So I have had my eyes out for an RP with a 24-105mm bundle, but got a great deal on an RP with 24-240mm bundle and I had to jump on it. I had no idea about the 24-240mm, but I started looking at reviews and besides raw image editing, people seem to be pretty happy with it. Two questions, does the 24-240mm @ 24mm still have bad vignetting while recording video?
And, how serviceable is the 24-240mm indoors? I am looking mostly for a one lens solution for family trips, If I am trying to do 35-50mm, does that leave me at F5.6 or something?
I currently only have two EF lenses left over (40mm 2.8, 50mm 1.8), so I can use one of those for indoor situations, but also am looking at something like the 16-35mm f4 to add to either the 24-105/24-240.
"Portrait photography usually does not require them. Videos captured at normal wide-aspect ratios also avoid use of the corners.
The physical properties of light passing through a lens make it impossible for the same amount of light to reach the edges of the circle as the center, resulting in a darkening of the corners, referred to as vignetting or peripheral shading. When used on a camera that utilizes a lens' entire image circle, peripheral shading can be expected at the widest aperture settings. This lens shows a moderate 3-stops of shading at 24mm f/4 and at 240mm f/6.3. The 50mm f/5 focal length and aperture combination show only about 1.6-stops of shading, a relatively low amount for any wide-open aperture. The 100mm f/5.6 results show about 2-stops of corner shading. "
asr10user wrote:
So I have had my eyes out for an RP with a 24-105mm bundle, but got a great deal on an RP with 24-240mm bundle and I had to jump on it. I had no idea about the 24-240mm, but I started looking at reviews and besides raw image editing, people seem to be pretty happy with it. Two questions, does the 24-240mm @ 24mm still have bad vignetting while recording video?
And, how serviceable is the 24-240mm indoors? I am looking mostly for a one lens solution for family trips, If I am trying to do 35-50mm, does that leave me at F5.6 or something?
I currently only have two EF lenses left over (40mm 2.8, 50mm 1.8), so I can use one of those for indoor situations, but also am looking at something like the 16-35mm f4 to add to either the 24-105/24-240....Show more →
Given that your current EF lineup is cheaper non L glass you likely won't have an issue with the 24-240. Those who are used to L glass performance and constant aperture will notice a significant difference. For an all around family lens, it is really hard to beat a 24-105 and it has been a Canon mainstay for years even in their EF lineup.
I haven't used the 24-240 but I was actually really happy with the 18-135 IS on crop indoors for family photos one Christmas using ISO 1600 on a 30D. Probably still be using it if I hadn't managed to drop it.
So I'd definitely recommend trying the 24-240 since it is similar to the 18-135 simce both are superzooms and it sounds like it's on the way anyway. Added advantage should be able to run the ISO up to 3200 or 6400 or more on ff.
I have the 28-70, 24-105, and 24-240. I love the 24-240 and I have used it extensively for stills in Antarctica (for stills, I don't do video) and 20% of the overall keepers were taken with that lens. It's true that at 24 without correction it's pretty useless, but exactly what app doesn't offer correction these days?
asr10user wrote:
So I have had my eyes out for an RP with a 24-105mm bundle, but got a great deal on an RP with 24-240mm bundle and I had to jump on it. I had no idea about the 24-240mm, but I started looking at reviews and besides raw image editing, people seem to be pretty happy with it. Two questions, does the 24-240mm @ 24mm still have bad vignetting while recording video?
And, how serviceable is the 24-240mm indoors? I am looking mostly for a one lens solution for family trips, If I am trying to do 35-50mm, does that leave me at F5.6 or something?
I currently only have two EF lenses left over (40mm 2.8, 50mm 1.8), so I can use one of those for indoor situations, but also am looking at something like the 16-35mm f4 to add to either the 24-105/24-240....Show more →
I own both, having first purchased the RP and 24-105 a year ago (very happy in general) and then succumbing to the RP + 24-240 last December when the two combined were only $200 more than I had paid for the RP body alone. I was going on a trip to Europe that was mainly for family visits but included a few stops in Paris, Southern France, Barcelona, etc.. and I did not want to lug any of my telephoto alternatives (EF 70-200 L f:4, EF 70-300 DO, EF 100-400 L mk 1) for a few opportunities where I would need a telephoto. So the 24-105 stayed home and the 24-240 was on one camera always out and ready, with a bag containing the other RP body and either the EF 16-35 IS or the EF 35mm f:2 for wide angle (can't visit the Sagrada Familia without something wider than 24mm).
I was very pleasantly surprised with the quality of the 24-240 using in-camera JPG, something I had never done before. Until now with various 5Ds and other DSLRs I have always used RAW and post processing to allow for exposure and white corrections, something I do practically never now with the RP's electronic viewfinder and live histograms.
In terms of pixel sharpness, contract and color I am sure an L lens will come out better than the 24-240, two different categories of lenses, but it is not "day and night" different, see the pictures taken in challenging light with the 16-35L and the 24-240 at almost the same focal length, ISO and exposure.
I am waiting to get a telephoto zoom to complement the 24-105. Within a year and the launch of RF lens such as the 100-500, or 70-200, or some hinted-at zooms like 70-300 or 70-400, one will fill that role. The 24-240 would be the lens to take along when a single camera / lens combo is all I want to carry, the 24-105 would fit when taking one or two extra lenses. I am waiting for a Canon promotion to get the RF 35 1.8 to have a compact wide aperture lens.
EF 16-35mm IS L f:4 at 28mm ISO 500 1/60 f:4 - Canon RP in-camera jpg
RF 24-240 mm IS f:4-6.3 at 32mm ISO 500 1/60 f:4.5 - Canon RP in-camera jpg
Rivermist wrote:
I own both, having first purchased the RP and 24-105 a year ago (very happy in general) and then succumbing to the RP + 24-240 last December when the two combined were only $200 more than I had paid for the RP body alone. I was going on a trip to Europe that was mainly for family visits but included a few stops in Paris, Southern France, Barcelona, etc.. and I did not want to lug any of my telephoto alternatives (EF 70-200 L f:4, EF 70-300 DO, EF 100-400 L mk 1) for a few opportunities where I would need a telephoto. So the 24-105 stayed home and the 24-240 was on one camera always out and ready, with a bag containing the other RP body and either the EF 16-35 IS or the EF 35mm f:2 for wide angle (can't visit the Sagrada Familia without something wider than 24mm).
I was very pleasantly surprised with the quality of the 24-240 using in-camera JPG, something I had never done before. Until now with various 5Ds and other DSLRs I have always used RAW and post processing to allow for exposure and white corrections, something I do practically never now with the RP's electronic viewfinder and live histograms.
In terms of pixel sharpness, contract and color I am sure an L lens will come out better than the 24-240, two different categories of lenses, but it is not "day and night" different, see the pictures taken in challenging light with the 16-35L and the 24-240 at almost the same focal length, ISO and exposure.
I am waiting to get a telephoto zoom to complement the 24-105. Within a year and the launch of RF lens such as the 100-500, or 70-200, or some hinted-at zooms like 70-300 or 70-400, one will fill that role. The 24-240 would be the lens to take along when a single camera / lens combo is all I want to carry, the 24-105 would fit when taking one or two extra lenses. I am waiting for a Canon promotion to get the RF 35 1.8 to have a compact wide aperture lens....Show more →
Thanks. I ended up picking up the 24-240mm and so far its great. I am not sure if I want to trade it for the 24-105 f4 anymore, I think ill be picking up the 35mm 1.8 next.
asr10user wrote:
Thanks. I ended up picking up the 24-240mm and so far its great. I am not sure if I want to trade it for the 24-105 f4 anymore, I think ill be picking up the 35mm 1.8 next.
Two thoughts (both supporting your choice):
- I was myself surprised at how much the camera's computational capabilities improve the image. With the 24-240mm it is more of less mandatory to use jpg as well as raw recording since the wide angle focal lengths are a combination of optics and processing. I am not sure that every raw software will properly address that. I had never really thought of recording jpg since I had easy and bullet-proof raw workflows using computer software. I think Canon is looking real hard at the cell phone camera developments, where software in the phone is handling low light, IS with no moving parts, focus, depth of field, etc.. The 24-240 with an R or RP camera is delivering an image that is a combination of optics and processing, not just a straight compression of the sensor data.
- When L lenses were introduced there was quite a gap in quality, color, distortion, contrast, etc.. Non-L recent EF lenses and the RF lenses so far seem to reduce that gap, or raise the bar, whichever way you look at it. I owned the EF 35 1:2 IS and it was a fantastic lens, the RF 35 1.8 is on the shopping list, apparently even better according to tests.
I’ve just done an extensive series of comparisons between my just received RF24-240 and all my EF lenses, at various focal lengths, wide open and at f8, comparing both the centre and the far corner. I’m very impressed by the RF24-240: in the centre wide open and closed down it’s comparable to any lens. Corners are weaker wide open at 24mm, improved at f8 but still not up to, for example, the 16-35 IS. However, there’s nothing much to choose between it at 24 and the 24-105 L (first version) also at 24. At 240 it’s not the equal of the 100-400 L IS II (no surprise), but around 200 and in the centre it’s hard to pick any real difference between the two.
I’ve been taking both JPGs and CRAW. Converting the CRAW in Canon’s DPP software I see that the Digital Lens Optimiser is already turned on. Saving the CRAW shots as JPGs and comparing them to the JPGs out of the camera it’s hard to tell any difference - perhaps the converted CRAWs are just a tiny fraction sharper, but if at all that’s only visible with pixel peeping.
The only slight downside to the new lens is that, in direct comparisons with some shots, there’s just a little violet tinge. Easily corrected in post processing, of course.
