Stephen Lance

I shoot Canon and have the 90D currently with several good EF lenses. Going to buy the Canon R5 when it becomes available, but debating on a good first RF lens between the RF 24-240 or RF 24-105L. Anyone have these lenses, and are there any pros or cons? When traveling on photo trips, will like to have the 90D set up for long range and the R5 for landscape. Thanks!

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

I own one of those in the EF mount, the EF 24-105L, it is a great lens, I have gone all day at events using that lens only. And the IQ is superb. I would expect the RF 24-105 to be as good or better since it is a much newer design.

Now the RF 24-240 is one of those all-in-one walk around lenses and not an 'L' so the IQ will not be as good and the build not as solid.
Now I am into birds, butterflies, macro etc and for me detail, sharpness (IQ) are very important so I get 'L' lenses or the Sigma, Tamron etc equivalent of them. And you have stated you are going to use the 90D for the long range stuff so for the R5 get lenses for wide angle and dim light. You can always use your long EF lenses on the R5 with an adapter.
A possibility would be the Samyang AF 14mm f/2.8 RF Lens for Canon RF, under $700 and a redesign of their older EF 14 mm manual which I have and is a great lenses, all the reviews say the new RF is a complete redesign and much improved. For landscapes you want wide or ultra wide. If money is not a problem then look at the Canon 15-35 or if the ultra wide is not what you want and you want more of a "walk around" lens then the 24-105.

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

Welcome to the Hog!
I have an R with the RF 24-105 L that I use more then any of my other lenses for general shooting. It is superb. Personally, I have had no interest in the 24-240. It may be an excellent lens, but, for additional reach I still use my EF 100-400 L II w/adapter. It is still unmatched by anything in it's class.
You know your shooting style better then we do. Will the 24-240 work better for you? Will it get the most out of your R5 when you get it? That would be my concern. Considering the capabilities the R5 will have I wouldn't buy anything but the best glass for it. If your finances allow you then I suggest you go with L lenses to get the most out of an expensive camera. I'll be buying the R5 sometime this year. I already have 4 RF L lenses and I have no regrets about the money I spent. My belief is: Buy only what you can afford but buy only the best you can afford. You'll rarely be sorry.

Jimmy T Loc: Virginia

Like LFingar said: "Welcome to the Hog!
I have an RP (vs. R) with the RF 24-105 L that I use more than any of my other lenses for general shooting. It is superb. Personally, I have had no interest in the 24-240."
Smile,
JimmyT Sends

sergiohm

The 24-105 is much better, the 24-240 has severe vignetting (it is corrected in the camera for JPEG and in Lightroom for RAW), but what you see when you take the picture is not the same after processing it in a computer due to correction and it’s not whether sealed nor it has the additional control ring.

josquin1 Loc: Massachusetts

If you're going to invest in the R5 then I would urge you to get the RF 24-105 lens. I have the Canon R with this lens and it is excellent. The quality of an image is really a product of the lens along with the capacity of the camera.

DeanS Loc: Capital City area of North Carolina

If you intend to keep your 90D, RF lens will not work. If you buy EF lens, they will mount to both the 90D and the R5, with an adapter.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

The upcoming EOS R5 is expected to be a 45MP camera. Higher resolution cameras demand top quality lenses. Anything less will show up as problems in images. Keep this in mind when selecting lenses for the R5.

Canon issued a list of "recommended EF lenses" along with the 50MP 5DS/5DS-R camera release. There needs to be similar consideration for the R5, should it have a 50% increase in resolution compared to the original R and a nearly 75% increase compared to the RP.

I don't have either of the RF lenses you mention, so can't tell you anything from personal experience. But you should be able to find online tests and info such as MTF charts for those lenses that can be helpful.

Just a guess on my part.... I assume that a more modest zoom like a 24-105 would be optically better than a more extreme 10X like the 24-240. That's usually the case. Also, the 24-105 is an L-series, while the 24-240 is not. (There also is a cheaper RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 IS STM "non-L", but that's not the lens you asked about.) Obviously, the 24-240mm would be a more versatile lens. And it's actually only slightly heavier and larger than the RF 24-105L. OTOH, it's got a variable aperture that drops to f/7.1 at 240mm. In fact, while the 24-105L offers f/4 across its entire range of focal lengths, the 24-240mm only has that large aperture at 24 to 26mm focal lengths. It drops 1/3 stop to f/4.5 from 27-43mm, loses 2/3 stop to f/5 from 44-69mm, a full stop to f/5.6 in the 70-104mm range, then 1-1/3 stops (f/6.3) and finally even 1-2/3 stops (f/7.1) less at longer focal lengths.

You can find a lot more info about these lenses, including tests shots done with them that can be compared side by side, at The-Digital-Picture website:

RF 24-105L: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-RF-24-105mm-f-4L-IS-USM-Lens.aspx
RF 24-240: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-RF-24-240mm-F4-6.3-IS-USM-Lens.aspx

24-105L versus 24-240 image quality: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1222&Camera=1221&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1416&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Keep in mind that those lens tests, other image quality comparisons and image samples were made with 30MP EOS R... Not with the more demanding R5, which is rumored to have 50% higher resolution.



The 24-105L appears to have more vignetting than the 24-240...

At 24mm: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Vignetting-Test-Results.aspx?Lens=1222&Camera=1221&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1416&CameraComp=1221&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1

And at 105/100mm: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Vignetting-Test-Results.aspx?Lens=1222&Camera=1221&FLI=5&API=0&LensComp=1416&CameraComp=1221&FLIComp=2&APIComp=1

Presumably the same would be true at focal lengths in between, which weren't test shot with the 24-240, so can't be compared.

But, you're correct. That's easily corrected in-camera or in post-processing.

You also can compare to the RF lenses to the EF 24-105L "II" or "I", if you want to consider using it with an adapter. (Decide for yourself, but personally I've never been all that impressed with the EF 24-105L... even the "II" only saw modest improvements. IMO, any of the EF 24-70Ls or even the far less expensive EF 28-135mm were competitive with the EF 24-105Ls. )

sergiohm

I don’t know about the test results but I had both lenses and there is no comparison in terms of vignette between them 105 in the 240, the 240 is by far one of the “worst” I’ve seen. Nevertheless corrected it is a very good lens for a 10x magnification.

zarathu Loc: Bar Harbor, MDI, Maine

The hulaboo about sharpness is really quite amusing. The best lenses available for sharpness in the 1990’s are bested by the cheapest lenses of the 2020’s. The only time you will notice a difference is when you print to 20 x 30. I have a printer that prints 300dpi at 13 x 19 inches and quite honestly I cannot tell any difference between the 24-240 and any other lens I own. I use a 45mp Canon R5 shooting raw or craw.

The lens companies keep making bigger and bigger and more expensive lenses so the pixel pokers can find tighter and tighter LPI.

People view photographs on a wall from 2-4 feet, not 3 inches. Photos in a book are rarely bigger than 8 x 10 and at the size you can get a decently sharp photo with an iPhone at 300dpi(the required sharpness of the famous coffee table magazine, Arizona Highways). In fact, we were all remarking at our recent Photo Show about the sharpness of a photo printed to 13 x 19, until the author told us she did it with her 15mp iPhone. We were astounded as we have all believed the hype from the camera lens manufacturers.

And the vignetting and pincushion, etc., are not signs of a bad lens. The lens was designed that way with the expectation that everyone would use corrected jpgs from the camera, or corrected RAWs from Affinity Photo, Lightroom, or Photoshop. Anyone who complains about this is also telling you that they don’t do any editing but still want to use raw. It's a non-issue.

As to the slow speed of the lens, Its also a non issue since it was designed for use by the R cameras especially the upcoming(at the time) R5/R6. With 5 stop IS and 3 more stops in the camera, you can easily handhold at 1/13s, get sale-able photos without need for any noise reduction at ISO 3000, and some noise reduction up to about ISO 5500. The slowness simply doesn’t matter or is even noticeable.

If you need to print to 20 x 30 inches and view the photo at 1200 dpi 6 inches away, by all means get the $3000 lens.

Genessi Loc: SoCal

There are just as many people that like the len as those that don't.. I have one available if interested PM me

zarathu Loc: Bar Harbor, MDI, Maine

I bought mine for $699 from KEH in excellent + condition with a hood.

Most photographers never print their work.