Reviews written by Angelillo

JuzaPhoto uses technical cookies and third-part cookies to provide the service and to make possible login, choice of background color and other settings (click here for more info).

By continuing to browse the site you confirm that you have read your options regarding cookies and that you have read and accepted the Terms of service and Privacy.

OK, I confirm

You can change in every moment your cookies preferences from the page Cookie Preferences, that can be reached from every page of the website with the link that you find at the bottom of the page; you can also set your preferences directly here

Accept Cookies

Customize

Refuse Cookies

Angelillo
www.juzaphoto.com/p/Angelillo

Reviews of cameras, lenses, tripods, heads and other accessories written by Angelillo

The following opinions have been automatically translated with Microsoft Translator.

Canon RF 24-240mm f/4-6.3 IS USM

Pros: Versatility, more than discreet optical yield discreet at all focal lengths, surprising for a super zoom

Cons: Reduced brightness, lack of hood, mandatory digital correction at 24mm, at 240 mm lower yield than shorter focal lengths, lack of any form of tropicalization

Opinion: Taken for a landscaping workshop with the intention of reselling it as soon as I could take the RF 24-105 L, unavailable at the time. The problem is that compared with other lenses (EF 35mm f2 IS, EF 50mm f1.8, EF 70-200 F4 IS L) and with the same RF 24-105mm F4 L on Canon EOS R, well the RF 24-240mm is not bad at all: it managed to undermine my prejudices about super zooms. Certainly it does not have the same performance as fixed focal lengths, certainly zooms with lower excursion are better, but the differences are no longer as macroscopic as they used to be. Even compared to the RF 24-105 mm F4 L the differences are not huge. The resolution in the center is more than decent on all focal lengths, at the extremes of the range (24 and 240 mm) are the edges to suffer a little. In the central focal lengths the situation is not bad, so for example at 105 mm at TA I can not say that the RF 24-105 mm L is better, indeed: at 105mm the 24-105mm is at the upper limit (which in itself has a lower yield than the shorter focal lengths, at least on my specimen), while the 24-240 is in an intermediate area of its range, where he gives the best of himself. Even when compared to the EF 70-200mm F4 IS L the differences, in the equivalent focal lengths, are not evident except when comparing the images at 100% or 200%, with the advantage of the edges for the EF 70-200 F4 IS L. For design choice it is necessary to use the digital correction of geometric distortion (otherwise enormous) and 24mm vignetting, a choice that obviously penalizes the yield at the edges. The color rendering is good, as well as the contrast. Effective stabilizer. The prerogative of having in a single lens a wide range of focal lengths, with a weight contained in 750g is a huge advantage, especially when traveling or hiking; In such situations, often not having to change the optics is also an advantage, limiting the dirt that ends up on the sensor. In this regard, the lack of any form of tropicalization is an important limitation. The biggest problem I've encountered is the limited brightness that pushes to use high ISO (especially at longer focal lengths, f 6.3 at 240mm!), and this reduces the image quality in low light more than the resolution limits. For the purchase price (1000 and more €) the lack of the hood is scandalous. Moral: not only did I not resell it, but very often it takes the place in the outputs of the RF 24-105mm F4 L.

sent on February 22, 2022