RF Lenses
May 17, 2021 17:52:35 #
Genessi
Loc: SoCal
Looking at RF24-240 and 24-105mm f4 if you have any of these which do you prefer. It says the the 24-240 is heavier then 24-105. looking for a walk around after I purchase my 100-500mm.
May 17, 2021 17:55:14 #
Genessi wrote:
Looking at RF24-240 and 24-105mm f4 if you have any of these which do you prefer. It says the the 24-240 is heavier then 24-105. looking for a walk around after I purchase my 100-500mm.
I would get the 24-105. for a walk around.
May 17, 2021 18:36:11 #
Depending on what is important to you. I use a 70-300 on a crop frame camera for my walk around. I am a birder and the wide angle wasn't important. Decide what your style will be and either go with the wide angle or telephoto depending on which is more important then get the best lens you can afford that meets your requirements.
I have discovered since buying a Nikkor 200-500 all the BS I have been fed over the years about it's the photographer not the equipment that makes the picture is exactly that, BS. First it's the lens and next it's the camera that produces the quality picture then the photographer who makes the photograph in Post Processing. JMHO
I have discovered since buying a Nikkor 200-500 all the BS I have been fed over the years about it's the photographer not the equipment that makes the picture is exactly that, BS. First it's the lens and next it's the camera that produces the quality picture then the photographer who makes the photograph in Post Processing. JMHO
May 17, 2021 23:30:28 #
Genessi
Loc: SoCal
PixelStan77 wrote:
I would get the 24-105. for a walk around.
Yes! could have got with my R5 but it's kinda heavy.
May 17, 2021 23:38:38 #
Genessi
Loc: SoCal
PixelStan77 wrote:
I would get the 24-105. for a walk around.
How is the non L 24-105 lens
May 18, 2021 08:06:56 #
Genessi wrote:
Looking at RF24-240 and 24-105mm f4 if you have any of these which do you prefer. It says the the 24-240 is heavier then 24-105. looking for a walk around after I purchase my 100-500mm.
I assume that you mean the RF 24-105 mm F4-7.1? https://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/24-105mm-stm.htm
RF24-240 https://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/24-240mm.htm
I have the RF 24-105 mm F4L which I REALLY like, mounted on a Canon RP body. https://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/24-105mm.htm
Since I don't have either of the lenses that you asked about I will refer you to the sites above.
Also, if you use a good (opinions/preferences vary on UHH) cross body strap really minimizes your discomfort while walking around. The basic Canon strap, not so much.
https://www.optechusa.com/classic-strap.html
Good luck in your quest.
Smile,
JimmyT Sends
May 18, 2021 12:49:21 #
amfoto1
Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA
The RF 24-105mm f/4L and RF 24-240mm f/4-6.3 are similar weight... roughly 1.5 lb each, or about half the weight of the RF 100-500mm (which itself is a half lb. lighter than the EF 100-400mm II).
That 24-105L and 24-240mm are also pretty close in size, when fully retracted at the 24mm setting. The 24-240mm is about 1/2" longer, but slightly smaller diameter (72mm filters vs 77mm on the 24-105L).
The RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 STM lens is the smallest and lightest at about 14 oz., as well as the smallest of bunch (at 24mm), about 1/2" shorter than the L version, and it uses 67mm filters. It's also a whole heck of a lot cheaper... close to 1/3 the price of the 24-105L. Also, this less expensive lens is actually able to produce higher magnification close-ups... 0.5X (compared to 0.24X with the L). That might mean no need for a separate macro lens (extension tubes can make either lens able to focus closer and at even higher magnifications).
However, if it were me, those were my only choices and my budget allowed I'd want the RF 24-105L for it's non variable aperture, better image quality at the wide end (https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1222&Camera=1221&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1504&CameraComp=1221&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0), L-series build quality and sealing, and the fact that it can share 77mm filters with the RF 100-500mm. At the same time, there's minimal focal length overlap, the way there would be with the RF 24-240mm. Besides, a 1.5 lb. paired up with a 3 lb. lens still makes for a very light kit.
In fact, there are extensive reviews of all the available RF lenses at https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-RF-Lens-Reviews.aspx" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-RF-Lens-Reviews.aspx. Brian's reviews are thorough and can be very helpful, along with the image quality, distortion, flare resistance, and vignetting tools he provides.
Maybe some day Canon will introduce an RF version of the EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM lens. IMO that would be great... for my purposes, maybe even than the 24-105mm in some ways.
Right now, my personal "ideal" lens kit for an R-series camera includes:
RF 35mm f/1.8 IS STM Macro
RF 85mm f/2 IS STM Macro
RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L IS USM
Either an RF 1.4X teleconverter or RF 800mm f/11
I would want a wider lens too, but not the rather big RF 15-35mm f/2.8L. I just don't need f/2.8 on this lens, so see no reason to spend a lot of extra $ for a bigger lens with it. There are rumors of RF 14-35mm f/4 and RF 10-24mm f/4 lenses in the near future (the latter might be a lens for an APS-C crop R-series camera, along with the RF 18-45mm lens that's also rumored). Right now an alternative might be the Rokinon/Samyang AF 14mm f/2.8, although I don't like that it can't use standard, screw-in filters. There are also some manual focus only ultrawides... 14 and 15mm. Those are possibilities too, since manual focus isn't too difficult with a wide lens thanks to great depth of field that's inherent to short focal lengths. Plus, for the types of subjects I typically shoot with ultrawides manual focus really wouldn't be a problem.
That 24-105L and 24-240mm are also pretty close in size, when fully retracted at the 24mm setting. The 24-240mm is about 1/2" longer, but slightly smaller diameter (72mm filters vs 77mm on the 24-105L).
The RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 STM lens is the smallest and lightest at about 14 oz., as well as the smallest of bunch (at 24mm), about 1/2" shorter than the L version, and it uses 67mm filters. It's also a whole heck of a lot cheaper... close to 1/3 the price of the 24-105L. Also, this less expensive lens is actually able to produce higher magnification close-ups... 0.5X (compared to 0.24X with the L). That might mean no need for a separate macro lens (extension tubes can make either lens able to focus closer and at even higher magnifications).
However, if it were me, those were my only choices and my budget allowed I'd want the RF 24-105L for it's non variable aperture, better image quality at the wide end (https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1222&Camera=1221&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1504&CameraComp=1221&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0), L-series build quality and sealing, and the fact that it can share 77mm filters with the RF 100-500mm. At the same time, there's minimal focal length overlap, the way there would be with the RF 24-240mm. Besides, a 1.5 lb. paired up with a 3 lb. lens still makes for a very light kit.
In fact, there are extensive reviews of all the available RF lenses at https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-RF-Lens-Reviews.aspx" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-RF-Lens-Reviews.aspx. Brian's reviews are thorough and can be very helpful, along with the image quality, distortion, flare resistance, and vignetting tools he provides.
Maybe some day Canon will introduce an RF version of the EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM lens. IMO that would be great... for my purposes, maybe even than the 24-105mm in some ways.
Right now, my personal "ideal" lens kit for an R-series camera includes:
RF 35mm f/1.8 IS STM Macro
RF 85mm f/2 IS STM Macro
RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L IS USM
Either an RF 1.4X teleconverter or RF 800mm f/11
I would want a wider lens too, but not the rather big RF 15-35mm f/2.8L. I just don't need f/2.8 on this lens, so see no reason to spend a lot of extra $ for a bigger lens with it. There are rumors of RF 14-35mm f/4 and RF 10-24mm f/4 lenses in the near future (the latter might be a lens for an APS-C crop R-series camera, along with the RF 18-45mm lens that's also rumored). Right now an alternative might be the Rokinon/Samyang AF 14mm f/2.8, although I don't like that it can't use standard, screw-in filters. There are also some manual focus only ultrawides... 14 and 15mm. Those are possibilities too, since manual focus isn't too difficult with a wide lens thanks to great depth of field that's inherent to short focal lengths. Plus, for the types of subjects I typically shoot with ultrawides manual focus really wouldn't be a problem.
May 18, 2021 13:51:48 #
I purchased the 24-240 with my Rp. It is an excellent lens that is much lighter than many of my other lenses. When I want to carry a good camera around on vacation or shoot some video, it has become my goto lens.
I also own 35 1.4L, 85 1.4L, 24-72 L, and 100-400 L and a 5Ds.
I use all my lenses but am surprised how much I like the lightweight versatility of the super zoom and Rp.
The image quality is very good. It is not rugged or weather sealed so if you are a pro, this probably isnt the best choice.
I also own 35 1.4L, 85 1.4L, 24-72 L, and 100-400 L and a 5Ds.
I use all my lenses but am surprised how much I like the lightweight versatility of the super zoom and Rp.
The image quality is very good. It is not rugged or weather sealed so if you are a pro, this probably isnt the best choice.
May 18, 2021 14:34:11 #
I have the 24-105 f/4L IS USM ver 1 and I love it. I don't have any experience with the other lenses, but for a walk around lens, I think it is darn near perfect!
May 18, 2021 15:09:58 #
Curmudgeon wrote:
Depending on what is important to you. I use a 70-... (show quote)
Yup. Ignoring content and timing just for a moment, the photographer’s basic job is incredibly simple:
Properly operate a simple, reliable, safe device, wash-rinse-repeat.
Content and timing can be as easy or as critical as the photographer sees fit.
May 18, 2021 15:52:31 #
Have the 24 240mm great all
Around lens. Already posted these
The lens and rp camera are light
Weight and terrific
Chuck
Around lens. Already posted these
The lens and rp camera are light
Weight and terrific
Chuck
May 18, 2021 17:52:14 #
The RF 24-240 is my go to walking around lens on my R5 and R. I have the RF 35 and 50 mm lenses which are excellent when I need a faster lens. For the rest I use EF lenses with the adapter with very good results.
May 18, 2021 18:17:51 #
May 18, 2021 20:47:55 #
Well - I regularly make 20x30’s using my 16-300, which I pair with my 8-16 and like a lot
May 18, 2021 20:51:26 #
pager
Loc: Santa Barbara, CA
Genessi wrote:
Looking at RF24-240 and 24-105mm f4 if you have any of these which do you prefer. It says the the 24-240 is heavier then 24-105. looking for a walk around after I purchase my 100-500mm.
my walk around combo is the RF 70-200 F4 and the RF 35 mm 1.4 ....on an R6 body...they fit happily in a small peak design sling bag...it's been fun, lightweight and versatile. I'm not a professional but I sure like this combo...I'm looking forward to traveling with this nimble combo.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.