Canon RF 24-240mm f/4-6.3 IS USM lens review with sample pictures

[@Sanddesert]

If you are gonna choose a 24 - 105 over a 24 - 240 superzoom for travelling and you need to digitally crop a lot of your 105mm shots with 2x cause you did not have the range needed, you will loose a lot more picture quality than shown here!! Or better said, unfortunately you cannot really compare the two lenses cause they are meant for different situations and they both come with their own tradeoffs. I recently went travelling with just a tamron 16-300 and although the optics and performance are clearly worse than my ef 24 105 and 70-300 L lenses, i got a lot more shots just by not needing to change lenses and missing the moment. In a lot of cases, especially while travelling, telling the story fully has more value than missing out cause you are deciding not to tolerate pictures with 80 percent quality instead of 100 percent!

[@cooperativ]

Exactly, thank you. Also, not to mention the size and weight, on a small body this is literally a compact camera setup in big hands

[@clearviewmarine]

All good I agree with you but $900 should be 400 seems to be the trend with all RF lenses lots of caveats with a massive price tag

[@Saitir942]

Christopher is one of the most polite and decent photography gear reviewers on KZbin... Through that filter, this review is devastatingly scathing! I must confess I actually laughed out loud in a couple of places (especially with the turbos). Darn! Someone make this guy a cup of tea already! He's close to blowing! :-) Beautifully done sir!

[@Wabajak13]

I dunno, he can be pretty critical when it comes to lenses. Doesn't sound like this was too bad of a performer, sharpness looked great for this type of lens.

[@christopherfrost]

Haha, I did actually feel like I was being a little too harsh with this particular lens, on reflection! It's not that bad.

[@Saitir942]

@@christopherfrost I'm not so sure you were really. They let their marketing desire for the matched numbers of 24 to 240 push them outside of the technical capabilities they could deliver for the price point. Even limiting the wide angle to 35mm might have been more honest of them, and disabling the ability to remove in camera corrections is just downright naughty! Of course a 35-240 lens doesn't look as good in a price list, alas.

[@evertonporter7887]

@@christopherfrost I just watched your review Chris. Canon have been very sneaky with this lens😂🤣.

[@pixelspotmedia9046]

Best reviewer ever, if i'm looking for a lens then I check here.

[@Nertez]

At the end of the day, the pictures looks pretty damn good if you ask me, and that's what matters for someone who would buy these one-for-all type lenses.

[@dasaauto2024]

Nerte If that’s your criteria (and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with it) then I’d suggest looking at an APS-C camera, perhaps? Much less size, weight and cost. You get 90% (or more) of what full frame offers to someone who’s looking for “pretty damn good pictures.” (At 24mm using this lens, you’re almost shooting on an APS-C sized crop of the FF sensor anyway.)

[@ericdanthon2]

You are exactly right and I concur with you. It is a great all purpose walking around lens. Pixel peepers are always crying about something in photography.

[@trevor9934]

@@dasaauto2024 If the intent is to use the current R series bodies on crop mode, i'm not sure I can agree with you. Leaving aside the fact that (at the time of writing) there is no crop sensor R-series camera (although I fervently hope they create an R7 to replace the ageing 7DMkII), and even if one uses crop sensor mode on one of the current R-series FF bodies, the pixel count is reduced by the square of the crop factor, as Canon clearly state in their manual, resulting in a 20MP image of the F6 being reduced to around 7.4, and for the R5, the pixel count coming out at around 17MP. That is a major reduction in pixel density. Furthermore, given that the purpose of this lens is to provide a moderate wide-angle to long telephoto lens, if one uses this unit in crop mode it will change the angle of view by the crop factor, producing an equivalent FoV of 38.4 - 400mm. Absolutely great if one wants to concentrate on the long end, but it cripples the wide-angle end of things to bring the FoV close to that of a normal lens.

[@LevAizik]

Dude, they are selling this POS lens for $899.

[@trevor9934]

@@LevAizik To whom are you responding? I'm not familiar with the term POS lens, please clarify. Thank you! :-)

[@AugmentedGravity]

I don't really care how the image is being made as long as it is in fact being made. Technology has come as far as to allow us to do things like this. Pretty impressive if you ask me.

[@Kevon420]

This is really a great lens, when I don’t wanna bring my 14-35L or my 70-200L lens around all day on my Canon R5, this gets the job done just picking up all sorts of shots! Perfect walk around lens during the day unless you need a weather gasket.

[@briandorsey693]

Damn, you do great lens reviews. Concise, consistent and covering all the important points. Thank you for these!

[@gameshoes]

Despite the heavy distortion shown before in-camera corrections, this lens seems to perform pretty well. The center being sharp all the way through the zoom range will satisfy most casual users.

[@cooperativ]

It will satisfy most professional users too

[@CHIPSSALTY]

The image quality (when seeing this video in 4k) looks very very good to me. I guess at the end of the day that's all that matters to most people for this 24-240mm walk-around lens.

[@Rob-zz4qj]

I found this review a bit odd, on the test chart the centre was very sharp with good contrast and the edges were also pretty good for a zoom like this, i've seen far, far worse examples on this channel. The distortion is bad, but wasn't apparent in corrected photos and colours and overall picture quality looked really nice. This lens has a purpose and i think it fulfills that purpose really well.

[@TheParkanyi]

"This lens has a purpose and i think it fulfills that purpose really well." This has been stated at the end of the video...

[@Rob-zz4qj]

@@TheParkanyi That was kind of my point, he trashes it hard and then comes back to say it does what it should at the end. People were commenting how they would not buy the lens based on the review, where the reality is it performs as expected. That was what I found odd, he trashed it throughout and then turned around and said it performs well for purpose.

[@christopherfrost]

I didn't 'trash' it at all - just noted its weaknesses

[@Rob-zz4qj]

@@christopherfrost as someone else mentioned, you were very scathing. I love your reviews, this one just felt a bit off.

[@coreytomsrealtor3072]

I felt the same. No one cares about the distortion when it’s corrected. And no one cares about the corners at 150mm. But, they do care about size, weight, and convenience.

[@seanjoe551]

that sound effect literally represented my reaction with 100% accuracy lol

[@weidwingelobjegdiv]

Its from metal gear solid ^^

[@MrChristopherwren]

I agree. Plus, I think I rarely use this sound effect, which makes it even more surprise. LoL

[@decadeve8695]

That sound when revealing the truth of distortion 🤣

[@bramdebock218]

It's from the computer game Metal Gear Solid :p

[@sethmoyer]

ALERT

[@Hellfreed]

Makes me laugh! 😂

[@raphaelcarrier]

When revealing the vilain in scooby doo

[@AndrzejZalewskiYT]

I have used Tamron 28-300 PZD for over 8 years now, previously with 6D, now with R6, and I wandered if this lens could be succesor of this superzoom. I rent this lens for couple days and found is a quite good lens. Sharpness is better at full aperture across the frame, AF is fast and silent, which is very important in videos (tamron produces some AF noises which are really iritating). It also has better magnification at long focal lengths. Downside of this lens is the weight - 200g heavier than Tamron!

[@VynZography]

HAHA I love the sound effect when you showed the uncorrected 24mm image 😂😂

[@VynZography]

UPDATE: Maybe this is why the R5 Mk II is leaning so heavily on AI upcaling? Eventually, we will only need a pinhole and the camera body will AI all of the images for us!

[@jhopkins6523]

My favorite part about this review is the Toyota analogy. Anyone who's owned a Tacoma (or maybe a Hilux too?) knows that they make funny but benign noises for no particular reason all the time and that they are hilariously underpowered. That being said these reviews have been my favorite for years and I always look for Chris's videos before I commit to a new lens. Thanks and keep up the good work!

[@golpherguy6388]

Perfect travel lens. Personally I have no problem using LR to fix the raw as it is an automatic process after you set it up. Of course the jpgs are fixed in camera.

[@paulhenry7]

To me this looks like a very useful compromise lens when you want to travel light or keep it simple: on holiday, a day out or a hike, a walkaround or notebook lens. It seems to outperform the very large, heavy and expensive EF 28-300, which is showing its age. Even if you have high-end prime and zoom RF lenses, I can see this complementing those in certain situations where it's good enough.

[@kian8382]

This perhaps is the best 10x zoom lens to date for any system, I don't think there's a rival that can provide nearly everything this lens can.

[@MrRFasters]

Naaah. It isn t by far. The Canon 18-200 IS. The long line of Sigma and Tamrons in the ranges 17-300, 18-300 or the amazing Tamron 18-400 (cropped, meaning a whopping 640 mm full frame eq). The Bigma 60-600. And from these numerous examples Canon has show already and can learn that this 24-240 could and should be improved. With this lens your bound to in camera jpeg corrections or tedious labourous corrections of ALL you raw images. Even if it s done: you should run all your images through your editors workflow. For bigger events I make hundreds of shots so I wouldn t know where to find the time.

[@Rebecka_J]

@@MrRFasters I doubt the target audience of this lens is for professional use though. It is, as Christopher says in the video, an all-rounder for people to take on holiday where people do now want to have to deal with multiple lenses, and where images will only be viewed on a computer, maybe printed at 8x10" at most so the corrected corner quality will look fine at those resolutions. The dependency on the camera technology seems to be the way of things with mirrorless, also seen with the lenses with apertures that would have been unimaginably slow on DSLRs. To make a 35mm lens as good as this one optically would be several times more expansive and much heavier making it unaffordable and unsuitable to the target audience. Zoom lenses add more convenience at a compromise over a range of primes, and super zooms the same over zooms. Now in-camera corrections similarly add more convenience, and not just with zooms but something like the RF 16mm prime. Something that would be unaffordable to many people if it depended on optical performance alone. Taking advantage of that processing power to open up more options to people who previously had none. It is not as though this lens is a replacement for some EF miracle lens, it is an entirely new thing for Canon. If I did not shoot raw I would definitely buy this lens. I checked to see if Christopher had reviewed it as I would like something convenient to use with my R6. And with corrections it seems better than my old 7D and Tamron 16-300mm combination for carrying around on my motorcycle when I need to travel light. That is a very compromised lens, but I bought it because it was well reviewed and seemed a better option than a compact superzoom camera for such situations. I will do more research though because if Affinity Photo has a lens profile so it can provide the same corrections automatically then I will be fine with that.

[@MrRFasters]

@Rebecka_J Hi Rebecka. I understand well and I do both have max quality full frame lenses onmm my full frame R8 as well as convenient runaround lenses on my cropped 77D. And when doing city, street, holiday or personal event visits than Im using the unbeatable Tamron 18-400, being 27-640 comparable full frame. For these kind of photography my focus is on composition and getting all shots there are there. And there is a review of a pro photographer sending in his cropped 18-400 pics to license photo publish sites and lots of his 18-400 work is accepted. That s a nice objective test and proof of quality being sufficient enough. But in my mind the 24-240 simple sacrifes too much (distortion, vignet, corner sharpness, chrom aberr), for example way more that the Tamron 18-400, and that s funny: the range is less wide and I would have expected Canon should be able to do better at the lens design stage, without the need of it getting way more expensive.

[@ChristianJ.]

Now that's the review I've been waiting for. I'm currently deciding between this and the 24-105... This video makes a strong case for the latter...

[@casilaxxor]

the 24-105 is a L Lens - so its gonna be superior

[@smith507]

And more expensive 💸

[@ChristianJ.]

@@smith507 Well, the 24-240 ist around 950€, the 24-105 around 1000€. I'll imagine the difference will stay this small even when the prices come down...

[@smith507]

Christian J. It is? Where I live, the difference seems a bit more substantial. Well, don’t overthink it, if size/weight is not a problem for you get the L instead, better build and constant aperture.

[@TheKabyuk]

@@ChristianJ. But there's a big difference of losing the 105-240 zoom capability. I've got the 24-105 L lens along with several others but am still buying this one as a general all rounder. When I'm after top image quality I go for primes - if you go to DxO and compare the specs you will see the 24-105L is not the greatest performer on tests! But at the end of the day it is the real life images that are important and what you think about them.

[@davidmanzi4491]

I shoot this lens on an R5 and it's a very good lens! Yes, it needs correction, as do must modern lenses. But I shoot raw, apply the correction, and it performs nicely!

[@DrShaym]

Really? They're still not including hoods?

[@grahamfloyd3451]

since in the 21st century the sole purpose of a lens hood is to protect the lens from coming into contact with your hands, it's an easy way to lower the price point a couple dollars

[@nileshvats7987]

Congratulations for the new member in your family :)

[@diy-fixit9566]

I have all the same exact issues shown on this video with my copy also. I also tested the Camera in jpeg and Yes! the in camera Distortion Control dose fix all distortion and no inner barrel showing up at 24mm. But the Distortion Control is still grayed out in the menu.

[@trevsweb]

Love your videos. While I'm sticking with my ef lenses your videos really are thorough and reliable.

[@Magnetron692]

Hi Chris, thank you very much for this review! Such a huge zoom rages comes with a number of drawbacks as I expected. Best wishes, Ralf

[@samirsmudge]

One of my very favorite photography reviewers! Always answers all my questions.

[@NeilWNC]

I have acquired a Canon EOS RP and have been gradually getting lenses for my various outings. Your review of the Canon RF 24-240 fairly well convinced me that it isn't ideal, but then I'm left with "now what?". I do want a better quality super-zoom (20 something up to around 300mm), but from what I see the only other choice that (a)I can afford, and (b)is reasonably light is the Tamron 28-300 PZD, an EF style lens. So I picked one up and have been experimenting with it. I don't know if it's any better than the Canon 24-240, particularly at full zoom (LOTS of CA!). I don't see any options out there, and Canon seems to be avoiding this category, other than the old behemoth 28-300 at $2400US that weighs in at an astounding 1670 grams. Ouch! Long story shorter, could I twist your arm to do a review of the Tamron 28-300 PZD? For us Canon full-framers there are VERY few lenses of this type, and with your astute approach, it would help to know how it stacks up. Or perhaps you know of a lens I haven't considered? Thanks in advance!

[@pamela-yourlifeasart]

Late seeing the review, but its perfectly timed for me. I LOVE my L lenses however sometimes they are just too heavy, husband and I are heading away to celebrate our 20th Anniversary and I happened to come across this lens and some fantastic reviews. Ive ordered it as my "travel" lens - to use with my macro 35mm f1.8 and am very excited to get it!!!

[@jailbreakoverlander]

Just ordered mine, so im stoked should have it saturday.

[@ecmjr]

Just got back from my UK vacation and found this lens in a camera shop in Oxford. It was my first time to see on display and was 909 GBP. Wanted to get it but the US dollar was a bit on the weak side :) Excellent video!

[@heinricheugenvonhelmbrecht6905]

Thank you for your review. I just purchased one for the backpacking travels. If I buy quality lenses, I pay over $2000. This one I hope will be comfortable sitting in my backpack for the documentary of the adventure.

[@randydietmeyer5883]

Chris, the amount of in-camera correction required for this lens reminds me of the Sony 16-50mm kit lens you reviewed a year or two back. I remember it being very similar distortion wise (and Sony didn't all you to turn off in-camera correction that time either).

[@MrChristopherwren]

Randy Dietmeyer I reminds me of that too. Lol

[@mikkirurk1]

This is a good glass, not the best - but good. For most people - really good. Comparing it to the 24-105 L is not fair IMHO, these are two very different lenses for very different use scenarios. As a "do it all one lens" for traveling- this is very good. Thanks for the review.

[@lb7144]

Hello - Do you own this lens? I was thinking about getting this lens for my R6MKII. I have adapted EF lenses but most of those are larger. I’m so confused by this review. I have two EF 24-105mm lenses already. I don’t want a third if it’s hardly any better than my EF (l) glass.

[@shepdavis5057]

Thanks for the review and that of the 24-105 f4-7.1 - you've saved me a lot of heartache.

[@TWX1138]

Thank you for noting that it's parfocal. I'm sure that down the road this will be extremely helpful to someone getting into filmmaking with one of these cameras.

[@DanielFazzari]

Thanks, Christopher, that was the review I was waiting for. Will stick with my 24-105, which does a fantastic job!

[@viperstinger77]

I have both lenses the 24-105 doesn't even get a look in. You really have to pixel peep to notice the difference but u will be hard pushed to notice it. So for me 24-240 is way more better and versatile. Honestly buy the 24-240 you wont regret it..believe me

[@jasonmcintosh2632]

I know nothing about photography but found your review to be extremely helpful! Thank you.

[@anwira2]

Catching review, I love it. I think it is a rather smart move of Canon. People buying a super zoom range do know that the image quality will be compromised or else... they don't care. Since you have to update the camera firmware to use this lens, competitors have to produce high-level optics to meet the performance for such a zoom range. Canon could have put the optical correction parameters in the lens but they wisely didn't. By putting it in camera (by a firmware update) the advantage is for Canon instead of off-brand lens producers.

[@ChuckinAurora]

Great review. I was going to get this for my RP but now I'll get the 24-105mm.

[@andreasbuder4417]

That is absolutely true, but it really hurts resolution. It is essentially cropping and thus is like shooting with a smaller sensor, which is commonly not the purpose of going full frame ;-)

[@andreasbuder4417]

Oops, this should have gone to another comment, sorry

[@AugmentedGravity]

Why?

[@donk66]

Had a chance to rent this lens for the past 4 days. Considerably better IQ than I expected for a lens with this large a zoom range. While the 24-105 has slightly better IQ in the wide range, you really need to pixel peep to see the difference. And even then the difference is minor, in my opinion. It is not quite as wide - that would be my only point that may be of consequence if you are considering buying this lens. If the 24-105 is actually 24 at the wide end, this lens may be more like 26. Otherwise, the sharpness, color and contrast is impressive all the way through the range in my opinion. Slightly longer and heavier than the 24-105, but not enough of a difference to make it a negative. Having to carry multiple lenses - with all their weight - is something I avoid when possible. I often have my dog with me when taking my camera to scenic landscapes or sunsets, so not needing to change lenses is a huge positive. A lens I will buy and recommend.

[@tobiasyoder]

probably not as wide because the camera is cropping out the missing corners haha

[@donk8292]

@Tobias Yoder It's been years since I wrote my comments. And I was not correct. In comparing the wide end, the 24-105 is slightly wider, but the 24-240 without its automatic correction is something like 22mm field of view. With correction, it is about 24mm field of view, perhaps only a fraction narrower, not 26mm as I originally thought. Lots of lenses differ slightly at both the long and short end from the number on the barrel.

[@aik6575]

Great review as usual Chris, thank you. As the review concludes. It's a general purpose lense. Alot of engineering compromise has gone into it. Despite it's short comings it meets all the challenges that are essential for this type of lense, to name a few... Portability range, image quality and cost above all. Has excellent image stabilization + autofocus, (two very important characteristics) image quality is reasonably good (great in the center) It will a be perfectly suited if matched with EOS RP for a lightweight full frame go anywhere combo. In essence it does what it's intended for. It would be a bargain once the price drops a little. My two cents worth.

[@celestialemissary4934]

If you need that I think m43 has better options

[@aik6575]

@@celestialemissary4934 I don't disagree, but if you already own a Canon R or RP you can't go wrong with this lense if you are packing light.

[@jordanlin4437]

I’m still kinda impressed that camera manufacturers can correct zoom lenses in video in real time. Imagine zooming rapidly in and out just to mess with the profile correction in video.

[@christopherfrost]

It is pretty impressive

[@PseudoThief]

Great use of the MGS "alert" sound at 6:25 :D

[@JeffSpeers]

With the lack of sharpness in the corners, the 24-105mm f4 seems like a logical choice because I could crop the 30MP image and end up with the same result as the 240mm long end. That sound right?

[@donk66]

If you crop your image taken at 105mm to be the same size as if it was taken at 240mm, your image would now be approx. 6 MP rather than 30. That may not make much difference on a standard computer monitor, but, no, I would not say it is the same result with so many fewer pixels. The lack of sharpness in the corners is probably something that is better judged looking at actual photos rather than test charts. Some of the best lenses of yesteryear are not sharp in the corners and it hasn't made that much difference to may photographers.

[@digitaldevigner4080]

I bet this lens would do well for a APS-C video crop mode. Slightly less sharpness overall but it should get rid of the major negatives of this lens design, the corners. Plus having a 38-384mm zero focus breathing and close to par focal lens with the extra OS could be a very desired. On my Panasonic GH4 I loved the 14-140 lens for video when traveling. Far from a spectacular lens optically but I could do a lot with it. For cropped aPS-C video modes like the R and RP force or as an option on the R6 and R5 this might be a similar type of super versatile video lens. While the slower aperture is a concern the Panasonic was also f4-f5.8 and we had to use that poor sucker on a m43 sensor. At least now we get that slower aperture on a FF body that can actually handle ISO. Thats kind of why I'm making the switch to FF finally. In terms of DOF and for the most part sensitivity thanks to better ISO options we would need a f2-f3.2 lens on m43 to get the same look. So I guess from my sad little m43 perspective this is a huge step up.

[@oliverkhoo]

My only lens review channel

[@stellawambui7343]

Watching this from Africa,Kenya this is so amazing

[@jonr2268]

With a super zoom like 24-240 it’s basically impossible to do everything well. Compromises have to be made. It seems this lens is more optimized for the telephoto end than the wide end. I got this lens and the 24-105 and ended up only keeping that one. If more of your typical pictures are at the wider end the 24-105 will perform much better than this lens.

[@djack41]

One click in LR or PS instantly removes the severe vignetting and distortion like magic! This is an incredibly useful travel lens. Good work Canon!

[@jpstanley0]

Excellent review, especially the sound effect! I don't know why I watch reviews for lenses I bought years ago but I do. I have this lens and I don't feel like its image quality holds me back any (granted the R6's low pixel density is forgiving). Its slow maximum aperture is limiting, though, and I've considered going for the 24-105L but that's at most a stop faster. So I'll continue to swap in my 50 or 85 prime if I need more light. I've actually turned off corrections in DxO PL5 at 24mm before... when I wanted a bit of a fisheye look. Interestingly, this level of trickery isn't new to Canon. A decade ago I installed a firmware hack that let me capture RAW images on my ELPH 300 HS compact point-and-shoot camera. It was at least as bad as this lens at the wide end.

[@metphmet]

The extreme corner vignetting at 24mm with such a strong barrel distortion is meaningless . Due to the distortion the captured field is 20mm like . Those dark corners simply disappear after the distortion correction.

[@andreasbuder4417]

That is absolutely true, but it really hurts resolution. It is essentially cropping and thus is like shooting with a smaller sensor, which is commonly not the purpose of going full frame ;-)

[@dunnymonster]

Wasn't the point of these short flange distances and oversized lens mounts supposed to make it easier to create optically perfect lenses? Seems to me that because it's easier to just digitally correct a lens' flaws that they can now be lazy when it comes to optical design. Not what I'd expect from Canon although I concede that building such a lens and keeping it relatively small and light meant these compromises had to be made. Still, call me old fashioned but I want lens designs to be physically better optically, we are not advancing but going backwards in my opinion.

[@christopherfrost]

Do bear in mind that it is normal for superzoom lenses to struggle optically, no matter what system or price point

[@sselh]

It is a 10x zoom?

[@sselh]

The sample photos do still look good though.

[@dunnymonster]

@@christopherfrost This is certainly true, however I've owned many different " superzooms " for which I apply lens correction in Lightroom but never seen anything as bad as this lens at 24mm uncorrected. Sure, you see vignetting lessen and distortion straighten out when you tick the corrections box but it's usually only quite slight, nothing like as dramatic as we are seeing here. It's little wonder Canon apply these corrections " in camera " as many would be horrified by the amount of correction needed to adjust your images from this lens. Also bear in mind my experience is based on DSLR lenses which present more complex design to reduce such poor optical performance.I expected much less correction required for these newer mirrorless lenses given they have the advantage of being closer to the sensor and having potentially larger rear elements due to increased mount size. I'm glad you are one of the few reviewers who shows us warts and all by revealing the true optical chops of these lenses. Keep up the great work Christopher 😊👍

[@ej_tech]

@@christopherfrost You have done several superzoom lens reviews yet none of them have to do in-body corrections to the level of Sony...except for Sony.

[@rainermenes5921]

Thanks Christopher for the honest review. None of the reviews up to date said it loud that at around 24mm the lens is not covering the full sensor. If the lens would be 450$ a none brainer for casual shooting but here in Germany it is 999€ which is really expensive only a little bit less than many L lenses. Have you looked at the lens if 24mm after correction is really 24mm? The lens correction in camera or Photoshop cuts a lot away and does of lot of stretching I wonder if it is more 28mm in the end.

[@michaelclark9762]

It's about 20mm before the correction and provides a 24mm FoV after correction.

[@rainermenes5921]

@@michaelclark9762 Thanks Michael for the answer. Looks like Canon tried some very new ideas on that lens which couldn't be implemented with a standard DSLR. If this is good or bad is a different story.

[@michaelclark9762]

@@rainermenes5921 This isn't that new of an idea, though. Sony, Olympus, Panasonic, and Fuji have been doing the same thing with lenses for their mirrorless cameras for years.

[@mikewhiles4635]

A lotta money for a kit lens no matter how good. Good review Chris 😎😎😎

[@GLBArchistudio]

Dude... 24-240 in Full frame is monstrouous!!! I'm surprised about how well this lens keep sharp the edges of the frame dispite the ultra zoom optics. You wanna see a Bad lens? Just give a shot to Canon 70-300 IS Usm... >___> BTW, this is the worst distorsione you've ever seen in a camera? Give a look to ANY Panasonic lens for M43 without software correction, especially the vaunted Panaleica stuff.

[@AgnostosGnostos]

I like that this lens is made in Taiwan, it isn't sold with lens hood and has such an interesting barrel distortion and vignetting at 24mm. The similar Sony FE 24-240mm f/3.5-6.3 offers with a similar price better optical quality, at 24mm the max aperture is f/3.5 instead of f/4 and it is sold with a lens hood included. The Canon lens was introduced four years after the Sony one and could have a technological advantage. No wonder why Sony rules the mirrorless market.

[@bluesheep54]

So many people are deciding whether to buy this lens or the 24-105. Would be great to see a direct comparison.

[@christopherfrost]

Look at my review of the RF 24-105 and you'll see everything you need.

[@Wild_Legends]

Hello Chris, might be fun to compare with EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM to see, if Canon move forward...

[@shawnwright240]

So…. I flat out don’t buy a lens until I double check with Christopher Frost to see if he has a review. I just bought a R7 after having a 5D Mk 4. I looked at this lens today at local store and I think I am going to go for it. At just $650 used I think it will fill my needs for video and photos of my son playing football. Thanks

[@John_Smith404]

Please share your opinion about this lens on R7

[@seanbond8075]

Hey Chris... I have the 24-105L and a high percentage of my photos are not tack sharp. People have recommended shooting at a high shutter speed and I do with IS turned on in the lens and camera R6mkii, but still not getting a good focus. I can put on the 70-200 F4L on the same camera and the photos are tack sharp. There has to be some sort of issue with that lens, any ideas? Cheers!

[@HeroShotz]

You are just in time with this video lol thanks alot now i can decide which kit to get lol EDIT: wow thanks for this video all the previous ones i have watched for this lens are praising it for the image quality lol im going with the 24-105 RP kit.

[@Laundry_Hamper]

I think putting 100% of the optical engineering effort towards sharpness and relying entirely on software to correct for geometric distortion represents the most significant benefit of mirrorless digital cameras. Even the last EF lenses produced were designed to perform perfectly when attached to an EOS film body, which meant they had to be sharp and also produce minimal geometric distortion at the plane...you end up with a PICK TWO triangle with SHARP, FIELD-CORRECT and CHEAP at its corners. This cheap lens gets you sharp images and software corrections make what was previously impossible, possible

[@AnandGopinath]

Would be interesting to see you review a Sony 24-240mm too. Then we could compare the two.

[@dasaauto2024]

Anand Gopinath It’s probably a “great, versatile lens”... unless you’re the type of person that watches lens reviews covering optical performance. 😁

[@fungun7414]

Hello Christofer, I have a canon 24-85 ( featured on your channel) and an older EF canon 70-210, EF 50mm 1.8 and a Tamron SP 15-30. I have a RP camera. Should I go for the RF 24-105 or RF 24-70 or 24-240 in this review or RF 24-105 4-7.1,?

[@micahaka]

Will this work fine as a video lens for the komodo x

[@andrewbalcombe1338]

well done Christopher!!

[@gerardferry3958]

the real comparison is with the m series 18 to 150, possibly a 35 to 350 or 28 300 ff

[@scottfineshriber5051]

After using Panasonic and Olympus MFT lenses for several years I’ve been a little disappointed by the consumer-grade RF 24, 50 and even 24-105L. I’ve been using them on the R7. There are advantages when engineering smaller-format lenses and benefits to photographers. I’m loving MFT as much as ever. It seems like my LUMIX 14-140 is clearly superior to the RF 24-240.

[@Quoutub]

I have the M50 and the 15-45mm. At first I always used the distortion correction, but then I noticed that the distortion correction actually even adds some kind of new distortion! That's embarrassing. So I turned it off.

[@daveninjaneuro7089]

Can you redo this test with the R5?

[@Baluchishair]

Absolutely fantastic review again, Chris doesn't take sides of anybody. Canon does make some great glasses but by this time they took a wrong turn.

[@jayphilipwilliams]

Fascinating review!

[@citrocar1028]

Hey Chris. Never got your circular diagram in the photos. Please explain how to read it.

[@citrocar1028]

I do am able to read your photos and vids.

[@christopherfrost]

It shows resolution and contrast. If it looks sharp and detailed, then the lens has good resolution. If it looks strongly black and white with a good 'punch', then the lens has good contrast

[@citrocar1028]

@@christopherfrost Thanks, mate!

[@moealyasini2784]

6:25 oh my god I am cracking up 🤣🤣

[@bechti44]

dont know about the moving away from zoom lenses. While I believe thats definitely the case for the most part, imagine the following situation: You are out for a 4h hike. Do you really want to carry 5 Prime lenses? The fact alone, that I had to take my backpack off, switch lenses made me miss a lot of wild mammals already. not again. One super zoom + 1 50mm prime for portraits or wide open shots. Additionally, it seems like a perfect video lens where you do not have to switch lenses, just because you zoom onto something. truely has some cinematic look, when you move in the whole way on the beach. not something you can just do with any lens.

[@Andy_Thomas]

That's the first time I have heard a snippet from the music from the shower scene in Psycho in one of your reviews!

[@christopherfrost]

It's actaully from MGS :-)

[@pixelspotmedia9046]

Curious how this will do on a Canon R7, better edge sharpness? nice allrounder imo. now have the 18-150mm....but yeah not my range.

[@papel_pe]

Was thinking the same... an adapted efs10-18 and this covers a lot of ground

[@John_Smith404]

Did you tried 24-240 on R7?

[@andreasfriedrich7150]

But weren't the results decent enough for the zoom range and size of the lens. Does it really matter, how they accomplish that? I think this is a common technique in cameras with build in zoom lenses.

[@christopherfrost]

If that's good enough for you, then great!

[@Lizardheim]

Hey! Could you do a sharpness test of it on a R7?

[@futsibear2809]

Wondering how the Nikon 24-200 stacks up.

[@fromthesidelines1453]

Awesome video. i have this lens with the RP camera. i noticed the viewing screen an evf flutters i bit at 24mm here an there an i hope its a software issue. other than that it takes good photos. am looking the at the tamron 18-400mm ef lens with my RP using the adaptor to get a bit more range. wat do u think on pairing the two together Christopher Frost Photography?

[@christopherfrost]

The 18-400 is an APS-C lens so you'll have to crop your image like crazy. Don't bother IMO

[@christopherfrost]

The 18-400 is an APS-C lens so you'll have to crop your image like crazy. Don't bother IMO

[@brycepielstick3757]

Very helpful video. Thanks my guy.

[@charlesmoor111]

Hey christopher. Would you choose this or the 24 105 f4 7.1 for ones main and only zoom lense.

[@christopherfrost]

I'd probably go ahead and get this 24-240 one

[@vtanzi]

After this review I will probably buy the RF 24-105 mm which is the same price

[@andrepepin9792]

I currently do a lot of video recordings of football (soccer) games with my Canon 80D and the 18-135mm lens (equivalent to 29-216mm on FF format). I'm thinking of acquiring the Canon EOS R with the 24-105 as a package, but the zoom range is not good enough for close up action during a game... So I was thinking that this 24-240 lens would do the trick for my video recording (HD only, I'm not going to record 90 minutes games in 4K). Did you test it for video? Would the image quality be acceptable?

[@christopherfrost]

It should do pretty well in that situation, actually. You don't need an extremely sharp lens for video, even 4k video

[@andrepepin9792]

@@christopherfrost Thank you Christopher!

[@TheUlitamateStunt]

I believe Panasonic does this as well with their MFT lenses, and I wouldn't be surprised if Canon used software-controlled corrections to also make the lens parfocal and focus breathless.

[@michaelclark9762]

As well as Olympus with µ4/3 and Sony with their FF and APS-C mirrorless cameras and zoom lenses with large focal length ranges.

[@matthiasg.9658]

Christopher, super Test Video, thank you for all these perfect informations 👍🏻 I use a old Tamron SP AF 24-135mm f/3,5-5,6 AD Asph. Canon 6DMkll (I think absolutely underrated) I've never found any good reviews like yours in the Net, perhaps you will start a review with this Lens 😊 Best regards from Germany 🇩🇪 Matthias

[@insanity3333]

Shutter butter - a structure that builds up on your cameras shutter button if you don’t clean your camera regularly.

[@kavan82]

I would be super if you change the aperture in corner, then you show also how it looks in the middle. you usually show the changes in image quality in the different apertures just in corners not in the middle.

[@christopherfrost]

If middle starts off sharp at the widest aperture, then that doesn't really change on stopping the aperture down - if it does, that's when I show it :-)

[@johnherzel718]

So I can infer that you have the EOS R now. Would love to hear your thoughts on the camera, even though this is a lens review channel. Also does this lens/camera combination outperform the 18-135 on the 80D? Thanks for all you do, really enjoy your channel 👍

[@christopherfrost]

You've been out of touch with my channel :-) check my uploads for a mini review of the EOS R

[@jsteinman]

Excellent review! I still bought it, though

[@Pankaj_Patel_Canada]

Which is the latest firmware version of this lens. I have 1.0.3

[@christopherfrost]

I think that's it. Ask Canon or check their website

[@micahaka]

How do you stop this to f8 when its max is 6.3?

[@teej626]

That's the max. The minimum is f22.

[@JamesBond-ke5tp]

I don’t see someone whose bought the R5 or R6 buying this lens. This lens looks like it is aimed squarely at the RP or whatever entry level R series comes in the future. Most people that own a R6 and are on a “budget” I think will go for the 24-105 f4 and 70-200 f4. I didn’t mention the R5 because if you can buy the R5, then you can invest in the f2.8 etc.

[@mrnokia7253]

Actually, it works quite nicely with the R5. I'm actually supposed. My RF 24-70 2,8 has better iq, but the difference is not that big. And berry few would to tell the difference. I use the lens as my grab to go lens. When I otherwise would not bother to bring 2 big heavy L lenses. Pared with the R5 also give some cropping capabilities, essentially 380mm at 17,2mp. And iq is still ok, in most cases. I shoot raw, but it's easy to correct the lens. However it's recommended to learn to work with the lens to bring out the best, and what to avoid.

[@sidnguyen]

Chris- would you recommend the efs 55-250 over this lens then? I love the 55-250 as my travel zoom lens on my eos r.

[@christopherfrost]

Might as well just can an APS-C camera in that situation, really

[@sidnguyen]

@@christopherfrost an APS-C camera with a great EVF ;) i watched your review on the 55-250 helped make me decide to get it. I have the 100-400L and the 70-200 too. the 55-250 for travel feels great. THanks for the great videos chris!

[@gustavomartins1633]

Does anyone know anything about a limitation of this len related to using the multiple exposure feature? I'm having a signal saying that the camera can't perform that feature with this lens :(

[@2020davidg]

Damn you Christopher Frost! (no, seriously, praise you). I was so looking forward to this lens coming out to pair with my EOS RP (with which I've been using adapted EF lenses). It was going to be the perfect travel lens but I can see from this review that it is a far from perfect anything lens. I will probably now purchase the RF 24-105mm which appears to be a far better lens. I should have purchased the RP in a bundle with the 24-105mm at the time (and saved a bundle) but I have already got a 24-105mm f4 L and it seemed too much like duplication at the time - although I believe the RF offers better image quality I seem to recall your comparison rates them similarly but other reviews differ - or did I get that back to front?) and is a lot more compact than the EF 24-105mm L with the adapter.

[@2020davidg]

A correction to my comment above - you compared the old EF 24-105mm f4 L with the new one (not the RF 24-105) and said the differences were incremental. I may still consider the RF24-105 yet.

[@donk66]

As a superzoom, there is no way it could equal the sharpness of the 24-105. It all depends on how much sharpness you need and what you size are viewing or printing. The in-camera software correction should not sway your opinion as this is common in other brands mirrorless lenses and will happen automatically. I would wait for some real sample pics before judging the image quality.

[@TheRtesti]

Hy, my friend.. Using the EOS R, you can up the ISO ultil where, 6400?

[@christopherfrost]

It's up to you. I don't like to shoot past 3200

[@kangeroobru]

I max out at 12800, but I shoot concert photography and use Lightroom to reduce noise. Standard for me seems to be 8000

[@marklarson3934]

Best review ever ! 👍👍👍👍

[@aaroiseverything]

I bet the shutter is butter too :)

[@patrickpcli]

Thanks Chris, good review as usual. I wonder if you could do a review on the Samyang AF 85mm F1.4 EF Canon version lens. There aren't any good review of this lens in youtube.