Most reviewers tested this lens on an R6 or RP, not on an R5. Also, the image was taken at f/4 which is, of course, the worst setting.
You can argue that this lens is an acceptable compromise but if so I can as well take a smartphone.
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com
Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
Yeah, I meant the 24-240 of course. Wondering how that one's going to fare if it finds the way to the testing lab...
(02-09-2021, 10:35 PM)Rover Wrote: Yeah, I meant the 24-240 of course. Wondering how that one's going to fare if it finds the way to the testing lab...
corrected it will fare pretty well. Uncorrected, not so much.
Isn't that par for the course now, anyway. Even some high-end lenses have problems with distortion and vignetting when uncorrected. I'm not entirely sure how evident these issues are visible when shooting RAW though?
02-10-2021, 02:46 PM
(This post was last modified: 02-10-2021, 03:19 PM by wim.
Edit Reason: Added P.S.
)
(02-10-2021, 09:17 AM)Rover Wrote: Isn't that par for the course now, anyway. Even some high-end lenses have problems with distortion and vignetting when uncorrected. I'm not entirely sure how evident these issues are visible when shooting RAW though? They are visible in Raw, especially at the widest part of the zoom range. However, these lenses are really meant for use with jpg-output from the camera, and are generally sharp enough in the center.
They are not L-lenses to begin with, and work well enough, IMO, as non-L zooms, but if you want corner-to-corner performance, you will have to up the ante from a budget, weight, and zoom range if applicable PoV.
Do note that the RF 24-240 is still cheaper than the RF 24-105L. The latter, in combination with the performance of my older EF L lenses, was what sold me on the Canon EOS R system, BTW.
Personally, I got the 24-240 really as a single, convenient, easy to carry, do-it-all in good light lens for general, non-critical shots. It works very well for that.
For anything else I wil use my EF- en RF L lenses  .
Kind regards, Wim
P.S.: Check Gordon Laing for a review with a comparison including RF 24-105L and RF 24-240. Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nnxwzRYVPY
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
Well... I'm not going to switch to RF anyway. I'll use my EF cameras and lenses while they last. The lineup is fairly complete anyway.
(02-10-2021, 05:34 PM)Rover Wrote: Well... I'm not going to switch to RF anyway. I'll use my EF cameras and lenses while they last. The lineup is fairly complete anyway. The Canon EF=>RF adapters work really well, actually.
I think it is worth upgrading, even if you plan on only using EF lenses. I still have quite a few, and from my experience, AF is a lot better, and often faster than it was with the EOS dslrs. And that was true for the EF 50 F/1.2L and the EF 85L as well.
Once I got the RF 24-105L, was amazed by the IQ, especially compared to the EF versiosn odf this lens, and got over the size of the L-primes, I first got the RF 50L, was blown away, totally, so replaced the EF 85L as well. Once you have used those lenses, there is no going back ....
Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
(02-10-2021, 05:51 PM)wim Wrote: (02-10-2021, 05:34 PM)Rover Wrote: Well... I'm not going to switch to RF anyway. I'll use my EF cameras and lenses while they last. The lineup is fairly complete anyway. The Canon EF=>RF adapters work really well, actually.
I think it is worth upgrading, even if you plan on only using EF lenses. I still have quite a few, and from my experience, AF is a lot better, and often faster than it was with the EOS dslrs. And that was true for the EF 50 F/1.2L and the EF 85L as well.
Once I got the RF 24-105L, was amazed by the IQ, especially compared to the EF versiosn odf this lens, and got over the size of the L-primes, I first got the RF 50L, was blown away, totally, so replaced the EF 85L as well. Once you have used those lenses, there is no going back ....
Kind regards, Wim If it makes my 24/1.4 L with its laughably unreliable AF work better, then I might think of it. Though I'd be loath to let go of either the 1D Mark IV or the 80D, and 3 cameras would be overkill for me.
Thank God I actually have no money to buy an R5 or R6.
(02-11-2021, 08:03 AM)Rover Wrote: (02-10-2021, 05:51 PM)wim Wrote: (02-10-2021, 05:34 PM)Rover Wrote: Well... I'm not going to switch to RF anyway. I'll use my EF cameras and lenses while they last. The lineup is fairly complete anyway. The Canon EF=>RF adapters work really well, actually.
I think it is worth upgrading, even if you plan on only using EF lenses. I still have quite a few, and from my experience, AF is a lot better, and often faster than it was with the EOS dslrs. And that was true for the EF 50 F/1.2L and the EF 85L as well.
Once I got the RF 24-105L, was amazed by the IQ, especially compared to the EF versiosn odf this lens, and got over the size of the L-primes, I first got the RF 50L, was blown away, totally, so replaced the EF 85L as well. Once you have used those lenses, there is no going back ....
Kind regards, Wim If it makes my 24/1.4 L with its laughably unreliable AF work better, then I might think of it. Though I'd be loath to let go of either the 1D Mark IV or the 80D, and 3 cameras would be overkill for me.
Thank God I actually have no money to buy an R5 or R6.
How that 24mm f1.4 (I or II?) performs AF-wise depends on the body. Try it on your 80D in Live View to see a difference already. It will work way better on a 1D-X mkII than your 1D mkIV too. It won't be fooled by certain wavelengths focussing on a different plane than "the main image" on a R6 like it does on your 1D mk IV, for sure.
(02-11-2021, 08:03 AM)Rover Wrote: (02-10-2021, 05:51 PM)wim Wrote: (02-10-2021, 05:34 PM)Rover Wrote: Well... I'm not going to switch to RF anyway. I'll use my EF cameras and lenses while they last. The lineup is fairly complete anyway. The Canon EF=>RF adapters work really well, actually.
I think it is worth upgrading, even if you plan on only using EF lenses. I still have quite a few, and from my experience, AF is a lot better, and often faster than it was with the EOS dslrs. And that was true for the EF 50 F/1.2L and the EF 85L as well.
Once I got the RF 24-105L, was amazed by the IQ, especially compared to the EF versiosn odf this lens, and got over the size of the L-primes, I first got the RF 50L, was blown away, totally, so replaced the EF 85L as well. Once you have used those lenses, there is no going back ....
Kind regards, Wim If it makes my 24/1.4 L with its laughably unreliable AF work better, then I might think of it. Though I'd be loath to let go of either the 1D Mark IV or the 80D, and 3 cameras would be overkill for me.
Thank God I actually have no money to buy an R5 or R6.
?
If that is the case, maybe you should have it serviced.
I never had any problems at all with my 24L, netiher Mk I, nor Mk II (which I still have and use, with RF-adapter).
I have used them on anything from 350D, to 450D, to 40D to 50D to 5D, 5D Mk II, and now EOS R.
Occasionally I also use it on my Olympus E-M1 II, with any of my Metabones adapters / speedboosters.
No problems at all with AF.
Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
|
