JohanEickmeyer wrote:
My point was that the final image output will be less sensor surface area in both instances, but for the logner lenses, people would laugh at Canon for selling a 300mm lens for mirrorless and just cropping it in camera without ever telling anyone it is not a 600mm lens. It's just magically small!
Understood. And my point (which I believe you understand also) is that with this approach on the wide side, they at least do need to supply the optics to provide the appropriately wide FOV, though unfortunately over a smaller image circle.
So, how big is the barrel distortion at 24mm with the correction off? It's got to be pretty massive if correcting it also removes enough of the corner to compensate for such huge vignetting.
whistlerdan wrote:
Just to confirm... I also have this lens and I also see the same behaviour. So it’s not a problem with your specific lens.
As others have pointed out, there are other brands that do this but I think it’s going to come as a shock to Canon users.
Not sure how I feel about it.
Yeah but nobody does that to such extent... The worst offenders so far had been the Sony 16-50 and 24-105 lenses but their worst was looking like this: https://opticallimits.com/images/8Reviews/lenses/sony_1650_3556/vig16mmf35.jpg
(from the OpticalLimits.com test of the 16-50 PZ lens at 16mm f/3.5 with lens corrections off)
whistlerdan wrote:
Just to confirm... I also have this lens and I also see the same behaviour. So it’s not a problem with your specific lens.
As others have pointed out, there are other brands that do this but I think it’s going to come as a shock to Canon users.
Not sure how I feel about it.
At least this is a cheap, non-L lens. One can hope there will be an L zoom lens with f/5.6 at the long end to replace the 28-300L, but somewhat lighter. Severe distortion correction creates several IQ issues.
EB-1 wrote:
At least this is a cheap, non-L lens. One can hope there will be an L zoom lens with f/5.6 at the long end to replace the 28-300L, but somewhat lighter. Severe distortion correction creates several IQ issues.
EBH
Despite this rather startling discovery, I will say that the lens appears to be very sharp. Particularly at the longer end which isn't too surprising because so much less distortion correction is happening there.
My immediate reaction when I saw the vignetting was "this lens is going back". But after looking through more photos I think it will stay because it does what it's supposed to which is provide a light(ish) one lens solution when I don't want to carry my 70-200 or 100-400 II etc.
I also just purchased this lens. So far, I am loving it. I shoot mostly nature and wildlife, so I don't care all that much about the wide angle part of the equation.
What I am looking for in any lens is focus, sharpness, and bokeh. I found that focus with this lens on the R was quick and accurate. The lens is also very sharp. I was surprised at the sharpness, I did not expect that on a non-L lens. The bokeh is never going to look like the bokeh from the 70-200, but it's not bad, and certainly better than most other non-L lenses I've used.
I wanted this lens as a walkaround lens. I'm tired of always switching lenses. I'm tired of the weight of the L lenses I carry around. This lens is a perfect alternative. It's sharp, it focuses well, and gets good enough bokeh for my everyday purposes.
If I go on a photo vacation or safari, or if I'm going to be shooting birds in flight, I'll take my trusty workhorse 5DIII and my 24-105, 70-200, and 100-400. But for everyday shooting, I will take the R and the 24-240 and be very happy to not be carrying all that gear.
Here is a shot with the R and the 24-240, taken at my local botanical garden.
Ok, I have tested the lenses against each other, and I can only say a few things: The lens is not particularly good for servo shooting. Big surprise, but just for kicks I used it today for a shoot of wake boarding on a boat and let's just say that I have way more rejects than when I shoot with my L glass.
The question that I think has been on other people's mind - the huge uncorrected vignetting at the wide end - I think that has a fairly simple explanation, too: at 24mm the lens is actually wider than that, so that the correction profiles can do a pretty good job correcting. Shown below is the uncorrected vignetting compared to the RF24-10L and the EF 24-70m2 at the wide end, wide open to all the way to f8. Note that the uncorrected RF24-240 image is quite a bit wider.
stanj wrote:
The question that I think has been on other people's mind - the huge uncorrected vignetting at the wide end - I think that has a fairly simple explanation, too: at 24mm the lens is actually wider than that, so that the correction profiles can do a pretty good job correcting.
Thanks for the test. Looks like I might need to give this lens a chance after all.
Indeed. The other thing that I learned was that AF speed and accuracy aside, at f8 the lens is pretty darn impressive across the whole focal range, which is where I'd be using it anyway. A great travel lens.
With digital and in particular with EVF, lens designers get away with murder. They simply make the lens a little wider than spec at the wide end, so as to have enough coverage, then apply correction. Distortion and vignetting be damned.
I miss the old days when shooting on slides, truly WYSIWYG, and the lenses have to perform optically.
OK, maybe I don't miss shooting slides, but I like those lenses.
The question that I think has been on other people's mind - the huge uncorrected vignetting at the wide end - I think that has a fairly simple explanation, too: at 24mm the lens is actually wider than that, so that the correction profiles can do a pretty good job correcting. Shown below is the uncorrected vignetting compared to the RF24-10L and the EF 24-70m2 at the wide end, wide open to all the way to f8. Note that the uncorrected RF24-240 image is quite a bit wider.
Thank you for keeping your cool instead of going for the pitchfork
This will be the perfect family travel lens for me. I wanted a full frame camera And was already invested in canon lenses so now I own an RP because it was cheaper and lighter than a 6d mk2. I already own a few good lenses. But when I travel with my family I dislike carrying besides water, food and coloring books two zooms and a prime. So this lens is perfect. This way I can use my nice full frame camera both when traveling with the family and when I go out specifically to shoot and carrying 5 lenses, flashes and a tripod.
stanj wrote:
Indeed. The other thing that I learned was that AF speed and accuracy aside, at f8 the lens is pretty darn impressive across the whole focal range, which is where I'd be using it anyway. A great travel lens.
Thanks for the thread and the good info. I just ordered one to go with the RP - it will help me enjoy my travels a bit more .
Aristophanes wrote:
There appears to be a growing trend in the dedicated camera market towards less lens changes, especially by mid-level consumers.
Many also enjoy the option of not changing lenses for travel purposes or in environments where changing glass may contaminate the sensor.
Therefore it follows that the manufacturers will use any and all techniques to keep the lens compact and affordable.
Actually I'd say the opposite in the MILC arena. There are a myriad of little primes people are using now on SONY for example! Every focal length has about three lenses with apertures from 1.4 to 1.8 to 2.
After reading this thread, I went ahead and ordered one of these. I've had it for a week now...
All in all I like the lens just fine especially for travelling.
Chromatic aberration is fairly pronounced at the wide end, in addition to the darkened corners but everything can be corrected in post. Sharpness around the edges suffer a bit but it's pretty good in the middle. I can tell that overall IQ is not as sharp at the telephoto end.
Like many of you, I have mostly L-lenses...so my data point is against the L-lens performance which is rather unfair for this lens. To me, this is not on-par with the L-lenses but then I know that before I bought it.
I took a whole bunch of pictures in near dark conditions (ISO 8000) and the images
I want to spare myself from lugging multiple heavy L-lenses with me while on travel with family but I also don't want a really bad cheap lens that won't give me the IQ I'm used to. I'd say the 24-240mm will do just fine for me while travelling.
Here's a picture I took @ 240mm...the bokeh is not bad... EOS RP, @ 240mm, f/6.3, 1/500, ISO 250
[url=https://flic.kr/p/2hjsKZ4]
Lovely...[/url] by [url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/tongho58/]
Hien (Hank) Tongho[/url], on Flickr
I always enjoy reading your posts and feedback and I’m looking forward to your results. stanj wrote:
I just got the 24-240 and already based on the posted raw photos on DPR I knew it would be great, but I'm very happy with it. It will be my new point & shoot on the R; it's vastly better than the 28-300 that it replaces in my drawer, and better than pretty much anything I had in my collection in 2003 when I got the 1DS.
Given that I just got the RX100v7, there's a definite difference between the "true" P&S and this baby. For people who don't mind the slightly bigger bulk definitely a worthwhile "update".
Because I have to decide what bodies and lenses to take to Antarctica next month I will do some more scientific shooting between the 5DSR and 24-70m2 vs. R and RF24-105L, to see if better glass on a less resolving sensor is that much worse than not so good glass on the highest resolution sensor. I'll throw in the 24-240 into the comparison just for giggles. I'm wondering what other people's experience is with this lens....Show more →
