Covering All Focal Lengths: A Review of the Canon RF 24-240mm f/4-6.3 IS USM Lens

A high quality superzoom lens is somewhat of a unicorn for a lot of photographers. After all, the prospect of a single lens that can handle pretty much any situation is tempting for a lot of reasons ranging from convenience to budget. This great video review takes a look at the Canon RF 24-240mm f/4-6.3 IS USM to help you decide if it deserves a place in your bag as the do-it-all performer.

Coming to you from Dustin Abbott, this great video review takes a look at the Canon RF 24-240mm f/4-6.3 IS USM lens. Superzooms are incredibly convenient, as they cover a range of focal lengths from wide angle all the way through to supertelephoto, making them appealing for all sorts of applications or just whenever a photographer wants to travel light or not change lenses. However, the problem is that with such focal length ranges, superzoom lenses can't keep up in terms of optical quality when compared to less extreme zooms or primes. Still, Canon's version has the benefits of the new RF mount and the company's latest optical advancements, plus it comes in at a very affordable price, particularly compared to their other mirrorless lenses, making it a potential winner. Check out the video above for Abbott's full thoughts. 

Log in or register to post comments

6 Comments

Stuart Carver's picture

I dunno, I’m starting to make a real lean towards prime lenses these days.. I’m finding I’d rather not have the massive zoom range so I can avoid getting drawn in by too many subjects and just focus on shooting what the lens allows me.

I like Dustin Abbott's reviews. He never sugar coats anything. I don't have this lens or Canon cameras and lenses, but I tried ones Sony version of the same zoom range and I could draw the same conclusions - versatile yes, picture quality not so much. I guess it is not possible to have high quality and versatility in a same time. My solution to having same range is to carry two of the same cameras - one with 70-200 and one with 24-70. More money, more weight but no compromise on PQ.

As someone who has this lens, it's a good review. Life is all about compromise. You either carry weight or you compromise on PQ. But not every situation requires the same compromise. I have situations where getting the best PQ possible is critical for me. But I also have trips where travelling light is more important. And this lens is brilliant for that.

While it is not going to win any awards, the image quality is definitely "good enough" to be prepared to make that compromise when it is required. Yes, it needs software to get rid of the hideous vignetting. But I have a camera profile that does that automatically on import so the only time that I am reminded that it vignettes is when I read or watch reviews of the lens.

After years of travelling with way too much kit, I have now done eight trips abroad with a Canon full-frame mirrorless set-up. All I have used is my 35 f/1.8 and this 24-240. For the first time in years, I have no GAS and have enjoyed my photography more during 2019 than I have in a long time.

Stuart Carver's picture

Nice review Graham.. being free from GAS is certainly liberating. And you are correct with the use case of that lens. I would say that 35mm is almost a necessary companion to such a lens, the same way my 23mm Fuji is much needed in my setup.

....Welcome the unicorn, Olympus 12-100mm f/4 IS PRO.

No compromise to image quality, and offers constant f/4 through zoom range.

And it is even a lightweight at 560g, fully weather sealed.

Problem for many of you, unwanted system.

Dave Dundas's picture

That sounds really good, but that lens only has a range of 88mm... the one being reviewed has a range of 216mm, so that's a little bit of an apples and oranges thing if you're trying to compare these two lenses I think.