snegron7
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
castlekeeper01 wrote:
The RF 24-240 has a lens design that relies heavily on lens correction software at both ends of the focal range. It can be a little soft at the edges. It's not very fast. There's even a bit of chromatic aberration under some conditions. However, the corrective software, image stabilization, and perhaps a CP filter solve those issues for me.
My full kit includes 4 Canon L zoom lenses: RF14-35, RF24-105 f/4, EF 70-200 2.8, and RF100-500. On extended trips where luggage is no issue I used to pack these as well as one or two L primes: EF 24 1.4 II, maybe an RF100 2.8 macro. I would say all of those have an overall image quality slightly better than the 24-240 in some aspects. Pixel peepers and professionals may be able to discern some differences, but never has it been a shot killing issue for me, family, friends, or clients (I dabble as a professional when requested.). The RF24-240 produces fine images, suitable for large prints.
Check out some reviews. I suggest Bryan Carnathan at The_DIgital_Image.com, and Ken Rockwell.
Additional thoughts: My personal travel includes dozens of trips and tours over decades, both in the states and abroad. I usually travel with family and friends. While they know I'll be shooting and sharing - and that they'll receive some lifetime keeper images - my photography is not the primary reason we travel. The itinerary is not built around my shooting. They want their own experience without undo distractions or delays. Our main focus is on the place, culture, people, history, food, architecture etc. They're all packing phones of course, which for everyone but passionate photogs is all they need or want. They are rarely interested enough in the potential quality difference between my gear and theirs to wait around while I change lenses or set up a tripod (which in many places is prohibited). Moreover, even with their encouragement and support for a good composition - (they'll let me move them around a little bit for portraits) they simply cannot discern the slightly better images from my L's versus the 24-240, even on their home computers.
After years of hauling gear and swapping lenses, my travel kit now consists of a tiny RF16 2.8, the 24-240, and the RF100-500 in a small swing bag. On daily excursions walking about the 24-240 is always on. Often I take only that lens in a holster, which I find the easiest kit to manage. If we're headed indoors or going out after dark I might take the RF16 2.8 - it fits in a pocket or the bottom of the holster.
The bottom line for me is I travel to absorb as much as possible through all my senses from interesting places - not just visually through photos or videos. I've missed some spontaneous magical moments while looking at only one aspect of an environment and fiddling with gear. Staying in the moment with friends and family is most important - it's why I go. Those are the memories the photographs will recall - the conversations, smells, tastes, atmosphere. There's ample quick opportunities, and the 24-240 delivers outstanding images. Once I understood my travel compaions' desires I learned to adapt my shooting and gear accordingly. We're all glad I did. ...Show more →
Thank you for your detailed feedback! After reading several recommendations here regarding the Canon RF 24-240, I have been looking into it. My only struggle with going with that lens is its slower apertures, especially at the long end.
One of the things I didn't clarify on my original post was why I'm so insistent on IQ, especially for an upcoming trip I have planned. I will be traveling with two elderly family members who are not in the greatest health. This might be a once in a lifetime opportunity to capture pictures of them traveling abroad. Someday, maybe in a decade or more, I'd like to review those images using whatever technology we'll have and be able to see every possible detail. Every wrinkle, every imperfection. Looking back at images I took years ago with the technology I had back then (beginning of the digital age), I find myself wishing I could've captured more detailed images.
While I will be with these two family members 2/3 of my time there (they will be headed off to a cruise while I stay behind for an extra week), I'll be off shooting on my own for that extra week.
The majority (98%) of the images I always take are with a wide angle lens. 16mm is my favorite focal length followed by 24mm. If I take my Sony gear, I'll be using my Tamron 17-28mm f2.8 the majority of the time followed by my Tamron 28-200mm. The OM-5 would be my backup camera in case my Sony A7c dies on me. It would have 3 lenses;
1. Panasonic/Leica 9mm f1.7
2. Panasonic 12-35mm f2.8
3. OM System 45-150mm f4 Pro
The two biggest issues with this option are the different batteries between cameras and (if my Sony A7c dies at the beginning of the trip), I'd be stuck with a tiny sensored OM-5 which defeats the purpose of this trip; to capture the most detailed, largest files of my two elderly family members enjoying this once in a lifetime trip.
If I go with my Canon gear, I'd be taking my R6II and R7 which share the same battery. The R7 would have the Tamron 11-20mm f2.8 attached to it at all times, and it would be just the backup camera. The R6II would have my Canon RF 16-28mm f2.8 STM attatched to it most of the time. Unfortunately, wide angle lenses like my RF 16-28mm f2.8 are not ideal for portraits (wide angle distortion although minimized will not be a faithful depiction of human subjects), so I will need a longer lens. The Canon RF 24-240mm would fit this requirement as would the RF 70-200mm f4.0L. I'm not a fan of how much attention white lenses attract though. If I had the 24-240mm, I would definitely use it more for travel, while the 70-200mm f4.0L would be used more for local images.
My current option is to take my Canon EF 85mm f1.8 USM with EF/RF adapter.
|
. I went for the 24-240 over the RF24-105 and compared to my EF24-105, the 24-240 is sharper & cleaner. As you, I was just not impressed with the RF version.