While fast zooms generally get most of the attention, Canon also makes some excellent slower zoom lenses for people who don't need an f/2.8 aperture or who want to save some weight in their bag or money in their bank account. Two such options are the RF 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM and RF 24-240mm f/4-6.3 IS USM, and this great video comparison takes a look at both to help you choose the right one for your needs.
Coming to you from Andrew Goodcamera, this excellent video comparison takes a look at the Canon RF 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM and RF 24-240mm f/4-6.3 IS USM lenses. 10 years ago, I would have never caught myself saying this, but nowadays, I actually find myself partial to the 24-240mm f/4-6.3. To be clear, you will not get the sort of image quality out of it that you will from the 70-200mm, but in the last few years, superzooms have made some remarkable progress in terms of image quality, and they now offer good enough output that their convenience and cost savings make them a worthwhile proposition for a lot of photographers, myself included. Of course, your standards and needs may differ, so check out the video above to find out which is right for you.
For many of us, "how good", or how useful, a lens in this range is is determined by minimum focus distance and the resultant magnification ratio. The other super important factor in usefulness is focal length range, as determined by zoom factor.
These two things matter far more than any other factor. Close-up capabilities matter more than sharpness, resolving ability, maximum aperture, and autofocus speed. And of course being able to zoom from very wide to very tight matters far more than maximum aperture, bokeh quality, autofocus capability, etc.
So .....
The 70-200mm has a minimum focus distance of 60mm for a magnification factor of 0.28x.
The 70-200mm has a zoom factor of just 2.9x, which is really poor these days. Extremely limiting.
The 24-240mm has a minimum focus distance of 50mm. But the maximum magnification is listed at 0.26x. This does not make sense, that it would focus closer than the 70-200mm, yet yield less magnification. I wonder if the MFD for each lens is really given at the longest focal length. If not, then that could explain why the 24-240 is slightly inferior to the 70-200mm for close-up capabilities.
But the difference is so small that it would not weigh in on my decision of which lens to buy. If one of them were capable of 0.38x magnification, then I would pick that one over the other. But both are seriously limited in close-up abilities.
The 24-240mm has a zoom factor of 10x, which is GREAT. This means it is extremely useful and will not have to be switched out every few minutes for another lens.
So, each have very similar close-up capabilities (both are equally weak in this area). But the one is a 2.9x zoom while the other is a full 10x zoom. So the 24-240mm is infinitely more useful. Aperture and AF don't matter much so we can really just say that the 24-240mm is, hands down, the better, more useful lens.
Years ago I'd have disagreed, I was so used to switching lenses. Now I agree, I'm not willing to carry a ton of lenses, and when I needed to switch quickly the object of focus might have gone already. That's why I sold my EF 24-70/2.8 ii for the new RF 24-105/4. Would love to have a 24-120/4 like Nikon, as I love wide apertures (which keeps me off the 24-240).
If you're into landscape, or architecture (for details), subjects don't move, so you normally have the time to switch.
Well I would like to see an EF 70-200/2.8 L IS USM ii beside thouse 2 lenses... I know that size mattress, but for me that's a lot more music for the money compare to the two in test