I have a near mint one on it's way but not sure if I will end up keeping it because of what my other lenses are. I got a very good price and have read very good and bad things about this lens. I am trying not to hord lenses but I can't seem to help myself. I have the RF 24-105 stm for light weight travel, the rf 35MM F1.8 and the rf 70-200 F2.8 non z. I understand it's quite a bit heavier than the 24-105 stm but the quality is suppose to be better. I am trying to see how this lens will fit in with the 70-200. Would you take both with you when out shooting or would the 24-105 be a better companion? Should I sell the 24-105 and use my EF 24-70 f2.8 II with the 70-200 when I want the best quality and the 24-240 as a one lens solution even though it's a little on the heavier side? I suppose the 35 and the 24-240 would be a good 2 lens option. I should mention I will be using it on a R5.
If you by best quality mean blurred backgrounds you will prefer the f/2.8´s. But if you like the 24-105STM you might find that the 24-240 does most everything and the f/2.8´s stays at home.
I use and really like the 24-240 on the R5 for more "reach" but now have it glued to my R8 except when I do need some reach and put it on my R10 but then it is slightly lacking at the wide end. Great lens for one lens action the 24-240 is.
I have:
R6
EF 24-70 2.8 II
EF 70-200 2.8 II
RF 24-105 STM
RF 24-240
All get used under different conditions. The RF 24-105 is my lightest and smallest zoom. I don't use it too much, but it comes in very handy when I want to keep my kit as small as possible. It also comes along when I'm shooting birds or sports with the EF 100-400 II and don't want to get caught without anything under 100mm.
The 70-200 is big and heavy and comes out when I know I'll need f/2.8. It's too much to throw in the bag "just in case". I got the 24-240 as a way to get past 100mm without carrying such a large lens. The EF 24-70 2.8 II sort of fits this category too in that it stays home unless I'm pretty sure f/2.8 will be required or desired.
The 24-240 is probably my favorite all-around lens. For a single lens outing, it can't be beat for the range. Background blur is definitely still possible with slower lenses if you keep your distances in mind. Also, you'll get as much or more subject separation at 240/6.3 than you will at 70/2.8 or 105/4 and cropping. Even though it's not a light lens, it's still lighter than carrying two lenses to cover the same range, plus you don't waste time swapping lenses. I sometimes do carry the 24-70 2.8 and the 24-240, especially if I expect to be shooting indoors and outdoors. Fast, short lens for indoors, more reach and more flexibility when there's more light. The 24-240 is also a very good video lens with the silent motor.
I think most people crapping on the 24-240 are looking at uncorrected raw images or objecting to software corrections based on some moral superiority without actually looking at real-world images. I personally don't care if the corners of a brick wall are less sharp than my 24-70. It's sharp enough where it matters.
Just buy whatever is more expensive and can produce more profit for Canon. There. That should sum it up. To all my fellow social media marketing influencers here on FM; you're welcome.
The 24-240 plus the 35mm 1.8 has been my go-to middle-weight setup for years, and it's spectacular. Gives you everything you need for outdoor daytime shooting through the golden hour, and you swap to the prime for indoors and nightscapes. Plenty of sharpness if you stop down a touch, plenty of reach for everything short of wildlife or large field sports, don't have any UWA but 24mm is pretty wide and you can always pull out your phone if you need wider. For people photos, I've thrown in the new little godox it32 as a mini-flash and it's been superb for close-up fill flash and small room indoor stuff, but it's not up to the task of working a paid event.
If I want lighter / simpler, it's an R10 and 18-150, which is fantastic for its size.
For "work" I end up using 300 2.8, 70-200 2.8, 24-70 2.8, and 85 1.4, but there's no way I'm carrying that stuff on vacation or for a bike ride through the woods.
The 24-240 Is almost always on my R5. It’s great for travel, where I match it with the RF 14-35 L for super wide angle shots (cathedral ceilings, etc) and for its weatherproofing, as the 24-240 unfortunately lacks that. Some time ago I compared its image quality to the RF 24-105 f4 L and the difference was minimal - I sold the 24-105.
Yes, of course I have other lenses to use if I’m home or travelling by car: an RF 70-200 f2.8 non Z for portraits, the 100-500 for birds and wildlife, an EF L macro… but it’s the 24-250 that’s on the R5 as I write this.
Received the lens but it's been rainy so only have taken shots around the house but I am pretty sure there is no need for the 24-105 stm so I will probably sell it.
campy wrote:
Received the lens but it's been rainy so only have taken shots around the house but I am pretty sure there is no need for the 24-105 stm so I will probably sell it.
I had the 24-105 stm and was using it for construction progress pictures, but in some instances, it wasn't long enough, so I bought a used 24-240 for $500. I was shooting between 40 and 175mm most of the time, occasionally shooting at 200mm. When the project was finished, I really didn't use that lens, so I sold it for what I paid for it, then went back to my 24-105 stm. I don't shoot much past 75 or 80mm with that lens, but I keep my RF 100-400 close by.
Jim
