p.1 #1 · RF 24-105L vs RF 24-240 How much better is the L?
I have the RF 24-240 and generally like it. My question is how much better is the RF 24-105L in terms of image quality and distortion at 24mm? Yes, I know the L does not have the range, but how much "better" is it in the comparable range? Thanks!
p.1 #3 · RF 24-105L vs RF 24-240 How much better is the L?
I've owned both.
At the wide end the L is quite a bit better, not just in terms of sharpness, but also in terms of vignetting and CA. 24-240 has a LOT of CA at the wide end and vignetting so bad it's solid black in the corners. A lens profile will clean them up, but both are the expense of image quality. The sad part is that it doesn't really change stopped down. L is better at f4 than 24-240 is at f11.
At 50-80mm, they are about equal at same apertures.
At about 90-105mm, the 24-240 is better. 24-240 is REALLY good from like 70-150mm. 24-105L has weak corners at 105mm and f4-5.6. If you stop them down, they get pretty close.
So short version, is L is much better at 24mm, 24-240 is a little better at 100mm end, and in the middle they are pretty similar.
I kept the 24-105L because I like having the F4 long end for portraits, and I like having the best sharpness at 24mm. I also like the build, and the fact that it is balanced better on camera. 24-240 seems front heavy.
p.1 #4 · RF 24-105L vs RF 24-240 How much better is the L?
Just a general comment or two about these types of lenses, with a note that while I have used a couple of different Canon 24-105 lenses (including the one you mention), I have not used the wide-range 24-240.
First, subjective descriptions of such lenses are often a bit biased and sometimes include some hyperbole. (See "solid black in the corners" above.) It is useful to hear from a wide cross-section of people who have used such lenses, but you can be misled by relying on too few, particularly if their representation isn't balanced.
You can switch between images by moving the cursor from side to side over the image.
Don't be fooled by the different brightness of the images — the amount of vignetting is shown by the number of lines representing a half-stop drop-off as you go from center to corners. It is almost the same! So, whatever vignetting you are getting on your current lens, if this test is correct, you won't see much if any visible improvement from the RF 24-105 at that focal length and aperture.
The performance here of the 24-105 looks better at 24mm, though the sharpness difference seems less of an issue than the chromatic distortion issue... which is often a problem at shorter focal lengths on such lenses, but which can be automatically corrected in post.
You can use the comparison page to look at other focal lengths on both lenses.
Any lens with a super large focal length range such as 24-240mm makes some specific compromises that both improve and diminish the performance of the lens. Whether or not the compromises are favorable or unacceptable depends a lot on what you are looking for. If you want a single lens that covers all of your likely focal length needs, you can expect that you won't have apertures as large and that there will typically be some decrease in optical quality, especially at the extremes.
I note that you "generally like" the 24-240mm lens. Is it coming up short for you in your photography? And is that deficiency more important than, say, having the larger focal length range? Because that's the trade-off.
p.1 #5 · RF 24-105L vs RF 24-240 How much better is the L?
gdanmitchell wrote:
Just a general comment or two about these types of lenses, with a note while I have used a couple of different Canon 24-105 lenses (including the one you mention), I have not used the wide-range 24-240.
First, subjective descriptions of such lenses are often a bit biased and sometime include some hyperbole. (See "solid black in the corners" above.) It is useful to hear from a wide cross-section of people who have used such lenses, but you can be mislead by relying on too few, particularly if their representation isn't balanced.
You can switch between images by moving the cursor from side to side over the image.
Don't be fooled by the different brightness of the images — the amount of vignetting is shown by the number of lines representing a half-stop drop-off as you go from center to corners. It is almost the same! So, whatever vignetting you are getting on your current lens, if this test is correct, you won't see much if any visible improvement from the RF 24-105 at that focal length and aperture.
The performance here of the 14-105 looks better at 24mm, though the sharpness difference seems less of an issue than the chromatic distortion issue... which is often a problem at shorter focal lengths on such lenses, but which can be automatically corrected in post.
You can use the comparison page to look at other focal lengths on both lenses.
Any lens with a super large focal length range such as 24-240mm includes some specific compromises that both improve and diminish the performance of the lens. Whether or not the compromises are favorable or unacceptable depends a lot on what you are looking for. If you want a single lens that covers all of your likely focal length needs, you can expect that you won't have apertures as large and that there will typically be some decrease in optical quality, especially at the extremes.
I note that you "generally like" the 24-240mm lens. Is it coming up short for you in your photography? And is that deficiency more important than, say, having the larger focal length range? Because that's the trade-off.
p.1 #6 · RF 24-105L vs RF 24-240 How much better is the L?
I'll add that the RF 24-105L is the best lens I have used in that focal range. I loved my EF v1, but it seems like such a slouch compared to the RF. I tried the v2 EF once or twice, and it was in the middle of the two. I got the RF when I bought an RF body because the EF was my most used lens and I knew I'd get a lot of use out of the RF version. I have not been disappointed at all.
I followed the link to the vignetting example that gdan supplied, and I have to say I'm really surprised. That level of light fall off at 24mm has not been my experience at all with the RF 24-105. And I would say it is not close at all to the 24-240, which I have only tried a few times. But without a lens correction profile the 24-240 was basically black in the corners, where as the L lens did not have such an issue.
Regardless, I do think that 24-240 is a nice lens, given its wide range in a relatively small package. I could see having both, but I have other stuff on the list first. For a walkabout lens, that is pretty close to a 'one lens to rule them all'. At least in the day time. And the camera correction profiles are excellent, both Canon's and those from DXO. So don't be afraid of it.
p.1 #7 · RF 24-105L vs RF 24-240 How much better is the L?
gdanmitchell wrote:
First, subjective descriptions of such lenses are often a bit biased and sometimes include some hyperbole. (See "solid black in the corners" above.) It is useful to hear from a wide cross-section of people who have used such lenses, but you can be misled by relying on too few, particularly if their representation isn't balanced.
p.1 #8 · RF 24-105L vs RF 24-240 How much better is the L?
The "black corners" thing makes sense if you is going to regular use third-party software to defeat the normal output of the camera in order to get a wider angle of view than that provided by the 24mm coverage that you get when the lens is used normally.
Unless one does that, the black corners thing will never show up.
p.1 #10 · RF 24-105L vs RF 24-240 How much better is the L?
I've never seen black corners like that on my RF24-240!
Did Dustin Abbot use a lens that wasn't updated? (Initial models required a firmware update)
I use zero software for my photo's outside of basic apps. The out-of-camera images have none of that corner stuff going on. So displaying black corners as usual at 24mm is nonsense. No correction required.
My RF24-105L is only very slightly sharper in some cases - in good light, I just take my RF24-240.
p.1 #11 · RF 24-105L vs RF 24-240 How much better is the L?
If by out of camera you mean jpeg, then the pixel stretching/cropping has already occurred before the jpeg mutilation. The Canon software will also stretch/crop the pixels.
p.1 #12 · RF 24-105L vs RF 24-240 How much better is the L?
PhotoCyclist wrote:
I've never seen black corners like that on my RF24-240!
Did Dustin Abbot use a lens that wasn't updated? (Initial models required a firmware update)
I use zero software for my photo's outside of basic apps. The out-of-camera images have none of that corner stuff going on. So displaying black corners as usual at 24mm is nonsense. No correction required.
My RF24-105L is only very slightly sharper in some cases - in good light, I just take my RF24-240.
If you shoot raw and don't apply any lens corrections in LightRoom, you'll see the black corners. If you do apply lens profile corrections in LightRoom or use DPP, you'll never see the black corners.
p.1 #13 · RF 24-105L vs RF 24-240 How much better is the L?
Mike_5D wrote:
Complaining that a lens meant to be software corrected looks bad uncorrected is a bit like complaining that raw flour doesn't taste very good.
You completely missed my point.
Of course you won’t see the black corners, but the correction involved to eliminate them are what makes it much worse than the 24-105L at 24mm.
I only showed the uncorrected sample because I was basically called a liar.
I stand by my original comparison.
May 08, 2022 at 11:24 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.1 #14 · RF 24-105L vs RF 24-240 How much better is the L?
The 24-240 doesn't cover the frame at the 24mm end. It is expected to be cropped. They use a shorter FL and then crop to 24mm effective.
This may or may not be a big deal to you. Personally I'm not a fan of computational imaging. But I suppose if it's sharp enough etc one might not mind.
It's not a surprise to see it said in a post that the lens not requiring cropping at a FL is better there. Kinda like you'd expect.
p.1 #15 · RF 24-105L vs RF 24-240 How much better is the L?
First, I want to thank everyone who replied, it is really helpful. It appears there is a bit of a divide on this regarding the corrected images. What I come away with is that if I was looking to squeeze every last bit of quality out of my shots, maybe the L would be the way to go. As I am just a amateur that likes to shoot, and I generally like the 24-240 I have, there is no real need to upgrade to the L. This is exactly the kind of info I was looking for. Thanks again!
p.1 #16 · RF 24-105L vs RF 24-240 How much better is the L?
pics53090 wrote:
First, I want to thank everyone who replied, it is really helpful. It appears there is a bit of a divide on this regarding the corrected images. What I come away with is that if I was looking to squeeze every last bit of quality out of my shots, maybe the L would be the way to go. As I am just a amateur that likes to shoot, and I generally like the 24-240 I have, there is no real need to upgrade to the L. This is exactly the kind of info I was looking for. Thanks again!
Reading some of these responses, it might be useful to discuss the difference in performance between these lenses OPTICALLY vs FUNCTIONALLY. As I can see how both sides of the divide are correct in one way or the other.
Optically, the L is much better, with a larger image circle on the wide end and requiring significantly less manipulation via lens profile and of course the general L quality upgrades in terms of color, contrast etc. vs non-L lenses. Faster aperture as well.
Functionally, the lens profiles in DPP and DXO (and whatever other software has them) correct the image circle issue. If you are happy with the resulting output, then the 'problem' is no longer a problem. For giving up the aperture, you get 106-240mm as well.
A prospective purchaser just needs to weigh out what they value more and decide which is the right fit. Its a 'tool for a job' so the answer can be either, neither, or both.
p.1 #17 · RF 24-105L vs RF 24-240 How much better is the L?
A little mental experiment:
Imagine two lenses, lens A and lens B. Imagine that both cover the same focal length(s) and have the same aperture range.
Lens A is optically good, and you can improve the image quality further by either applying in-camera corrections (if that is our preference) or though typical post-processing techniques. In the end, it produces photographs that have good technical quality.
Lens B is not as good optically, however you can improve the image quality by applying built-in "lens optimization" adjustments that are automatically applied by the camera, applied in post, or which you could customize yourself. Beyond that you can apply typical post-processing techniques. In the end, it produces photographs that have good technical quality.
As part of the thought experiment, imagine that once all of this is done you cannot tell which lens the final images came from by looking at them.
If all else is equal — same size, same price, same AF performance, etc. — I suspect that most of us would probably pick lens A in this imaginary "all else is equal" situation, given our discomfort with reliance on software, right?
Now, let's extend this thought experiment a bit further. Let's say that the image comparison is as described above — in the end, both produce images that are quite good and you would be unable to tell which is which by looking at prints/displays of the same image made with both. However, what if...
1. B is smaller than A, and/or...
2. B has double the focal length range of A, and/or...
3. B costs lens less than A, and/or...
4. B covers all of your expected needs, but A would require you to get a second lens, and/or...
5. some other functional advantage of B that you can imagine.
Which do you get, why, and what real world outcome advantage accrues to your choice.
BTW, I do nto think there is only one right answer to this question.
p.1 #18 · RF 24-105L vs RF 24-240 How much better is the L?
gdanmitchell wrote:
The "black corners" thing makes sense if you is going to regular use third-party software to defeat the normal output of the camera in order to get a wider angle of view than that provided by the 24mm coverage that you get when the lens is used normally.
Unless one does that, the black corners thing will never show up.
Precisely. The 24-240 is part of a system for normal photographers, and not for RAW geeks. Judging it in RAW mode is like judging a lens with the cap on - not the intended use.
Both are outstanding lenses capable of creating outstanding images. Even sharpness depends far more on the photographer's choices than the lens.
That said, I sold my 24-240 and kept the 24-70 F2.8. I tried the f4 but passed mostly because the control rings are adjacent and easy to mess up.
A test I'd suggest is comparing the L cropped to 240 and upscaled, with the 240 at 240.
The L has a minor advantage in size, weight, durability, prestige, and weather-resistance, but probably not enough to sway a decision.
I'm a fan of "renting" lenses on FM by buying used ones at good prices, knowing I can resell for the same price. Consider both - likely, your emotions and intuitions will lead you to gravitate to the same one again and again. My 240 was neglected with this test, but everyone is different.
p.1 #19 · RF 24-105L vs RF 24-240 How much better is the L?
EB-1 wrote:
If by out of camera you mean jpeg, then the pixel stretching/cropping has already occurred before the jpeg mutilation. The Canon software will also stretch/crop the pixels.
EBH
Yeah, I only use jpeg's - I've never been a fan of RAW since I get perfectly fine images without that fuss. I do shoot both and simply save the RAW files, never even look at them. They are my back-up that I've not needed.
I literally know no-one who shoots RAW - it's just something I hear Pro's doing and some amateurs on forums like this, of course.
For those of us who don't shoot RAW then, the RF24-240 is great as it is - especially combined with the R5. I have L lenses and the more budget-friendly RF lenses and I've been impressed by them all, not a bad lens among them.
p.1 #20 · RF 24-105L vs RF 24-240 How much better is the L?
PhotoCyclist wrote:
Yeah, I only use jpeg's - I've never been a fan of RAW since I get perfectly fine images without that fuss. I do shoot both and simply save the RAW files, never even look at them. They are my back-up that I've not needed.
I literally know no-one who shoots RAW - it's just something I hear Pro's doing and some amateurs on forums like this, of course.
For those of us who don't shoot RAW then, the RF24-240 is great as it is - especially combined with the R5. I have L lenses and the more budget-friendly RF lenses and I've been impressed by them all, not a bad lens among them.
You can still shoot raw with lenses like the 24-240. The raw processor just applies a correction automatically instead of the camera doing it. I started shooting raw when I decided to use Lightroom. Since everything was going to be cataloged and adjusted anyway, I figured I may as well have as much quality as possible.
