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

Caddo Lake State Park on an overcast day.

Shot with the RF 24-240

Photo from C Scott IV's gallery.

The Watchdog of Old Fall River Road keeps a watchful eye on my car! Rocky Mountain National Park.

Shot with the RF 24-240

Photo from C Scott IV's gallery.

Shot with RF 24-240mm

Photo from LoneRider's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (1065723)

Lake O' the Pines

Shot with the RF 24-240

Photo from C Scott IV's gallery.

Lake O' the Pines

Shot with the RF 24-240

Photo from C Scott IV's gallery.

Lake O' the Pines

Shot with the RF 24-240

Photo from C Scott IV's gallery.

In my past life (DSLR), I always carried two bodies. One had a 24-105 lens, and the other had a 100-400 II with or without the 1.4x. This gave me 24 - 560mm when I was out shooting without changing lenses.

In my new life (mirrorless) I have the R6 with a 24-105 and the R5 with the 100-500. The problem is that the 100-500 only works in its 300-500 range with an extender. So with the 1.4x on the 100-500, my focal lengths were 24-105 and 420-700. The gap between 105 and 420 was just too much. I decided to try the RF 24-240 to help close that gap. After some test shots, I think it will do the job. Now the gap is just 240-420, and I can cover that with cropping.

These images are from my back yard to see what the RF 24-240 could do at f/7.1 and 240mm. These are reasonable crops -- 50% to 75% of the original image except for the hummingbird which is just 25% of the original.

LJ3Jim wrote in post #19154479
In my past life (DSLR), I always carried two bodies. One had a 24-105 lens, and the other had a 100-400 II with or without the 1.4x. This gave me 24 - 560mm when I was out shooting without changing lenses.

In my new life (mirrorless) I have the R6 with a 24-105 and the R5 with the 100-500. The problem is that the 100-500 only works in its 300-500 range with an extender. So with the 1.4x on the 100-500, my focal lengths were 24-105 and 420-700. The gap between 105 and 420 was just too much. I decided to try the RF 24-240 to help close that gap. After some test shots, I think it will do the job. Now the gap is just 240-420, and I can cover that with cropping.

These images are from my back yard to see what the RF 24-240 could do at f/7.1 and 240mm. These are reasonable crops -- 50% to 75% of the original image except for the hummingbird which is just 25% of the original.

Welcome to the club!

Yeah, I have both the RF 24-105L and really only use it for low light concert stuff. The RF 24-240 always goes out for landscape. 105 just seems too short for on a full frame for the variety of stuff I shoot. And I haven't found anything wrong with it. It would be nice if it were weather sealed but a plastic bag will take care of that.

That limitation on the RF 100-500L with extenders makes me glad I went with the EF 100-400L. Range is sometimes more important than reach. If I ever get to upgrade to an R5 the EF 100-400L with EF 1.4x III or EF 2x III should cover what I need.

The trail to Big Cypress Bayou.

Shot with the RF 24-240

Photo from C Scott IV's gallery.

Mt. Baker with the edge of a blueberry field in the foreground. R6 + RF 24-240 at about 200.

LoneRider wrote in post #19172494

Gallery photo (hosted):
posted by LoneRider originally in forum: Nature & Landscapes

Looks like it does well on a higher megapixel sensor.

C Scott IV wrote in post #19172642
Looks like it does well on a higher megapixel sensor.

Test and that was about a 50% crop...

Last remnants of sunset at Lake O' the Pines. This area has benefitted from a concerted effort to clean up areas of the shore. I hadn't been to this particular spot for almost 10 years.

Shot with the RF 24-240

Photo from C Scott IV's gallery.