Instead of creating 3 different posts for these 3 lenses, and how they perform in real life for travel photography, I decided to condense everything here. Also, These are my personal experiences with these cameras and lenses. I'm not getting compensated in any way by and camera or lens manufacturer (although I wish I was because this hobby is getting to be way too expensive).
I finally got to test out my Canon RF 16-28mm f2.8 STM, RF 24-240mm f4-6.3 on my R6II, and my Tamron 11-20mm f2.8 RDX for Canon RF on my R7. In case you've been contemplating the idea of getting one of these 3 lenses for travel, I've posted samples of each from my trip to Spain last month.
Here is a link to sample images for the RF 16-28mm f2.8:
They are all basically snapshots captured in JPEG, straight out of the camera (only a few of the outdoor images were corrected for auto tone/auto color because they were shot on overcast days). Yes, they would look much better if I spent a little more time with them in Photoshop. However, my main reason for posting them mostly "as-is" is for you to see what the lenses are capable of capturing (not my Photoshop skills). In a world full of AI and fake, over-edited images, I personally would appreciate seeing samples of images taken as SOOC as possible. Hence, the reason my image albums are as SOOC as possible.
Anyway, my thoughts on these lenses:
1. The Canon RF 16-28mm f2.8 STM is a sharp lens. It shows a great deal of distortion at 16mm regardless of whether you select in-camera lens corrections or not. I'm not a fan of having to get the lens ready for shooting by turning the zoom ring to 16mm, but I got used to it. I found it to be sharp at 16mm and very sharp at 28mm stopped down to f4.0. Overall it perfirmed well as my main travel lens on my R6II.
2. The Canon RF 24-240mm f4-6.3 is a very decent lens for travel. I was concerned at first regarding the slower, variable apertures, but it performed very well on my R6II. I mostly used it outdoors in good lighting, but I also used it indoors to capture some details inside churches. It is not a lightweight lens, so carrying it around my neck while mounted on my R6II was a bit painful after a while.
3. The Tamron 11-20mm f2.8 RDX for Canon RF is a compact, lightweight, sharp lens that performed pretty well on my backup camera (R7). My only issue with it was that my R7 would not perform the auto sensor cleaning function with this lens attached. I can see this lens being a perfect wide angle zoom for other Canon RF APS-C cameras like the R50 and R100. It performed well wide open at f2.8 in low light indoors. My only gripe was with the R7 itself. AF tracking on my R7 was unreliable. I ended up selling my R7 and the Tamron 11-20mm f2.8 a couple of weeks ago. If I would've owned another Canon RF APS-C body, I would've kept that Tamron 11-20mm f2.8. However, I used the money from the sale of my R7 + Tamron 11-20mm f2.8 to buy a Sony A7iv. But that's a topic for another post.
snegron7 wrote:
Instead of creating 3 different posts for these 3 lenses, and how they perform in real life for travel photography, I decided to condense everything here.
I finally got to test out my Canon RF 16-28mm f2.8 STM, RF 24-240mm f4-6.3 on my R6II, and my Tamron 11-20mm f2.8 RDX for Canon RF on my R7. In case you've been contemplating the idea of getting one of these 3 lenses for travel, I've posted samples of each from my trip to Spain last month.
Here is a link to sample images for the RF 16-28mm f2.8:
They are all basically snapshots captured in JPEG, straight out of the camera (only a few of the outdoor images were corrected for auto tone/auto color because they were shot on overcast days). Yes, they would look much better if I spent a little more time with them in Photoshop. However, my main reason for posting them mostly "as-is" is for you to see what the lenses are capable of capturing (not my Photoshop skills). In a world full of AI and fake, over-edited images, I personally would appreciate seeing samples of images taken as SOOC as possible. Hence, the reason my image albums are as SOOC as possible.
Anyway, my thoughts on these lenses:
1. The Canon RF 16-28mm f2.8 STM is a sharp lens. It shows a great deal of distortion at 16mm regardless of whether you select in-camera lens corrections or not. I'm not a fan of having to get the lens ready for shooting by turning the zoom ring to 16mm, but I got used to it. I found it to be sharp at 16mm and very sharp at 28mm stopped down to f4.0. Overall it perfirmed well as my main travel lens on my R6II.
2. The Canon RF 24-240mm f4-6.3 is a very decent lens for travel. I was concerned at first regarding the slower, variable apertures, but it performed very well on my R6II. I mostly used it outdoors in good lighting, but I also used it indoors to capture some details inside churches. It is not a lightweight lens, so carrying it around my neck while mounted on my R6II was a bit painful after a while.
3. The Tamron 11-20mm f2.8 RDX for Canon RF is a compact, lightweight, sharp lens that performed pretty well on my backup camera (R7). My only issue with it was that my R7 would not perform the auto sensor cleaning function with this lens attached. I can see this lens being a perfect wide angle zoom for other Canon RF APS-C cameras like the R50 and R100. It performed well wide open at f2.8 in low light indoors. My only gripe was with the R7 itself. AF tracking on my R7 was unreliable. I ended up selling my R7 and the Tamron 11-20mm f2.8 a couple of weeks ago. If I would've owned another Canon RF APS-C body, I would've kept that Tamron 11-20mm f2.8. However, I used the money from the sale of my R7 + Tamron 11-20mm f2.8 to buy a Sony A7iv. But that's a topic for another post....Show more →
I agree about the 24-240mm being heavy but nonetheless worth it, because it makes it easier to walk around and alternate wide, standard and telephoto shots in one package. In the spirit of traveling light I sometimes put the RF16mm f:2.8 in a pocket, it allows for some extra-wide shots in complement to the 24-240 without mobilizing an additional full-size lens. The quality is on par with the 24-240, not an L lens but quite respectable results for the size and price. https://www.lamanchatx.com/Travel-Photography/2409-Stresa (there are also a few shots using the RF 35mm f:1.8 for evening / night shots)
Rivermist wrote:
I agree about the 24-240mm being heavy but nonetheless worth it, because it makes it easier to walk around and alternate wide, standard and telephoto shots in one package. In the spirit of traveling light I sometimes put the RF16mm f:2.8 in a pocket, it allows for some extra-wide shots in complement to the 24-240 without mobilizing an additional full-size lens. The quality is on par with the 24-240, not an L lens but quite respectable results for the size and price. https://www.lamanchatx.com/Travel-Photography/2409-Stresa (there are also a few shots using the RF 35mm f:1.8 for evening / night shots)
Nice images! I agree with the you regarding the RF 16mm f2.8! My copy is sharp and performs well on my R6II. It would've been much easier to carry a prime (16, 24, 35, etc) around all day instead of the 24-240mm, but I too liked the speed and convenience of using the 24-240mm.
Rivermist wrote:
I agree about the 24-240mm being heavy but nonetheless worth it, because it makes it easier to walk around and alternate wide, standard and telephoto shots in one package. In the spirit of traveling light I sometimes put the RF16mm f:2.8 in a pocket, it allows for some extra-wide shots in complement to the 24-240 without mobilizing an additional full-size lens. The quality is on par with the 24-240, not an L lens but quite respectable results for the size and price. https://www.lamanchatx.com/Travel-Photography/2409-Stresa (there are also a few shots using the RF 35mm f:1.8 for evening / night shots)
The 24-240 is one of my favorite lenses. It's just so versatile and the weight isn't bad compared to carrying two lenses for the same range. The aperture isn't an issue in the day and is manageable at night if you don't need to freeze action. I would prefer some level of weather sealing but then it would cost more and likely be bigger and heavier.
Good to see some love for the maligned 24-240 I agree that it's a far more useful lens that you first suspect and it has better image quality than a lot give it credit for, It is sharp in the right scenarios although, like above, I wish it was a tad lighter. it quickly became my main travel lens augmented by some cheap primes.
.... but I've been really torn after getting the 28-70 f/2.8. I find wanting to take both on trips which is obviously a self-defeating idea. Like the 16-28, it has that trick extend to start thing that takes a bit of getting used to but I find it easier now than the lock switch on most other lenses and it's becoming a reflex to twist as I grab for the camera.
I agree that it's a far more useful lens that you first suspect and it has better image quality than a lot give it credit for, It is sharp in the right scenarios although, like above, I wish it was a tad lighter. it quickly became my main travel lens augmented by some cheap primes.