion, which is not much to go on, I settle for the RF. It's a new design and matches the R series cameras specifically. The EF lenses are not designed to match the R bodies, you have lug 2 lenses and an adaptor and swap. That's 3 items all capable of letting in dust, and your old lenses, as far as I remember, don't have environmental sealing. The RF has a higher stabilisation rating compared to the EF. If your EF lenses were L types that would cast a very different opinion.

Canon made 7 variations of your 70-200mm Including 3 L types. Which one is yours?

 

[photogal_la]

In that case, I repeat, what do you do with your photos? Unless you are a commercial seller of your work is anyone going to

I find reading reviews by DP Review and similar publications you can obtain good statistical points of view. Generally, asking individuals is too random and, not want to offend anyone, I'll informed including myself.

For good technical comparison Google 'compare camera lens'. You will easily find a comparison website that you enter your lens details and the RF lens and it shows the differences between all the manufacturers specifications.

My personal opinion, which is not much to go on, I settle for the RF. It's a new design and matches the R series cameras specifically. The EF lenses are not designed to match the R bodies, you have lug 2 lenses and an adaptor and swap. That's 3 items all capable of letting in dust, and your old lenses, as far as I remember, don't have environmental sealing. The RF has a higher stabilisation rating compared to the EF. If your EF lenses were L types that would cast a very different opinion

Thank you so much for your detailed responses – I really do appreciate them. My existing Canon EF lenses ARE in fact L lenses, which is why I'm on the fence about substituting this new RF 24-240 lens for them. My existing lenses are of higher quality for sure (although I have been underwhelmed by the performance and sharpness of the 70-200), but the use of the adapter mount ring slows down the focusing relative to what you would get using an RF lens. It's not apples-to-apples comparison, and I could just get RF versions of my existing lenses, but I am trying to simplify my gear set-up as much as I can and I'm not sure I want to spend another $3-4K to replace both lenses so right now (when the resale value of my current lenses will be a fraction of that – sadly, only the prime lenses really seem to retain their value in terms of resale).