Looking for an EOS R super-zoom? Here's my review of the Canon RF 24-240mm f4-6.3! Check price at B&H: bhpho.to/37enmf6 // WEX: tidd.ly/347HLRi Buy Gordon a coffee: www.paypal.me/cameralabs Gordon's In Camera book at Amazon: amzn.to/2n61PfI / Amazon uk: amzn.to/2mBqRVZ Like Cameralabs? Get the merch: redbubble.com/people/cameralabs/shop
Hi Gordon Thank you for this review, as always, your reviews are very good and thorough. I ended up buying this lens a while ago, and I found it to be better than expected and I also use it more than I anticipated. I use it on my R5 as a grab to go, all-rounder lens, that I use when I don’t want to carry several other heavier L lenses. And this lens is fun to use. Yes, canon made some compromises in this lens, but I can live with those. Verry simplified I would put the RF 24-240 image quality above my old EF 24-105 F/4L. It actually performs quite decent on my R5, and very very few people would be able to tell if I used the RF 24-70/70-200 f/2,8 or the rf 24-240 at a similar aperture and in conditions favourable for the 24-240. Since the lens is quite sharp in the centre, it also performs decently in the R5 crop mode, the 1,6 crop mode gives approx 384mm, with 17,26 megapixels (my old 60D had 17,9). So, still very usable in most cases. Even at 400mm equalent crop it has a useable resouution, so 24-400mm in one combination on the R5 😉. The RF 24-70 f/2,8 and 70-200 f/2,8 does have better IQ of course, but the IQ gap is not that big and makes the 24-240 a bargain. I was considering the rf 24-105mm L, but that one is now out of the question.
I’ve been wanting to hear your take on this lens :) I got this lens and RP kit this summer and it really seems like a “gateway drug” into canon’s mirrorless FF line. It really is a great travel lens. Great review as always!
As an enthusiast photographer whose mobility is hampered by disability, I am excited by the possibility of this affordable super-zoom that will allow me to get closer to subjects than I otherwise could! Thanks for the great review!
Just wanted you to know I bought two of your books of in camera. One for a gift and one for myself. Thx for putting together such a great read. Be Safe. Take care.
Is it just me or is this lens producing a very pleasing bokeh at the long end (for a lens of this kind)? Love the picture of the two geese looking in opposite directions. Also, the amount of detail visible in the picture of the two flowers is quite nice. Thank you very much for the review!
Great test, Gordon. When this lens was released I remember seeing photographer Martin Bissig taking this into the mountains of Pakistan. The images he was abele to capture were thoroughly incredible using only the 24-240 and nothing else. I personally never included this lens on "my list" but if I ever see these drop to the $550-600 range, I may have to pull the trigger. This is the perfect lens for some casual outings and Canon managed to create a reasonably good performer for the zoom range. It's sharper than the old L-series 28-300!
Absolutely fantastic review Gordon!! So useful, and I really love the diagonal detail comparisons at the beach, excellent idea. Thanks so much for all of this! 👍👍
It's the only lens I carry! Having said that, at 24, I find the image not quite as sharp as I'd like particularly at the corners due to the correction. It also seems the barrel distortion at corners are slightly overcorrected at 24 and become a tad pincushioned. Anything from around 27 to 30 and above are spot on though! It's a great do all lens!
love all your reviews, appreciate it! i havent bought a non-L lens in about a decade, but thinking about picking this up for family/lightweight travel shooting. one thing i was looking forward to learning was your normal shutter speed test with/without IS comparison. at 240mm think it's good in the 1/15th range? thanks much and keep up the great work!
Very good review! And yes I am bit tempted. I am actually thinking of buying a new camera, choosing between Nikon, Olympus and Canon so these reviews do help.
Gordon..... Been watching your reviews for years.... You really helped me into the world of DSLR photography..... Absolutely some of the most tip top videos I've seen on UTUBE...... Recently just for laughs I bought a used Canon 300D (the first DSLR from Canon I think)... Came all the way to NY From Japan in about 4 days. It is in almost new condition and I'm having a ball with it considering all the time I had to invest in learning how to use all the functions on my M50 and EOS R. All I had to do was figure out how to change the menus from Japanese back to English.....In any case with your help and a lot of experimentation I have been privileged to enjoy this great pastime which I have come to love so much. Keep up the good work...
@Louis Don, I think that is one of the early ones, I jumped in years ago with the 400D and literally gave it to a family member last week. Great little camera. Can’t wait to get my hands on maybe the R7 (of that’s the 7Dii replacement) but so tempted with the R6 for my first FF. I like that you have gone retro but still have the modern take
First off, Gordon, superb review. What you choose to show, how you compare products (lenses here) and the explanations you provide are the most useful and revealing that I've seen on CZcams as compared to other photography product reviewers here. Second, for this specific video, I must agree with "Tech" that some introduction of the aperture range, either at the beginning of the video or in the title (or, even the details in the "SHOW MORE" section) would have been nice. I understand that a laborious title might alter the algorithms unfavorably hence the suggestion perhaps at the start of the video. Still, as I watched, I was eventually able to glean the specs (or I would have gone to Canon's web site). Third, thank you for the time and effort you put into these very educational videos - you've greatly assisted my development as an enthusiast photographer. I understand so much more as a result of watching your videos. Again, thank you very much. At least to me, you are keenly articulate and readily understood. You're the best, Gordon!!
What confuses me about this lens is why they didn't just make it a 26-240mm. It's actually quite common for people to come back with this lens after having shot raw and having that barrel vignetting showing (after which we tell them what lens profiles are). With this amount of lens compensation though you're just cropping out your picture, resulting in a lower resolution picture while getting it more zoomed in.
Great video, will put this on my shopping list, is it really that warm that people can walk about without coats on in Brighton at this time of year ? And your garden is so much more greener than ours !
If there were more than one 24-240 in the range, I would state the aperture, but when there's only one, it can make the title a bit long for the algorithm. But i do hear you and may change it in the future.
As always I really respect and appreciate your reviews: they are amongst the very best on the web. I have this lens and got it when I had to wait over five months for my 24-105 f/4 to be delivered! I was really impressed by the wide range of the lens: and I actually have the venerable EF 28-300L too - which is an amazing optic, if rather like a howitzer. Like you, I found the lens punches well above what might expect from such a wide focal range, and I use it on one of my R6 bodies. While it might have started as a stop-gap, it now holds its own place in my menagerie of lenses.
Nice to see some lightweight zoom lenses coming out. Would like to see more of these but with pro quality; variable aperture, lighter materials, but still great image quality.
Thanks Gordon, This is my next Purchase, in fact it's locked in this and the 16 mm 2.8f is my R series kit, I have 4 l series lenses from 16 - 300 mm and 600 with a series 3 2x converter I struggle with justifying 3-4 k NZ$ (2x) for 16-200 f 4 lenses when I have that in the original L series Ef lens series able to be used on my Mk3 or Mk4 or my R5 C (via the adapter) I can wait until the early purchasers who buy and pay stupid prices for RF lenses and have to sell them, The R5 C is the first lnse I have purchased new since i purchased my 7d mk2, all the cameras and lenses i have both since had been 2nd hand
I like the lens, and 24mm is a lot better than 28mm for the wide end (I am thinking about tamron ) ...maybe Sony should consider a mark ii version of his lens with less weight and bulk....
I’d like to see Canon or Sony take a page from Olympus’ book and create a 24-200 f8 IS pro grade lens like the Oly 12-100 f4. Tamron comes close with the 28-200 but sacrifices the wide end and IS to maintain the larger aperture at the tele end.
I miss in a way the good old times with my aps-c and my superzoom while life was easy and before I became a pixel peeper. Tamron, please bring the 28-200mm F/2.8-5.6 to the R-mount!
People have the tendency to frown upon superzooms. It comes from older days, when they were not very good indeed. Everything's changing though. I use a Tamron 28-200 on Sony 7RIII. Every day I'm blown away by the quality a 7x zoom lens provides. This 24-240 seems to be there or close enough. People who are automatically sceptical about it, maybe should try one first and have more unprejudiced approach. When I purchased the Tamron it reminded me of when I changed my car with significantly newer model. Before, when I was reading on the internet the new cars achieve 70 mpg, I was like "Come on, now! I drive a car every day. It has the same power and weight and gets 40 mpg. Do they think I'm that stupid?" Well, first time when my new car covered 140 miles with 2 gallons of gasoline, I was like "Dear, oh dear. Maybe I WAS that stupid..." ;)
Hi Gordon. Love your reviews. Thinking of moving up to the R5 this Christmas and I’m looking for a good all-around walking around lens or travel lens as they call it. Do you think this lens, the RF 24-2 40 would be an under performing lens as an every day lens for the R5? Thank you.
This is the exact combo I want to upgrade to from Fujifilm. 1 camera and 1 lens for all purposes and eventually in the future get the 200-800 for birds or planes (it's my passion). I saw other reviewers using it with the R5 with satisfactory results, for as long as you are aware of the cons.
Well done Gordon. For various reasons I've unsubbed from all photography channels (the usual suspects) except for you and Sagi at Tech Gear Talk, so please keep up the good work! 😎
@@cameralabs Am Viewing your Videos recently, Glad to know you have strong knowledge in this field, I've recently Purchased Canon EOS R, Found that The image Quality is Excellent, Video While i record, I didn't see any Smooth View Content, Is there any Settings required in that, Please Advice! And I don't want to buy Gimbal for the same. Please Suggest how can i get Smooth videos without the shakiness of the hand held footage. Lenses Currently Using 24-105mm F/4-7.1.
I dont like Canon cameras, their desing are awfull, but their lenses have a awesome desing! Like the rf 70-200 mm thats a great looking lens, this one looks great too , maybe im and idiot, but i think that how you look taking a picture is part of the experience! That why i like cameras by design + features! Great video as always!
As a panasonic 14-140 (28-280 ff)mm mft user iam not really mpressed but its cool that full frame users now have a affordable option that almost has the reach my little lense has
Thank you for the review! I've been looking at this lens as the one lens to go with on the Canon R5, along with 3 primes (EF 35 f2, RF 50 1.8 and EF 85 1.8) as the ultimate "travel and video" companion kit... the output seems more than adequate for documentary film-making work
Hi Gordon. Hoping for some advice. I have a R6 and the 24-240 RF. I am a novice photographer, just taking snaps when on outings / holiday. I especially appreciate extreme detail in photos. That in mind, I wish I rather went for the R5, but it was just too expensive. Anyway, to the question: The RF 70-200 F2.8 has been burning a hole in my mind, having me think each time I look at one of my photos: "Just imagine how much better that would have looked had I used a 70-200" Again though, it's very expensive, so not really something I can buy without caring. In your opinion, would the 70-200 on an R6 offer: A: Far superior detail in photos? (Also, will this be over the whole image, or just in the corners, where the 24-240 struggles?) B: Better auto focus? (current setup sometimes struggles with birds in flight. I might have unrealistic expectations here) Thank you so much for all your efforts with your videos!
You'll get faster autofocus for birds with lower f numbers. A 70-200 2.8 will be faster than this lens. And it'll be sharper, but you can get just as sharp with your current lens. I was considering the 70-200 2.8 or 4, but I'm getting your lens because focal length, rather than f stop is more important for bokeh. Get a lower f number lens for indoors, but not for birds unless that's a full blown side hobby.
Hey Gordon! Did you do side-by-side comparison of image quality between this lens and the RF 24-105 L f4? I'm hesitating betwwen the two for traveling, as paired with an R5, the L lens would also give decent reach, with a 168mm equivalent when using the crop mode. Thanks for your great reviews!
You'll need to watch my RF 24-105mm f4-7.1 review as it has some f4L comparisons in there, plus the 24-240 comparisons too. No complete side by sides, but you can interpolate some results / conclusions from it!
Gordon I understand it’s a old video. I have a old 18-135 mm EFS STM lens adapted to a R6; thinking of getting a native RF lens does it make sense to get this 24-240 mm lens? Have there been technology improvements made to make this lens a good addition & this purchase worthwhile?
First of all, the 18-135 is an EFS lens, designed for a cropped sensor, so you'd have to set the R6 into a crop mode and lose half your pixels. The 24-240 is a full-frame lens, so you could use your full sensor on the R6, plus the AF and bursts are generally better on native lenses.
Great Gordon, many thanks for that as I was looking at those lenses today. Just perfect timing. I will take possession of a Canon R5 body shortly and while I have some EF lenses I will use with the adapter was wondering on getting a RF mount general purpose lens for travel as they are lighter and more compact and you don't need the adapter (just another thing to forget or loose). Ideally I would go for an L series RF lens but the cost is currently prohibitive imho. Comparatively, utilising the R5's IBIS and lens aberration correction in Lightroom would I gain that much by buying an L series even if they did the handy 24-240 zoom range in a L which they don't ? (I don't do rough weather and dusty environments so weather sealing is not a priority). This 24 to 240 seems pretty good even if it's meant for the low end R series bodies and the hobbyist.
It's about balancing convenience and cost against performance, as on the R5 you will be pushing this lens harder than it's designed for in terms of resolution. Sure it'll work, but the quality won't be as good as the sharper lenses in the collection. But as an all-round travel lens for general use it's still a good choice so long as you know you probably won't be getting 45mp out of it.
@@cameralabs Indeed, you are right. thank you. The 45 Megapixel will come into its own with my better fixed lenses but I think I can pick up one of these 24 to 240 for about £489 compared to £1700 for the RF 70-200 F4 L so it might be worth trying it and then selling it if it doesn't deliver what I need ... perhaps Canon will produce a 24 to 240 L version soon that I can upgrade to. I won't be producing prints larger than A3+ or heavy cropping as the composition should be achieved using the handy zoom range in camera so I will cross my fingers. :)
Can you explain why, on an R6 body, the "multiple exposures" function is disabled (error message: “Not available with the attached lens”) when using this lens?
@@cameralabs no I mean for more reach. I have the 24-105 l and either want the 24-240 or wonder what you recommend that was not super expensive that was a little better optically? Looking to cover 70/100 - 200 range.
@@NicksTech the best option for IQ would be one of the 70-200s but yes they're more expensive and you'd need two lenses, where as the 24-240 covers you in one, albeit of course not as well. I recommend you download some of my sample images from cameralabs.com to see if they meet your expectations.
I’m curious how this lens works on the R7. I am currently using a EF70-300 series II with the adapter, and I find the AF struggles a bit at the 300mm range with sports. Unfortunately the RF 70-200 f4 doesn’t allow for the use of a TC and I need more reach with sports.
There is a guy on youtube who reports significant vignetting at 24mm with this lens only removable post processing. Is vignetting an issue with this lens set wide?
If lens profiles are applied, vignetting is not a huge issue here. You can see it in my results. There are a lot of digital corrections being made for vignetting and geometry
@@robgerety if you shoot jpeg, they are automatically applied by the camera. If you shoot in raw, they can be applied automatically by some applications like Adobe Camera Rae or lightroom
How do you pan the camera and focus so quickly at 4m15s? When I see videos of that on the same FOV and foreground and background focus changes, I assumed that it was done through the Camera Connect app. But with the pans and quick focus changes, perhaps there is a different way?
Are you asking how I recorded the image? That was done by taking the HDMI output from the camera into an HDMI recorder - in this case an Atomos Ninja V. The camera was simply on a tripod with a fluid head allowing me to pan smoothly from left to right.
As a budget lens, I wouldn't pair it with the highest resolution EOS R body myself UNLESS you absolutely needed a 10x range in a light and cheaper barrel. If budget is a concern, I'd sooner get one of the lower cost RF prime lenses, although of course these don't zoom.
@@kansascityrc Gordon is correct, of course, but it would work very well indeed on that superb body if you wanted to carry around only one lens, say on vacation.
24-105 f4 is has image stabilization and sigma 24-70 f2.8 has is ...both low light and sharper image quality than stm lenses 24-105 or 24-240 in zoom range fstop...and keep in mind focus breathing. Changing aperture does make difference..f8 to f11 in post process sharper image.
nice review - looks like a solid lens.. might not be the most exciting but is more affordable than the rest of the RF lineup and gives decent enough IQ for all but the most stringent pixel peepers! I'm amazed you didn't mention 'substantial meal' at any stage :) Hope you have a fabulous christmas!
True, but laptops are more mainstream than camera lenses these days. Phones have killed the real budget camera gear so now the space they're operating in starts at what we used to call mid-range. Plus there are still some thrifty-50's to be had for less than a couple of hundred. But ultimately new camera gear is becoming increasingly specialist and high-end. Luckily there's bargains to be had on used gear and older systems. See my Nikon D80 retro review for example.
I'm glad Nikon went for a better superzoom with the Z 24-200. Weather sealed, same max aperture range as this Canon and really excellent optically. It's a little more money but it's worth it. The size is actually pretty small for what it is.
@@navagiopoint I don't think it's trash, by regular superzoom standards, but compared to the Tamron, which even challenges some 24-70mm f/2.8 lenses out there and beats most f/4 zooms, yup, it's trash, haha.
Given you haven't mentioned what it is you want to do or how the 24-105 is letting you down, it's impossible to advise. So I'd say stick with the 24-105.
I own this lens and one thing not mentioned in this review is its TERRIBLE focusing in low light conditions and macro. The camera will sit there and refuse to focus.
Looking for an EOS R super-zoom? Here's my review of the Canon RF 24-240mm f4-6.3!
Check price at B&H: bhpho.to/37enmf6 // WEX: tidd.ly/347HLRi
Buy Gordon a coffee: www.paypal.me/cameralabs
Gordon's In Camera book at Amazon: amzn.to/2n61PfI / Amazon uk: amzn.to/2mBqRVZ
Like Cameralabs? Get the merch: redbubble.com/people/cameralabs/shop
Hi Gordon
Thank you for this review, as always, your reviews are very good and thorough.
I ended up buying this lens a while ago, and I found it to be better than expected and I also use it more than I anticipated. I use it on my R5 as a grab to go, all-rounder lens, that I use when I don’t want to carry several other heavier L lenses. And this lens is fun to use. Yes, canon made some compromises in this lens, but I can live with those. Verry simplified I would put the RF 24-240 image quality above my old EF 24-105 F/4L.
It actually performs quite decent on my R5, and very very few people would be able to tell if I used the RF 24-70/70-200 f/2,8 or the rf 24-240 at a similar aperture and in conditions favourable for the 24-240.
Since the lens is quite sharp in the centre, it also performs decently in the R5 crop mode, the 1,6 crop mode gives approx 384mm, with 17,26 megapixels (my old 60D had 17,9). So, still very usable in most cases. Even at 400mm equalent crop it has a useable resouution, so 24-400mm in one combination on the R5 😉. The RF 24-70 f/2,8 and 70-200 f/2,8 does have better IQ of course, but the IQ gap is not that big and makes the 24-240 a bargain. I was considering the rf 24-105mm L, but that one is now out of the question.
I’ve been wanting to hear your take on this lens :) I got this lens and RP kit this summer and it really seems like a “gateway drug” into canon’s mirrorless FF line. It really is a great travel lens. Great review as always!
As an enthusiast photographer whose mobility is hampered by disability, I am excited by the possibility of this affordable super-zoom that will allow me to get closer to subjects than I otherwise could! Thanks for the great review!
Just wanted you to know I bought two of your books of in camera. One for a gift and one for myself. Thx for putting together such a great read. Be Safe. Take care.
Basically zero focus breathing while focus racking during video - very nice!
Is it just me or is this lens producing a very pleasing bokeh at the long end (for a lens of this kind)? Love the picture of the two geese looking in opposite directions. Also, the amount of detail visible in the picture of the two flowers is quite nice. Thank you very much for the review!
Thanks, and yes, I liked the way those geese shots turned out too!
Great test, Gordon. When this lens was released I remember seeing photographer Martin Bissig taking this into the mountains of Pakistan. The images he was abele to capture were thoroughly incredible using only the 24-240 and nothing else. I personally never included this lens on "my list" but if I ever see these drop to the $550-600 range, I may have to pull the trigger. This is the perfect lens for some casual outings and Canon managed to create a reasonably good performer for the zoom range. It's sharper than the old L-series 28-300!
on "sale" now $800 at Mike's in US.
Absolutely fantastic review Gordon!! So useful, and I really love the diagonal detail comparisons at the beach, excellent idea. Thanks so much for all of this! 👍👍
You're very welcome!
It's the only lens I carry! Having said that, at 24, I find the image not quite as sharp as I'd like particularly at the corners due to the correction. It also seems the barrel distortion at corners are slightly overcorrected at 24 and become a tad pincushioned. Anything from around 27 to 30 and above are spot on though! It's a great do all lens!
Great feedback, thanks!
Really helpful and well-balanced review. Thank you.
You're welcome!
love all your reviews, appreciate it! i havent bought a non-L lens in about a decade, but thinking about picking this up for family/lightweight travel shooting. one thing i was looking forward to learning was your normal shutter speed test with/without IS comparison. at 240mm think it's good in the 1/15th range? thanks much and keep up the great work!
Very good review! And yes I am bit tempted. I am actually thinking of buying a new camera, choosing between Nikon, Olympus and Canon so these reviews do help.
Gordon..... Been watching your reviews for years.... You really helped me into the world of DSLR photography..... Absolutely some of the most tip top videos I've seen on UTUBE...... Recently just for laughs I bought a used Canon 300D (the first DSLR from Canon I think)... Came all the way to NY From Japan in about 4 days. It is in almost new condition and I'm having a ball with it considering all the time I had to invest in learning how to use all the functions on my M50 and EOS R. All I had to do was figure out how to change the menus from Japanese back to English.....In any case with your help and a lot of experimentation I have been privileged to enjoy this great pastime which I have come to love so much. Keep up the good work...
@Louis Don, I think that is one of the early ones, I jumped in years ago with the 400D and literally gave it to a family member last week. Great little camera. Can’t wait to get my hands on maybe the R7 (of that’s the 7Dii replacement) but so tempted with the R6 for my first FF.
I like that you have gone retro but still have the modern take
Good review Gordon. I've put this one on my "to buy" list for this year.
Thanks!
Thanks Super Review - it looks like a super lens for wandering around on holiday without the entire camera bag
Thanks!
First off, Gordon, superb review. What you choose to show, how you compare products (lenses here) and the explanations you provide are the most useful and revealing that I've seen on CZcams as compared to other photography product reviewers here.
Second, for this specific video, I must agree with "Tech" that some introduction of the aperture range, either at the beginning of the video or in the title (or, even the details in the "SHOW MORE" section) would have been nice. I understand that a laborious title might alter the algorithms unfavorably hence the suggestion perhaps at the start of the video. Still, as I watched, I was eventually able to glean the specs (or I would have gone to Canon's web site).
Third, thank you for the time and effort you put into these very educational videos - you've greatly assisted my development as an enthusiast photographer. I understand so much more as a result of watching your videos.
Again, thank you very much. At least to me, you are keenly articulate and readily understood. You're the best, Gordon!!
Thanks for the feedback!
What confuses me about this lens is why they didn't just make it a 26-240mm. It's actually quite common for people to come back with this lens after having shot raw and having that barrel vignetting showing (after which we tell them what lens profiles are). With this amount of lens compensation though you're just cropping out your picture, resulting in a lower resolution picture while getting it more zoomed in.
True, and I show it with and without at the end.
Then they couldn’t call it a 10x zoom, plus it must actually be wider than 24mm to be able to crop to an equivalent of 24 🤷
Great review. While some reviews portrayed this less as terrible, your review is more balanced and makes me feel more confident to buy one.
Thanks, it's a great general purpose option when you don't want to swap lenses.
Great video, will put this on my shopping list, is it really that warm that people can walk about without coats on in Brighton at this time of year ? And your garden is so much more greener than ours !
Ha ha, fooled you! I actually filmed this in Summer, but only got round to editing it into a review now.
Should have mentioned the F4-6.3 part at the start it in the title. Great review as always though
If there were more than one 24-240 in the range, I would state the aperture, but when there's only one, it can make the title a bit long for the algorithm. But i do hear you and may change it in the future.
As always I really respect and appreciate your reviews: they are amongst the very best on the web.
I have this lens and got it when I had to wait over five months for my 24-105 f/4 to be delivered! I was really impressed by the wide range of the lens: and I actually have the venerable EF 28-300L too - which is an amazing optic, if rather like a howitzer. Like you, I found the lens punches well above what might expect from such a wide focal range, and I use it on one of my R6 bodies. While it might have started as a stop-gap, it now holds its own place in my menagerie of lenses.
I also was positively surprised with this lens. And I use it more than expected on my R5.
(My only non L lens)
Nice to see some lightweight zoom lenses coming out. Would like to see more of these but with pro quality; variable aperture, lighter materials, but still great image quality.
Thanks Gordon, This is my next Purchase, in fact it's locked in this and the 16 mm 2.8f is my R series kit, I have 4 l series lenses from 16 - 300 mm and 600 with a series 3 2x converter I struggle with justifying 3-4 k NZ$ (2x) for 16-200 f 4 lenses when I have that in the original L series Ef lens series able to be used on my Mk3 or Mk4 or my R5 C (via the adapter) I can wait until the early purchasers who buy and pay stupid prices for RF lenses and have to sell them, The R5 C is the first lnse I have purchased new since i purchased my 7d mk2, all the cameras and lenses i have both since had been 2nd hand
I like the lens, and 24mm is a lot better than 28mm for the wide end (I am thinking about tamron ) ...maybe Sony should consider a mark ii version of his lens with less weight and bulk....
Yes, 24 is definitely more useful than 28
Substantially better lens than Sony's counterpart, though that wasn't any hard to achieve, due to potato performance of FE 24-240mm.
Only IQ is better, no suprise considering 5 years since sony released its 24-240mm. Distortion and corner shading at 24mm is far worse on canon lens.
I’d like to see Canon or Sony take a page from Olympus’ book and create a 24-200 f8 IS pro grade lens like the Oly 12-100 f4. Tamron comes close with the 28-200 but sacrifices the wide end and IS to maintain the larger aperture at the tele end.
I miss in a way the good old times with my aps-c and my superzoom while life was easy and before I became a pixel peeper. Tamron, please bring the 28-200mm F/2.8-5.6 to the R-mount!
24-240 f6.3 + 35 F1.8 + 85 f2 = Fantastic Travel Combos.
That's a nice combo!
People have the tendency to frown upon superzooms. It comes from older days, when they were not very good indeed. Everything's changing though. I use a Tamron 28-200 on Sony 7RIII. Every day I'm blown away by the quality a 7x zoom lens provides. This 24-240 seems to be there or close enough. People who are automatically sceptical about it, maybe should try one first and have more unprejudiced approach. When I purchased the Tamron it reminded me of when I changed my car with significantly newer model. Before, when I was reading on the internet the new cars achieve 70 mpg, I was like "Come on, now! I drive a car every day. It has the same power and weight and gets 40 mpg. Do they think I'm that stupid?" Well, first time when my new car covered 140 miles with 2 gallons of gasoline, I was like "Dear, oh dear. Maybe I WAS that stupid..." ;)
Hi Gordon. Love your reviews. Thinking of moving up to the R5 this Christmas and I’m looking for a good all-around walking around lens or travel lens as they call it. Do you think this lens, the RF 24-2 40 would be an under performing lens as an every day lens for the R5? Thank you.
This is the exact combo I want to upgrade to from Fujifilm. 1 camera and 1 lens for all purposes and eventually in the future get the 200-800 for birds or planes (it's my passion). I saw other reviewers using it with the R5 with satisfactory results, for as long as you are aware of the cons.
Well done Gordon. For various reasons I've unsubbed from all photography channels (the usual suspects) except for you and Sagi at Tech Gear Talk, so please keep up the good work! 😎
Thanks for sticking with me!
@@cameralabs You do good work, and your presentation style suits my tastes, so I will. Plus, I'm a JPEG, in-camera guy too! 😎
You superzoom rock Gordon!
Excellent!
Good Review ! Very Clear Explanation.
Thanks!
@@cameralabs Am Viewing your Videos recently, Glad to know you have strong knowledge in this field, I've recently Purchased Canon EOS R, Found that The image Quality is Excellent, Video While i record, I didn't see any Smooth View Content, Is there any Settings required in that, Please Advice! And I don't want to buy Gimbal for the same. Please Suggest how can i get Smooth videos without the shakiness of the hand held footage. Lenses Currently Using 24-105mm F/4-7.1.
I dont like Canon cameras, their desing are awfull, but their lenses have a awesome desing! Like the rf 70-200 mm thats a great looking lens, this one looks great too , maybe im and idiot, but i think that how you look taking a picture is part of the experience! That why i like cameras by design + features! Great video as always!
As a panasonic 14-140 (28-280 ff)mm mft user iam not really mpressed but its cool that full frame users now have a affordable option that almost has the reach my little lense has
Thank you for the review. How this lens compares to the nikon z 24-200mm in general terms, of course? Thank you so much.
Here's my review of the Nikon: www.cameralabs.com/nikon-z-24-200mm-f4-6-3-vr-review/
Great video I like your reviews. So which lens would you pair with the R5 for landscape?
Depends what range you want. I think the R5 deserves better quality than the 24-240 unless you need the 10x range in one lens.
Thank you for the review! I've been looking at this lens as the one lens to go with on the Canon R5, along with 3 primes (EF 35 f2, RF 50 1.8 and EF 85 1.8) as the ultimate "travel and video" companion kit... the output seems more than adequate for documentary film-making work
why do u have 3 prime lens ?
Ik that house at the start. I can't remember the name, but its kinda cool to see places you know in other peoples videos
Thanks! It's Wakehurst, South of London.
Hi Gordon. Hoping for some advice. I have a R6 and the 24-240 RF. I am a novice photographer, just taking snaps when on outings / holiday. I especially appreciate extreme detail in photos. That in mind, I wish I rather went for the R5, but it was just too expensive. Anyway, to the question: The RF 70-200 F2.8 has been burning a hole in my mind, having me think each time I look at one of my photos: "Just imagine how much better that would have looked had I used a 70-200" Again though, it's very expensive, so not really something I can buy without caring.
In your opinion, would the 70-200 on an R6 offer:
A: Far superior detail in photos? (Also, will this be over the whole image, or just in the corners, where the 24-240 struggles?)
B: Better auto focus? (current setup sometimes struggles with birds in flight. I might have unrealistic expectations here)
Thank you so much for all your efforts with your videos!
You'll get faster autofocus for birds with lower f numbers. A 70-200 2.8 will be faster than this lens. And it'll be sharper, but you can get just as sharp with your current lens.
I was considering the 70-200 2.8 or 4, but I'm getting your lens because focal length, rather than f stop is more important for bokeh.
Get a lower f number lens for indoors, but not for birds unless that's a full blown side hobby.
Brilliant Review, Thank mate! Would you recommend this for higher end bodies like R6?
I think it would work fine for the R6. Less ideal for the R5.
If you wanna take one zoom lens from 24-240mm and 24-105mm f4-7.1 with EOS RP for a general travel purpose, which one will you choose?
If weight and price are an issue, then the 24-105
Hey Gordon! Did you do side-by-side comparison of image quality between this lens and the RF 24-105 L f4? I'm hesitating betwwen the two for traveling, as paired with an R5, the L lens would also give decent reach, with a 168mm equivalent when using the crop mode. Thanks for your great reviews!
You'll need to watch my RF 24-105mm f4-7.1 review as it has some f4L comparisons in there, plus the 24-240 comparisons too. No complete side by sides, but you can interpolate some results / conclusions from it!
@@cameralabs Thanks Gordon! I'll go watch it now!
Hi Gordon another great video. Can I ask what camera YOU actually use to take photos with ?
Thanks lee
I use several, depending what I'm doing. Most of my videos and product shots are taken with a Sony A6400
@@cameralabs thanks for your reply happy new year
I am mostly a landscape/macro photographer for the artsy effects. Do you think this lens would be good for me?
I'd say you're better off with, say, the RF 35mm f1.8 for its closer focusing and better opportunities for blurring.
Thanks!
Thankyou, much appreciated!
Gordon I understand it’s a old video. I have a old 18-135 mm EFS STM lens adapted to a R6; thinking of getting a native RF lens does it make sense to get this 24-240 mm lens?
Have there been technology improvements made to make this lens a good addition & this purchase worthwhile?
First of all, the 18-135 is an EFS lens, designed for a cropped sensor, so you'd have to set the R6 into a crop mode and lose half your pixels. The 24-240 is a full-frame lens, so you could use your full sensor on the R6, plus the AF and bursts are generally better on native lenses.
Great review.
Thanks!
How does this compare to the 70-200 mm f/2.8? Which is better for grad photos and weddings?
I've reviewed tat too, check my review of it out, they are very different lenses
Great Gordon, many thanks for that as I was looking at those lenses today. Just perfect timing. I will take possession of a Canon R5 body shortly and while I have some EF lenses I will use with the adapter was wondering on getting a RF mount general purpose lens for travel as they are lighter and more compact and you don't need the adapter (just another thing to forget or loose). Ideally I would go for an L series RF lens but the cost is currently prohibitive imho. Comparatively, utilising the R5's IBIS and lens aberration correction in Lightroom would I gain that much by buying an L series even if they did the handy 24-240 zoom range in a L which they don't ? (I don't do rough weather and dusty environments so weather sealing is not a priority). This 24 to 240 seems pretty good even if it's meant for the low end R series bodies and the hobbyist.
It's about balancing convenience and cost against performance, as on the R5 you will be pushing this lens harder than it's designed for in terms of resolution. Sure it'll work, but the quality won't be as good as the sharper lenses in the collection. But as an all-round travel lens for general use it's still a good choice so long as you know you probably won't be getting 45mp out of it.
@@cameralabs Indeed, you are right. thank you. The 45 Megapixel will come into its own with my better fixed lenses but I think I can pick up one of these 24 to 240 for about £489 compared to £1700 for the RF 70-200 F4 L so it might be worth trying it and then selling it if it doesn't deliver what I need ... perhaps Canon will produce a 24 to 240 L version soon that I can upgrade to. I won't be producing prints larger than A3+ or heavy cropping as the composition should be achieved using the handy zoom range in camera so I will cross my fingers. :)
@@gwal93 yeah, be interesting to see if they did another L superzoom as it's been a while since the EF 28-300.
@@cameralabs There is apparently a leaked list of new RF lenses for 2021 and unfortunately it's not on there :(
@@gwal93 Canon is producing new RF designs at a furious rate, so we may see one in the future!
Can you explain why, on an R6 body, the "multiple exposures" function is disabled (error message: “Not available with the attached lens”) when using this lens?
Not sure, but there are some odd restrictions on some of these combinations. best ask Canon.
I like this review but with the canon R6 what would you say is the next best zoom if I wanted to invest a little more for better IQ?
You mean compared to the 24-105 STM? Depends if you need the range vs the weight.
@@cameralabs no I mean for more reach. I have the 24-105 l and either want the 24-240 or wonder what you recommend that was not super expensive that was a little better optically? Looking to cover 70/100 - 200 range.
@@NicksTech the best option for IQ would be one of the 70-200s but yes they're more expensive and you'd need two lenses, where as the 24-240 covers you in one, albeit of course not as well. I recommend you download some of my sample images from cameralabs.com to see if they meet your expectations.
We’re the shots shown on a tripod or just using the Stabilisation in the body?
The gallery of samples near the end were all handheld. The landscape comparisons were tirpod.
Would that lens work well (in terms of sharpness, resolution, etc.) on an R5?
It would give you the range, but I suspect not as sharp on the R5 as the L lenses.
I’m curious how this lens works on the R7. I am currently using a EF70-300 series II with the adapter, and I find the AF struggles a bit at the 300mm range with sports. Unfortunately the RF 70-200 f4 doesn’t allow for the use of a TC and I need more reach with sports.
There is a guy on youtube who reports significant vignetting at 24mm with this lens only removable post processing. Is vignetting an issue with this lens set wide?
If lens profiles are applied, vignetting is not a huge issue here. You can see it in my results. There are a lot of digital corrections being made for vignetting and geometry
@@cameralabs are the corrections made in post processing or pre shot
@@robgerety if you shoot jpeg, they are automatically applied by the camera. If you shoot in raw, they can be applied automatically by some applications like Adobe Camera Rae or lightroom
How do you pan the camera and focus so quickly at 4m15s? When I see videos of that on the same FOV and foreground and background focus changes, I assumed that it was done through the Camera Connect app. But with the pans and quick focus changes, perhaps there is a different way?
Are you asking how I recorded the image? That was done by taking the HDMI output from the camera into an HDMI recorder - in this case an Atomos Ninja V. The camera was simply on a tripod with a fluid head allowing me to pan smoothly from left to right.
@@cameralabs and after panning how do you acquire the focus on the bike and the sign?
@@os2baba I'm just half pressing the shutter button when I stop the pan.
@@cameralabs I see. Thanks.
The right price for the Canon Rf 24_240 would be about half.
Great review Gordon! How do these perform on a R5?
As a budget lens, I wouldn't pair it with the highest resolution EOS R body myself UNLESS you absolutely needed a 10x range in a light and cheaper barrel. If budget is a concern, I'd sooner get one of the lower cost RF prime lenses, although of course these don't zoom.
@@cameralabs That makes sense, thanks for your reply 😀
@@kansascityrc Gordon is correct, of course, but it would work very well indeed on that superb body if you wanted to carry around only one lens, say on vacation.
Will this lens fit onto an Eos R8? I'm new to cameras and purchasing an Eos R8 body and lens separately.
Yes, it's a full-frame lens so will work with the R8 just fine.
Thank you
if you dont need shot video ,Buy 24-240
it gets more focal length and faster focus
24-240 is also way sharper than 24-105
Are you basing that on my results or yours?
yours LOL
24-105 f4 is has image stabilization and sigma 24-70 f2.8 has is ...both low light and sharper image quality than stm lenses 24-105 or 24-240 in zoom range fstop...and keep in mind focus breathing. Changing aperture does make difference..f8 to f11 in post process sharper image.
How badly it works with APS-C sensor?
Just multiply it by 1.6x
@@cameralabs yeah, I know that. Just wondering if there's any reason not to use it with crop sensor due to some drawbacks.
@@tender.branson not that I know of, no.
How does this compare with the EF 28-300mm?
You mean the giant L lens? They're completely different.
@@cameralabs yes that one. 😁
nice review - looks like a solid lens.. might not be the most exciting but is more affordable than the rest of the RF lineup and gives decent enough IQ for all but the most stringent pixel peepers!
I'm amazed you didn't mention 'substantial meal' at any stage :)
Hope you have a fabulous christmas!
Thankyou Greg, Merry Christmas to you too!
Its kinda nuts that we're at a point where an $800 lens is "budget". You could buy a decent laptop with that.
True, but laptops are more mainstream than camera lenses these days. Phones have killed the real budget camera gear so now the space they're operating in starts at what we used to call mid-range. Plus there are still some thrifty-50's to be had for less than a couple of hundred. But ultimately new camera gear is becoming increasingly specialist and high-end. Luckily there's bargains to be had on used gear and older systems. See my Nikon D80 retro review for example.
nice lens sir
I'm glad Nikon went for a better superzoom with the Z 24-200. Weather sealed, same max aperture range as this Canon and really excellent optically. It's a little more money but it's worth it. The size is actually pretty small for what it is.
Here's the website review of the Nikon version: www.cameralabs.com/nikon-z-24-200mm-f4-6-3-vr-review/
@@cameralabs Would you be able to update your nikon 24-200m review with samples at 24mm without in camera corrections?
@@robertl6330 hmm, that's a good idea for future reviews, I'll look into it.
We need the Tamron 28-200mm 2.8-5.6 on the RF mount so we can be done with this nonsense, heh.
seriously, this rf is trash, by mtf and by other website samples
@@navagiopoint I don't think it's trash, by regular superzoom standards, but compared to the Tamron, which even challenges some 24-70mm f/2.8 lenses out there and beats most f/4 zooms, yup, it's trash, haha.
I object! *24*-200!
@@ЭтоДрючинский that lens doesn’t exist. The 28 just needs a new mount.
@@AshleyPaul I mean I want them to make it 😀
Do I swap out my rf 24 - 105 f4 - 7.1 for this lens or get the EF 70 - 200 F4 is usm? With adapter
Given you haven't mentioned what it is you want to do or how the 24-105 is letting you down, it's impossible to advise. So I'd say stick with the 24-105.
I own this lens and one thing not mentioned in this review is its TERRIBLE focusing in low light conditions and macro. The camera will sit there and refuse to focus.
Which body? That will have xn impact
@@cameralabs Canon R7
If its not a fixed aperture lens its not worth looking at.
Show me a 10x zoom with a fixed aperture that you'd want to carry around.
wanna know R5+RF24-240
Wanna know what
@@cameralabs is it a good option for r5 video?
@@KOBE-mv8pf remember it's a budget lens, so it's ok in 1080 and 4k, but maybe not quite sharp enough for 8k
@@cameralabs thanks
I might be too rude and radical, but both look like an insanely overpriced junk :|
Thanks!
Thanks for your support!