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?

 

[TMac99]

I have that lens and really like it, especially as a walk around lens. It gives you a great range and I have found the image quality to be excellent. I have posted a few images on this site taken with that lens. If you look through my images here: https://rfshooters.com/media/users/tmac99.224/ you will see quite a few shots with the 24-240. All the shots have EXIF data, but basically, all of the bird shots and a couple of the deer shots are 24 - 240 lens.

There is heavy vignetting out of the camera, but the available lens profile correction fixes that right up, so it's not an issue.

P.S. I also like the price of that lens compared to most of the other RF lenses.

 

[Olar]

I have that lens and really like it, especially as a walk around lens. It gives you a great range and I have found the image quality to be excellent. I have posted a few images on this site taken with that lens. If you look through my images here: https://rfshooters.com/media/users/tmac99.224/ you will see quite a few shots with the 24-240. All the shots have EXIF data, but basically, all of the bird shots and a couple of the deer shots are 24 - 240 lens.

There is heavy vignetting out of the camera, but the available lens profile correction fixes that right up, so it's not an issue.

P.S. I also like the price of that lens compared to most of the other RF lenses.

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

 

[LoneRider]

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 sold my 24-105mm f/4L to get the 24-240mm. Much more useful range as a walk around lens for my purposes.

The f4L is a great lens, you do give up some build quality with the 24-240mm but not much in image quality. As for the larger aperture, with the ISO performance of the R bodies, it isn’t a major concern.

For the price (especially if you can find a used or refurb) it is a steal. Lots of great shots coming from this lens. Don’t let internet reviews mislead you. The ONLY legitimate complaint is that the lens relies pretty heavily on Auto Image Correction at the wide end. If you look at RAW files at 24mm you are going to wonder what is going on, but with a jpg or running the RAW through Ps or Lr and using the lens profile everything is fixed automatically. Even manually it is simple to correct, a little barrel, vignette, and crop is all it takes.

Here are a couple shots I’ve taken with mine.

• Join to view EXIF data.

• Join to view EXIF data.

 

[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?

I went ahead and made the purchase. Took it out on a maiden voyage yesterday and am quite pleased with the results. Here's a couple of samples. Cheers.

 

[Greg]

I have R5 and RF 24 - 240. I especially bought that combination so I don't need to swap lenses while out and about. My first use I was surprise by the weight, but don't let that even come into your thoughts, you buy a full frame camera expect a big camera and big lenses.

The combination is very well balanced. The focus is phenomenal it locks onto the eye, even a small bird at a distance and stays there. Zoom is smooth and easy to adjust.

Ignore any reviews about the barrowing and pin cushioning. Canon have done something amazing with the on board software, there is no hint of errors in a JPG. I ignore all personal reviews, I only read reviews by professional and reliable review websites such as DP Review and Imaging-Resources

Get a UV filer and a soft collapsible rubber lens hood to protect the front end, see my other post about lens protection.

 

[Genessi]

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?

Are you talking about the non L 24-240

 

[Greg]

I have one for my R5. The 2 together is a beast. I don't know what it is but the balance is very satisfying. Its a difficult phenomenon to explain, its heavy no doubt about it, at the same time it work.

I've only used it very near home, not had to lug it about for hours. The engineering is superb, zooming and manual focusing is smooth. The eye tracking is total magic. Im in love with its ability to reduce DOF, makes the subject jump out from the background.

I recommend this for its zoom range, the R5 compensate technically for the slowness of the lens, I can get 8 stops advantage. I recommend this lens for other reasons too. One of them being, its so in your face its a statement of camera prowess.

If in doubt rent it

 

[Rhino]

Some of the biggest challenges you find with non L lenses is vignetting, hunting, and lens speed. Canon makes great lenses in general. It's all about performance for the price.

I have used STM and kit lenses in starting my journey. I thought the quality was great for my needs at the time. As I grew in my skillset, I looked to the L lenses for the above purposes. If and when the time comes that you may make money at this artform, you may choose the shell out the $ for these expensive, but high quality lenses. I hope this makes sense.

 

[Greg]

Some of the biggest challenges you find with non L lenses is vignetting, hunting, and lens speed. Canon makes great lenses in general. It's all about performance for the price.

I have used STM and kit lenses in starting my journey. I thought the quality was great for my needs at the time. As I grew in my skillset, I looked to the L lenses for the above purposes. If and when the time comes that you may make money at this artform, you may choose the shell out the $ for these expensive, but high quality lenses. I hope this makes sense.

That's true about most things in life.

One phrase that comes to mind, buy cheap pay twice.

 

[AlisonH]

I have the RP and am using the 24-105mm as my workhorse lens. I am considering buying the 24-240mm lens but am put off by the tales of lens correction being necessary. I use Affinity for editing. Does anyone know if Affinity supports this lens? Thanks.

 

[Greg]

I'm not at all familiar with Affinity.

I have the 24 240 lens. There are no problems with lens correct. JPG's are corrected. I use RAW in Canon's own software and JPG .GIMP, no problem with either.

Beside any post work doubt, the lens is superb at capturing almost every subject withing range

 

[gossamer88]

This lens has really surprised me so much so that I sold my (adapted) EF 24-105 v1.

 

[Hali]

I really like this lens. I originally bought it because it was one of the few RF lenses that were out that were good with my infrared converted RP (didn't give a hot spot at all apertures, only above f/8). In time, though, I've come to really appreciate it as a great walk around lens for my R5 as well. It's not the sharpest lens, it vignettes, and it's slow but with the lens corrections and not having over the top expectations it's a good all around lens. I prefer my L series lenses, but I'm not in a rush to replace all my EF L lenses (especially the big ones) with RF series L glass. I don't know if I ever will, I'm fine working with the adapters.

 

[AlisonH]

Thank you very much for your replies. I am probably going to trade in my RF 24-105mm and EF 70-300 lens for it.

 

[Grahamk]

I have just started using an R6 and have posted some comparison images of flowers (using the RF 24-240 and the RF 70-200 L - the latter on loan) in the Plants gallery. I haven't found out how to link to them so I've reposted a couple here. So far I'm very happy with the RF 24-240, particularly for its versatility.

 

[DocTex]

I have just started using an R6 and have posted some comparison images of flowers (using the RF 24-240 and the RF 70-200 L - the latter on loan) in the Plants gallery. I haven't found out how to link to them so I've reposted a couple here. So far I'm very happy with the RF 24-240, particularly for its versatility.

I bought my 24-240 when it first came out and used it on my rp and now on my r6. For 699 I believe it is by far the best value lens that Canon makes. It is small, lightweight and you get clean, crisp images. It is great for wide shots when you don’t have your wide angle handy and provides good images out to its max range. It is the first lens I pack when I travel also great for family photos. I personally have never understood the value of the 70-200 and just can’t justify the price especially compared to the 24-240. I wish Canon would come out with a 200-600L lens. For now I also can’t justify buying the 100-500 when my workhorse 100-400ii works so well especially when paired with the version i i i extenders.

 

[Hutch]

The 24-240mm on my R5 has surpassed my expectations! Thought I'd be giving up a lot for the flexibility but that hasn't proven to be true. It may not replace some of my pro lenses in certain situations, but it's brought back the fun of relaxed walk about shooting without the burden of carrying multiple lenses. Assuming one isn't going to pixel peep huge prints I doubt most could tell the difference. It's well made, balances well in the hand and focuses relatively quick for a consumer lens.

 

[Greg]

The 24-240mm on my R5 has surpassed my expectations! Thought I'd be giving up a lot for the flexibility but that hasn't proven to be true. It may not replace some of my pro lenses in certain situations, but it's brought back the fun of relaxed walk about shooting without the burden of carrying multiple lenses. Assuming one isn't going to pixel peep huge prints I doubt most could tell the difference. It's well made, balances well in the hand and focuses relatively quick for a consumeTotally agree. I'm going to Egypt in November, didn't wan

The 24-240mm on my R5 has surpassed my expectations! Thought I'd be giving up a lot for the flexibility but that hasn't proven to be true. It may not replace some of my pro lenses in certain situations, but it's brought back the fun of relaxed walk about shooting without the burden of carrying multiple lenses. Assuming one isn't going to pixel peep huge prints I doubt most could tell the difference. It's well made, balances well in the hand and focuses relatively quick for a consumer lens.

Totally agree. I'm going to Egypt in November, didn't want to be changing lenses with all that sand and dust about

 

[Devin]

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 purchased the 24–240 mm just before a wedding. I shot the whole wedding outdoors and indoors without a flash on our five. No complaints. I even had to soften up some of the images because they were too sharp, unflattering. I posted a couple of examples in the gallery under weddings. I have used it just walking around and it is very versatile. If you use Lightroom, always check the lens correction boxes when developing. Improves the image edges at wide angles.

 

[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).