Mike_5D wrote:
I just did a quick test of the 24-240 against my EF 70-200 2.8 II. I was about 12 yards away and cropped in to show the text. I focused on the weld since the text was so hard to see: I wanted to make sure the camera had something to focus on. The 70-200 is definitely sharper but the gap is smaller than you'd think given the relative price points. Also, shooting black text on white is kind of a of a worst case test for lens sharpness. Pictures you actually care about are much more forgiving.
Mike, a huge thanks for taking the time and trouble to do all that, much appreciated 👍🏻
When you factor in the gulf between those two optics and yet how close they actually are, yes the 70/200L has the edge but that’s a L optic !! The 10x 24-240 has not shamed itself at all.
Are these using a FF or Crop body?
I’ve used the 24-240 on a crop body and honestly it’s pretty decent. You’re basically getting a 36-360mm equivalent range, which is really handy for travel and general shooting. It’s not the sharpest lens out there, especially toward the long end, but stopped down a little it holds up quite well. For an all-in-one setup, I think it’s a pretty good option.
stephenjohnsonn wrote:
I’ve used the 24-240 on a crop body and honestly it’s pretty decent. You’re basically getting a 36-360mm equivalent range, which is really handy for travel and general shooting. It’s not the sharpest lens out there, especially toward the long end, but stopped down a little it holds up quite well. For an all-in-one setup, I think it’s a pretty good option.
It’s actually 38-380… if we round it off to roughly 40-400mm….incredible!
But I confess I just in the past hour splurged on a mint boxed ( used once ?? ) 18-150 for cheap compared to what they usually sell for. So unless I need the 380mm reach I’ll probably make do with the small light 18-150 for simple days out
Edit, have the EF-m version on my M50.
Took it to Prague last year with the EF 50/1.8 stm and 11-22…worked great.
Pixelpuffin wrote:
...
It’s actually 38-380… if we round it off to roughly 40-400mm….incredible!
Copied from the TDP review of the EF100-400 II : "...the 100-400 II's max focal length seems more like 383mm or just slightly wider."
Ofcourse the 100-400 II was really great. But it was only 4x where the 24-240 is a 10x zoom AND not at all far behind. And this on the slightly inferior and at the same time more demanding crop sensor pixels.
The 24-240 should get far more glory and fanfare. But, you know, it is not a f/bluritall lens...
Z250SA wrote:
Copied from the TDP review of the EF100-400 II : "...the 100-400 II's max focal length seems more like 383mm or just slightly wider."
Ofcourse the 100-400 II was really great. But it was only 4x where the 24-240 is a 10x zoom AND not at all far behind. And this on the slightly inferior and at the same time more demanding crop sensor pixels.
The 24-240 should get far more glory and fanfare. But, you know, it is not a f/bluritall lens...
Yeah, I’d read about the 100-400Lii shortfall too.
I wonder if a lot of zooms are like this?
I have both ef70-200/2.8Lis and Tamron G2 70-200/2.8. The difference at the long end is plain to see, the canon has much greater pulling power over the Tamron- I was surprised to say the least!!
Imagine all the crying here and everywhere if Canon made a 25-68mm f/2.9 LIS.
Yes, it is quite common that the lenses are slightly off. Lens design is restricted by the available glasses, manufacturability, etc, etc. But the buyer expects something familiar as eg Canons all 24mm lenses.
Z250SA wrote:
Copied from the TDP review of the EF100-400 II : "...the 100-400 II's max focal length seems more like 383mm or just slightly wider."
You need to specify at what distance the lens was focused for this statement to be very meaningful.
Like so many other zoom lenses, it shortens in focal length in order to provide a shorter MFD, but is pretty close to the advertised focal lengths at longer focusing distances.
Cliff L. wrote:
You need to specify at what distance the lens was focused for this statement to be very meaningful.
Like so many other zoom lenses, it shortens in focal length in order to provide a shorter MFD, but is pretty close to the advertised focal lengths at longer focusing distances.
Not in the contex of the 24-240 on crop, but the answer to at what distance is 13.063m with the two contemporary 400mm primes as "the true 400". Not my choise. But when I had the 100-400 II, I would have liked it to be as long as possible using it with the 1.4xIII in good light and now a 1.4x on the 200-800. Length does matter. Lacking 17mm at +-400mm is not much as you have the field of view you have when shooting.
The main point is that the 24-240 is a powerful tool on crop sensors. About 38-400mm. Pretty great!
Probably too late for this thread, but here's a link to a few shots I took with my RF 24-240mm f4-6.3 with my R6II (sorry, I know you're looking for crop body samples, but for whatever reason I never got to use it on my R7 when I still owned an R7):
