The Complete Review of Canon RF 24-240mm Lens

[@heynow2880]

This is one of my favorite lenses for the RF mount. Works so good with the R5

[@snakechmr5191]

I purchased one after travelling with my RF 24-70 and 70-200 f/2.8L which I found too heavy, and too much if trying to pack and travel light. It's one of my favorite lenses (I also do and love it for street photography) given its flexibility and I have several RF-L glass to choose from. I now take it with the RF 50mm f1/8, flash, and one of my R6 bodies.. I'm more than pleased with the results. Is it "L" glass? No. Does it require in-camera or post-processing corrections? Yes. The lens corrections do a fantastic job and, heck, I'm going to edit the photos anyway! I picked mine up on the secondary market in like-new condition for $600.........

[@johnwinter6061]

Most of my photography is travel grab shots all over the world. Been using zooms for 40 years. Far more convenient, lighter, sensor safer and cheaper than swapping in and out a set of primes. Had 600D + Tamron 18-270 for 10 years and was very happy with that. Though I missed the mirrorless advantages of my previous Fiji 6MP fixed zoom. Two years ago, I bought RP + RF24-240 which is superior on all fronts than my old gear. Better IQ even if cropped to same size image at max zoom on the Tamron (equiv 400mm). Then added R50 + RF100-400. Then added a silicone skin to the R50 to bulk up the grip. Love it all 1. Same battery - only 1 charger and one spare shared. 2. Lenses can be used on either body despite one being FF and the other APS-C. Rarely switch them for the obvious reasons. 3. Carry on weight with flash, etc for airline - about 5kg all up. 4. The two zooms are price v IQ v specs very competitive with a lot of EF-S (APS-C mirrored) lenses of any decent brand. But they are full frame. So even if you start with APS-C body, these give you the opportunity to add a FF body later and keep them. NOTE: As in the video: A. Mirrorless results in lighter weight lenses for the same specs B. Jpegs are lens corrected in the camera body. Again makes lens cheaper to build, etc. Results are great. So, ignore the pixel peepers assessing it on CRAW. If you want that info, this is not the lens for you regardless.

[@PhilWard]

You'll get some aberration and barrel roll but hands down, a fun lens for travel and general pictures. For the money, and versatility, you can't go wrong.

[@s3icc0]

I am going for this one as my single lens in pair with 6d MK2. This will suit all my needs including single lens carry. Coming from 80d with 18-135 so I will only feel improvements in all areas of my shooting style.

[@Benjamin_Jehne]

This 24-240mm is for me personally the most interesting lens in the whole RF line up. As mentioned in the video, they corrected the lens via software that good, that it is close to unbelievable what they have managed to offer. Super nice. I would be so happy to have this lens in the Sony world. Our 24-240mm is super soft, so it is no option at all. The Tamron is just to short Nd not wide enough but Canon got the sweetpoint.

[@zoltanberghoffer425]

I love this lens, my kit consists of this, the RF16 and 35. Very convenient. Pictures turn out great.

[@michelericciardi8628]

It’s like the 18-135 is stm but for full frame sensors and I think it’s useful for beginners. A good lens in combination with an entry level full frame camera like the Canon R8 👍🏻

[@trevtog]

I loved my 18-135!

[@PeterSzaban]

I frequently use this lens, and like it a lot. Image quality is reasonable for reasonable sized prints, and the price is nice. I'm on my second copy, due to lack of weather/dust sealing. but that was expected. Would be nice if it focused just a little closer, so I wouldn't have to use extension tubes, and expose my camera innards to the environment. Anyone who buys this should also spring for the lens hood, it makes a BIG difference; especially if you keep UV filter on the lens. I read that Canon recently submitted a patent for an L series RF super zoom, and I'm looking forward to that, hoping it won't be super heavy or super expensive like the EF 28-300L was. Thanks for the review.

[@matthewm3912]

I just had one of these delivered today to pair to my EOS R8. I am a total novice and only shoot for family vacations/memories. So far i had only been using the 28mm pancake, but quickly realized its limits for longer range shots. Hoping this will be my all around go-to lens.

[@trebor70]

Having watched a number of reviews for this lens, one of the repeated comments I hear is how much reviewers/professions 'enjoy' using it. As a '5D Mk3' and soon to be 'R6 Mk2' owner, this matters to me. No, it may not give me quite as crisp images as my older EF 'L' lenses, but that is also overlooking quite how good the RF mount lenses are vs their EF predecessors. So, the difference will not be as pronounced as would have been between EF 'L' and, say, the gold ring Canon lenses from the past. This was a great review, thanks. However good I thought they were, I suspect that my EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS Mk2 and EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS will be heading to an online auction site soon.

[@bunkermagnus]

I've had it for two years and it's the first superzoom that surpised me positively.

[@d-mac1853]

How far out does it stay at F4?

[@bunkermagnus]

@@d-mac1853 Just to 26 ish, then 4.5 up to 38 ish. Then f5,0 up to 67 ish.

[@IndigoEyePhotography]

The zoom range initially made me think this lens was for crop sensors.

[@stargator4945]

I think the current mega zooms are better than those from 10 years ago. However, the Canon is not as good as the Nikon or current Tamron. But it is very fast and video-savvy with autofocus. Resolutioin is not best for 45MP and it has to be corrected as it was constructed smaller. Be sure to have the lens profile if you shoot raw. Buy the non-included Lens hood to prevent flaring. Vignetting in 24mm resolution loss on the edges on 24mm and resolution loss on 240mm is also visible but not more serious than using teleconverters. 24-105 f4 is better but does not have the reach and is more expensive. using the cheaper and 24-105 STM and the 100-400 STM lenses have better image quality nearly cost the same but then you have two lenses and have to change them.

[@andrewbalcombe1338]

Good to see another review on this great lens. I made a review to see if it would be good enough for stock photography and stock footage. And the verdict was...

[@erwinbraga1170]

Would this be good for my Apsc?(r50)

[@robstein67]

I just swapped to mirrorless and picked it up mostly for travel over the RF24-105L (I have the EF version) and I've been really impressed. In the 24-105 range it's close enough to my EF version (you have to not look at the uncorrected images and I know the RF version is a little better than EF) but I do find myself missing the EF70-200 compared to the top half of the 24-240. This lens does not have whatever that 70-200L does but I'm keeping it as it's just amazingly convenient. Don't be scared of those poor reviews - in real life (I don't have cause to shoot many brick walls), it's a solid choice.

[@d-mac1853]

How far out zoomed does it stay at F4?

[@robstein67]

@@d-mac1853 It's not an f4 lens in reality ;-) I did see the nbr and forget but it's something like 28mm. In my head it's f5.6 then 6.3 and having used the constant f4's in EF mount for decades, that is my biggest adjustment for this lens. But for travel and general stuff that's ok.

[@dougie336]

If they made this weather sealed it would be thr ultimate travel lens

[@daveandjoannenoordhoff]

I have a copy ... it's an outstanding walk around lens!

[@alanbayley3255]

It sounds like a good lens to me and the current fashion of separating the subject from their surroundings by obliterating the enviroanment would not bother me. I know I'm way off message but I quite like a deep depth of field rather than images that look like the subject is green screened onto a background. So I would be very keen to try this lens.

[@JG-st5st]

A question: I understand that the vignetting, distortion and chromatic aberration issues of this lens can be handled by post-process editors such as LR but is it accomplished within the camera's software for jpgs? I am using a Canon R10 and this would be a great general purpose lens and allow one to carry just one lens especially if the jpgs were corrected in-camera.

[@Aneliuse]

Yes. Also, even if you decide not to get the in-camera jpegs, you can always use lens profiles outside on the raw files instead

[@altonmarsh]

So should the switch be in focus or control? Which one is manual?

[@drewcrawford7812]

Focus.

[@t.rexroadtrip3041]

The ring takes the place of both the manual focus ring and the control ring on other RF lenses, so the switch swaps between those two functions. If you’re going to focus manually, you’ll need to enable it in camera, then move the switch to focus. If you want to use it as a control ring, move the switch to control, then it will adjust whatever you have the control ring set up to adjust.

[@pmc7105]

Center image quality mentioned but not corner quality? I would reverse that; most lenses are good in the center, it's the corners that differentiate them. How does it compare to the Nikon 24-200mm? The Sony 24-240mm?

[@petarenshaw6485]

I love it.. It's a great fun around lens

[@babymixswing2269]

Will there be a second generation of this lens? Is it suitable for video shooting?

[@123゚]

I use it for sports shooting surprisingly very sharp video. Even at night really good performance. Spring for the lens hood to avoid flares

[@d-mac1853]

How far out will it stay at F4?

[@DaveTCSTV]

Hi and thanks for watching. The Lens is only F4 till 27mm than drops to F4.5.

[@trevtog]

Thank you for this video. I've been curious about this lens as something, as you said, to have one body and one lens out for a day of hiking. I love my old trusty 70-200mm f/2.8 but I don't love the weight when I'm on the trail and have to switch lenses to get that wide-angle view. I'm good with bumping the ISO because I'm not afraid of a little noise if I can get the shot.

[@BrittanyLabrador]

What body was used w/this lens?

[@leokashian8846]

I saw him using the R5 in the video.

[@Goldencareauto]

Veery helpful video 🎉❤

[@prateekmahto5575]

Is it good for canon r50 ??

[@okaro6595]

Use the rf-s 18-150 mm instead. 24 mm is not that wide on APS-C. It also weighs half as much. Sure 24-240 mm would be usable if you do not need wide angle.

[@elmoizme]

It's on my R8 75% of the time. I'll bring out the L lenses if I know I need to grab high quality images.

[@МарьянаЕсенина-ы1и]

2885 Nathaniel Mount

[@SamuelSemmler-j7x]

Kub Extensions

[@catalin-ap]

Canon should also release a 28-75mm f/2.8 RF, as light as Tamron's.

[@hugoparente1908]

I wish Sony had one from this Century.

[@Valerossi0]

Tamron 28-200 2.8-5.6 comes close

[@hugoparente1908]

@@Valerossi0 i haver one. Is good but Sony can do better and i miss 24mm. Just a Sony 24-240 II.

[@nSpiraliArchitectb]

@@Valerossi0 Not really a fair comparison because the 28-200 gets way brighter than any 24-240, including any kind of successor Sony comes up with. A more apt comparison is with the 24-105mm, but even then, big differences in aperture and range.

[@Benjamin_Jehne]

@@nSpiraliArchitectb 28 is 28 and not to compare with a 24mm lens. Everything is so much easier when you go for 28mm construction wise, but without the 24mm it’s close to worthless.

[@nSpiraliArchitectb]

@@Benjamin_Jehne I don't think you understood my point...and a difference of 4mm makes a lens close to worthless? That's an interesting take lol

[@GoBayside]

You mention the focus motor is quiet for video, but show a video clip and you overdub your commentary.

[@glitchysoup6322]

Thanks for a good video framerate (60fps). It is a rarity among profesional camera reviewers.

[@passionandcommonsense]

See the thing is that today phone cameras have 10x digital zoom and are able to offer many good images through AI processing. So why would anyone want to buy this lens to produce average images that could possibly be worse than those shot by say a top end Samsung / Pixel / iPhone? In this day and age the only differentiator that justifies a dedicated camera set up is the unarguably superior optical image quality offered by a large sensor in the camera paired with a well-made lens with at least an f4 constant aperture. Every other image can be produced and even bettered by phone cameras. Am I right? Or am I talking through the wrong end?

[@drewcrawford7812]

Eh. Smart phones produce some good images for viewing on smartphone and uploading to social media and such. Good quick snap camera. But comparing a smart phone to something like this, is a bit like comparing a Miata to a Enzo. They are on completely different levels.

[@passionandcommonsense]

@@drewcrawford7812 not sure which smart phone cameras that you have seen as of late. But the images out of most top end phones are excellent. If we want excellent bokeh and all that, is when we come to dedicated lens cameras with large apertures, which this lens doesn’t have. Hence the question. The images that you have shown and those I have seen from this lens elsewhere are strictly average. Nothing that I would need a dedicated camera for.

[@mcmillanvideos]

Well, a bit no... but for snapshots shared online for a few seconds, a smart phone is ideal, so a bit yes. This video only goes a tiny bit beyond general photos achievable with a smart phone with this lens which is too bad. I'd like to see the limits really tested, but creatively. Most people will use this as a 'walking around' lens. I would too but I'll use it for portraits too. I'd like to see what it could really do if you tried to shoot awesome, professional creative shots with lots of tones and colors. I won't know about this until I buy it and do it on my own. So, to your point, yes, this review is of stuff that could 75% be shot as well with my Pixel. My analogy is a nice fixed-lens 126 instamatic from 1980 to having a Hasselblad 6x6 medium format camera w/ interchangeable lenses. You can enlarge the negatives to whatever size you want. But the the size of the negative, etc. is fixed. The initial image capture is also fixed. The optics matter, the sensor matters. Beyond about 2x digital zoom on any smart phone, the images get noticeably blurred by enlarging pixels, even on 3-inch photos on your phone. Also, you lose a lot of control about how to use your shutter, the 'flash' looks weird at best, and you can't get some photos at all. You can't get too creative. Ever try astro photography with a phone? Can't get a good shot of the eclipse? What about sports? What about birds? You just can't... there's not enough control or hardware. This is the tip of the iceberg as to what differentiates a full frame camera from a smart phone. I haven't even talked about the video side. Who needs what is a different conversation. It's like anything else. How many people buy a Jeep and go off road.. or how many buy a pickup and use the bed regularly? Sometimes having the capability is what we want, even if we don't use it... or want to have it for that 1 time situation... Based on your name balancing passion against common sense is a hobby of yours. The digital camera arena in 2023 where everyone is a photographer must be rife with material to consider. :)

[@ThisIsDavesGarage]

You’ve never seen images with this lens versus side by side latest phone obviously. Not even close. You can put in AI and all that BS but you can’t beat an actual camera.

[@erwinbraga5965]

​@@ThisIsDavesGarageamen brother...amen... Tried on ip15 and on samsung..nowhere near my r50 24-70..nope..nowhere...

[@TheGirlSkateBoardCo]

This video made me unsubscribe tbh. Miss Chris and Jordan.

[@melmaciandissenter2324]

You waited 6 years to unsubscribe ? Because that's how long they've been gone. 🤪

[@h.o.j2375]

😂😂