Canon EOS R Series Cameras

Messages
12,987
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
I just went to look at cameras.

I tried the EOS R, A7 III, A7R III.

I am so very confused.

A7 III is out because I'd rather pay the extra and get higher quality for my landscapes with the A7R, also the EVF is poor.

A7R III:
+ Appears well built and solid (inc lenses)
+ Small and light (I come from a 5d and 7d)
+ More MPs (useful for my landscapes)
+ Better DR
+ 2 card slots (probably doesn't really matter. I've had one dead card in 15 years and that was a CF card)
- The grip. My fingers touch the lens.
- It will cost more. Probably.
- EVF is poor

EOS R:
+ I have lenses already
+ Good and familiar layout/menus (though I don't use them that often, so menus being better isn't that big of a deal for me)
+ Good ergonomics for the grip (much more space between grip and lens)
+ Cheaper
+ EVF feels just like optical, it's vastly better than the Sony
- Build quality really concerns me. I'm surprised the new RF lenses are so plasticky too. I am worried I'd break it when throwing it in my backpack to go hiking.
- 1 card slot (as above, probably not really that big of a problem)


Biggest factors for me:

A7R III:
+ Build quality
+ Image quality
- Horrible grip
- More expensive

EOS R:
+ Cheaper
+ I have lenses already
- Build quality



I really don't know what to do. Why does every camera seem to have fairly major flaws?

I am fairly disappointed in the build quality of the EOS R and RF lenses. The lenses especially. They're meant to be pro lenses but are super plasticky and no where near the build of even my cheaper L lenses.
Well it shows how very different people are, most reviewers, even the ones who slated the R, hailed it as possibly the most comfortable ML camera to use and say the build quality is decent. The lenses would be a lot heavier if they were all metal, they don't look flimsy but I've not held one. Again most reviewers say the lenses feel really nice so I can only go on that. It depends on your priorities then really, only you can decide.
 
Messages
12,987
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
.... I don't know enough about the technicalities to suggest reasons why Canon to date don't have IBIS but I do know that digital cameras have become increasingly complex and also that Canon are still developing everything around their new RF mount design and all that it affects.

I did notice and grin about your witty 'shake joke'.

Yep, I fully understand and agree about what happens when you get a taste for something whether it's a particular chocolate (I can strongly recommend Galaxy Cookie Crumble!) or a high performance car which once you know it well any mundane car feels not only extremely dull but actually unsafe! 130,000 miles later I am still in love! I haven't used an IBIS camera yet.
No Galaxy cookie crumble for me sadly, on a low carb diet :/ I have had a sneaky taste of it though :D

I shouldn't be so reliant on IBIS, but it is so nice to have - even for higher shutter speeds it's great for steadier framing. I wonder is it ever possible for someone to produce an adapter with some form of OIS? probably not, it's probably have to be huge if it's even possible
 
Messages
69
Edit My Images
Yes
No Galaxy cookie crumble for me sadly, on a low carb diet :/ I have had a sneaky taste of it though :D

I shouldn't be so reliant on IBIS, but it is so nice to have - even for higher shutter speeds it's great for steadier framing. I wonder is it ever possible for someone to produce an adapter with some form of OIS? probably not, it's probably have to be huge if it's even possible
Is IBIS any better than lens IS? If not then I dont really see your issue here, haven't canon stated they didnt use IBIS because specific lens IS is alot more effective due to being tailored to the lens it's on?

Firmware 1.40 is out later this month with hugely improved eye af and focus tracking.
 
Last edited:
Messages
12,987
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
Is IBIS any better than lens IS? If not then I dont really see your issue here, haven't canon stated they didnt use IBIS because specific lens IS is alot more effective due to being tailored to the lens it's on?

Firmware 1.40 is out later this month with hugely improved eye af and focus tracking.
I've stated the issue with it earlier, and yes, IBIS is better in most cases. Many cameras with IBIS have up to 5 stops of stab, OIS usually claims 4 at best some only with 3 stops. That's a significant difference to begin with - now think about adapting older primes that do not have OIS - with IBIS, suddenly, it's like they do, it can transform a cheap old lens into something much more useful - if like me, you love to shoot still life, macro, slower SS close ups etc - With respect to Canon, they're talking out of their rear on this point.
 
Messages
69
Edit My Images
Yes
I've stated the issue with it earlier, and yes, IBIS is better in most cases. Many cameras with IBIS have up to 5 stops of stab, OIS usually claims 4 at best some only with 3 stops. That's a significant difference to begin with - now think about adapting older primes that do not have OIS - with IBIS, suddenly, it's like they do, it can transform a cheap old lens into something much more useful - if like me, you love to shoot still life, macro, slower SS close ups etc - With respect to Canon, they're talking out of their rear on this point.
All the RF IS lenses have 5 stops according to canon stat lists, according to Panasonic IBIS creates additional noise on photos due to excess heat generation too.

So it's not as cut and dry as you are suggesting.
 
Messages
6,010
Name
Robin
Edit My Images
Yes
All the RF IS lenses have 5 stops according to canon stat lists, according to Panasonic IBIS creates additional noise on photos due to excess heat generation too.

So it's not as cut and dry as you are suggesting.
.... I agree, it's not cut and dry at all - There are lots of factors and considerations about which only the design development team know about.

My new RF 24-240mm which I was using for the first time today has 5-stops of what Canon are calling their new 'Dynamic IS'. On this particular lens you can only switch it on or off, unlike the three mode switching on my EF L lenses.

I asked a girl on the beach if I could photograph her and she said yes, so :

SOPHIA'S LEG TATTOO
by Robin Procter, on Flickr

^ No apologies for this image having very little to do with camera image stabilisation - She was very pretty and it was me who needed IBIS!!

I am photographing a friend's Shire Horses tomorrow with my EOS-R + RF 24-240mm.
 
Messages
12,987
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
All the RF IS lenses have 5 stops according to canon stat lists, according to Panasonic IBIS creates additional noise on photos due to excess heat generation too.

So it's not as cut and dry as you are suggesting.
That's great, if you only use RF lenses. It doesn't alter the fact that no IBIS doesn't add anything to non OIS lenses, and if I was to go with an R I would be adapting some of the older EF primes. I just like IBIS, not sure why there's even contention. People like or need what they like or need.


.... I agree, it's not cut and dry at all - There are lots of factors and considerations about which only the design development team know about.

My new RF 24-240mm which I was using for the first time today has 5-stops of what Canon are calling their new 'Dynamic IS'. On this particular lens you can only switch it on or off, unlike the three mode switching on my EF L lenses.

I asked a girl on the beach if I could photograph her and she said yes, so :

SOPHIA'S LEG TATTOO
by Robin Procter, on Flickr

^ No apologies for this image having very little to do with camera image stabilisation - She was very pretty and it was me who needed IBIS!!

I am photographing a friend's Shire Horses tomorrow with my EOS-R + RF 24-240mm.
Fantastic detail, lovely colours too. I take it you're very happy with the 24-240 then?
 
Messages
6,010
Name
Robin
Edit My Images
Yes
That's great, if you only use RF lenses. It doesn't alter the fact that no IBIS doesn't add anything to non OIS lenses, and if I was to go with an R I would be adapting some of the older EF primes. I just like IBIS, not sure why there's even contention. People like or need what they like or need.
.... Absolutely! For someone who enjoys using older EF primes which don't have IS, then Canon omitting IBIS results in no image stabilisation whatsoever. But, how important is having image stabilisation? Surely only needed more on long telephoto lenses (when handheld, not tripod mounted)?

Fantastic detail, lovely colours too. I take it you're very happy with the 24-240 then?
.... Thank you! Yes, the young woman's skin colour (and if I'm honest, her very lovely shaped figure!) is what attracted my attention and led me to ask if I could photograph those particular tattoos because I really liked them and could see it would be a great skin tone and detail test of the lens. I didn't want to impose on her privacy and peace lying down on the sand hidden away between the rocks and so told her she didn't need to move because the sand on her skin added to the picture. She was pleased with the result I'm glad to say.

Yeah, I left my 1DX-2 + EF 100-400mm in the car and I shot about 520 images on the EOS-R +RF 24-240mm at the agricultural show and have already got it down to 468 as a first stage cull, which basically means that the potential hit rate has been quite high.

Obviously, there were some circumstances such as parts of the showjumping where I occasionally wanted more reach than the 240mm but my mission was to solely focus on testing the 24-240mm and as a general purpose and very flexible walkabout lens I can't fault it. I am pleased with the image quality on Sophia's tattoo'd leg but haven't post-processed any images from the show yet.

When I have done so I'll post some with a full report of my findings with the lens, including a physical handling comparison with my RF 24-105mm, but I can already say that I am pretty confident I'll have some good image quality keepers and so will be selling my RF 24-105mm F/4L IS.
 
Last edited:
Messages
7,420
Name
Jonathan
Edit My Images
No
How many lenses have Canon released for the new mount? Off the top of my head there is No stabilisation on the 35, 28-70, 50, or 85. I'd rather have ibis than not have it. I'm sure Canon will get there eventually. Olympus, Sony, Nikon and fuji all have it. That would suggest consumers want it and/or the devs think its a worthwhile investment and there no real genuine argument to justify it not being there in this day and age. Come on Canon, pull your finger out.
 
Messages
69
Edit My Images
Yes
How many lenses have Canon released for the new mount? Off the top of my head there is No stabilisation on the 35, 28-70, 50, or 85. I'd rather have ibis than not have it. I'm sure Canon will get there eventually. Olympus, Sony, Nikon and fuji all have it. That would suggest consumers want it and/or the devs think its a worthwhile investment and there no real genuine argument to justify it not being there in this day and age. Come on Canon, pull your finger out.
The holy trinity RF lenses all have IS (I assume you meant the 24-70).
 
Messages
3,406
Name
Dominic
Edit My Images
Yes
there no real genuine argument to justify it not being there
Although I sort of agree with you here, but as I understand it, IBIS does generate heat. So, yes it can be implemented, but they (Canon) need to find away of removing the added heat from the sensor. This all adds to the cost and time.
A company like Canon, should be leading this sort of thing, but seem too be lagging behind. Whether that's down to a bit of arrogance or their usual, slowly drip feed features into newer models, I don't know. Maybe it's a bit of both.
 
Messages
6,010
Name
Robin
Edit My Images
Yes
Although I sort of agree with you here, but as I understand it, IBIS does generate heat. So, yes it can be implemented, but they (Canon) need to find away of removing the added heat from the sensor. This all adds to the cost and time.
.... The heat issue is what I have understood to potentially exist too and it is inevitable that it adds cost and development time.

A company like Canon, should be leading this sort of thing, but seem too be lagging behind. Whether that's down to a bit of arrogance or their usual, slowly drip feed features into newer models, I don't know. Maybe it's a bit of both.
.... I really don't think it's down to either or down to a bit of both. Canon have always had a, I think very wise, policy of not releasing a new feature for their camera products until they are satisfied themselves with it. Does anyone here remember when Nikon introduced autofocus and Canon didn't do so until they had the first EOS bodies ready for market? The Canon version when it became available a whole year later made the Nikon AF method of operation feel clunky - Not unlike when Apple hit Windows with their first Mac OS7 machines designed by Jony Ive. It made me move from a pro Nikon F camera to the Canon EOS-1.

What their camera producing rivals do has never been a PRIME influence for Canon when it comes down to their higher spec products.
 
Last edited:
Messages
6,010
Name
Robin
Edit My Images
Yes
I meant the £3k 28-70 f2. As far as I know there is no IS here. Would surely benefit from an ibis enabled body.
.... I don't find that image stabilisation has benefits for lenses other than telephoto and macro - Simply because both these lens types amplify the photographer's movement in the viewfinder.

Although it might be nice to have IS/IBIS on an RF 28-70mm I don't think you really need it to still take good shots within that range of focal lengths. I haven't used an RF 28-70mm but the EOS-R sensor is a market leader regarding shooting in low light.

It's speculation but surely it's possible that Canon are thinking that a RF lens such as the 28-70mm costing £3k will be primarily bought by professionals and they will be using the higher spec EOS-R 'X' or 'R1' when it comes out in 2021(?) which may well have IBIS. Canon made a considered decision not to introduce IBIS yet.

Do you actually rely on IS to get your best photos? - I certainly don't.
 
Last edited:
Messages
12,987
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
.... Absolutely! For someone who enjoys using older EF primes which don't have IS, then Canon omitting IBIS results in no image stabilisation whatsoever. But, how important is having image stabilisation? Surely only needed more on long telephoto lenses (when handheld, not tripod mounted)?



.
In your case perhaps, but I like having IBIS for many reasons. It's useful for macro and close up stills, longer exposures, I like the ability to hand hold at 1/5th sec for a night scene for example, to draw out the light without pushing ISO, wildlife of course but even just framing in general - again mostly for stills ut you can get creative with some movement. It certainly isn't only useful for long lenses, in fact the wider the lens the better IBIS behaves for it.

How many lenses have Canon released for the new mount? Off the top of my head there is No stabilisation on the 35, 28-70, 50, or 85. I'd rather have ibis than not have it. I'm sure Canon will get there eventually. Olympus, Sony, Nikon and fuji all have it. That would suggest consumers want it and/or the devs think its a worthwhile investment and there no real genuine argument to justify it not being there in this day and age. Come on Canon, pull your finger out.
The 35 1.8 has OIS I believe, but it's the only real budget offering for the system up to now. I don't get anyone defending Canon on this one really, they are losing customers because of it. I don't think we're in the minority when it comes to wanting IBIS. I completely switched system because of it a few years back, from Fuji to M43 [XH1 wasn't yet out]. That system might get scoffed at by the elite pros but it's got the best IBIS out there, easily. And it was fun to use too. Once I'd had a taste of it, I knew I may never buy a camera without the feature again.

Robin mentions tele lenses, it is true you do benefit nicely for them, someone like me who likes to adapt vintage old lenses inc. tele lenses really benefits from having IBIS. I had a couple of 200mm primes which on M43 made them 400mm FF equiv, and IBIS was sweet for keeping the framing steady. I could hand hold using those lenses for video of birds in the garden and it wasn't far off looking like I'd used a tripod. I also used some vintage macro primes, same thing, IBIS was great for holding the framing still for extreme close ups. The main lens I used was a 12-40 2.8, basically your general 24-70 and that lens had really good close focus ability. Again IBIS made it all the better.

Canon could have at least offered the choice. The R without IBIS maybe, and the RP with - I'd probably own an RP already in that case though I would much rather the R so it would still be a compromise.
 
Last edited:
Messages
12,987
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
.... I don't find that image stabilisation has benefits for lenses other than telephoto and macro - Simply because both these lens types amplify the photographer's movement in the viewfinder.

Although it might be nice to have IS/IBIS on an RF 28-70mm I don't think you really need it to still take good shots within that range of focal lengths. I haven't used an RF 28-70mm but the EOS-R sensor is a market leader regarding shooting in low light.

It's speculation but surely it's possible that Canon are thinking that a RF lens such as the 28-70mm costing £3k will be primarily bought by professionals and they will be using the higher spec EOS-R 'X' or 'R1' when it comes out in 2021(?) which may well have IBIS. Canon made a considered decision not to introduce IBIS yet.

Do you actually rely on IS to get your best photos? - I certainly don't.
It's not about relying on it, it's about having the option. Whether we agree or not, having IBIS allows for more creativity. Of course we could get by without it, I did for many years using Nikon gear. I also got by without touchscreen, hyper fast AF systems, insane ISO capability and evfs. We don't rely on these features, but it's sure nicer to have them than not. And people are choosing to go with the systems that have. But just on the stabilization side, even back then the OIS/VR lenses were that bit sweeter to use for certain tasks. I've never heard arguments against OIS in lenses, most photographers know it just makes sense, and now it's the norm to have IBIS I don't get the argument against it either
 
Last edited:
Messages
7,420
Name
Jonathan
Edit My Images
No
.... I don't find that image stabilisation has benefits for lenses other than telephoto and macro - Simply because both these lens types amplify the photographer's movement in the viewfinder.

Although it might be nice to have IS/IBIS on an RF 28-70mm I don't think you really need it to still take good shots within that range of focal lengths. I haven't used an RF 28-70mm but the EOS-R sensor is a market leader regarding shooting in low light.

It's speculation but surely it's possible that Canon are thinking that a RF lens such as the 28-70mm costing £3k will be primarily bought by professionals and they will be using the higher spec EOS-R 'X' or 'R1' when it comes out in 2021(?) which may well have IBIS. Canon made a considered decision not to introduce IBIS yet.

Do you actually rely on IS to get your best photos? - I certainly don't.
I wouldn't say I heavily rely on it but I really don't like taking tripods out with me unless shooting landscape.

Sometimes I shoot portraits with the camera in one hand and a reflector in the other. I find ibis beneficial when shooting like that.
 
Messages
12,987
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
I wouldn't say I heavily rely on it but I really don't like taking tripods out with me unless shooting landscape.

Sometimes I shoot portraits with the camera in one hand and a reflector in the other. I find ibis beneficial when shooting like that.
Similar to why I find it really useful for macro. I'm usually holding a flash with diffuser on in my left hand, and using my body basically to manual focus - IBIS is very handy here. Anyone who has ever done 1:1 or greater macro knows that even your breathing can throw focus off as the DOF even at very small apertures is razor thin. That little extra stability can mean the difference of getting the shot, or not. Canon obviously know that IS is good for this purpose or they wouldn't have put OIS in their 100mm L macro.
 
Messages
6,010
Name
Robin
Edit My Images
Yes
Now you have explained the image stabilisation in much more detail @Cagey75 Keith, I understand and appreciate your desire for it much better and if I did similar photography to yourself I would most probably think the same as you.
 
Messages
12,987
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
Now you have explained the image stabilisation in much more detail @Cagey75 Keith, I understand and appreciate your desire for it much better and if I did similar photography to yourself I would most probably think the same as you.
It could also be that I'm starting to get a bit shakier with age :D But yeah, I don't see it as a crutch, more a benefit. Not so much relied upon but when it's there it opens up more creative options I think. I think Canon will give in to it though, I think they have to and the next round of R cameras will have the feature.
 
Messages
6,010
Name
Robin
Edit My Images
Yes
I wouldn't say I heavily rely on it but I really don't like taking tripods out with me unless shooting landscape.

Sometimes I shoot portraits with the camera in one hand and a reflector in the other. I find ibis beneficial when shooting like that.
.... I often take a very practical Gitzo Traveller (lightweight but very strong) + FlexLine head (very compact) with me if out in the field with my Canon 500mm and 2x/1.4x Extender options.

Personally I never use flash on any wildlife and all that it entails and always prefer to restrict myself to working with natural light, but that's just my preference. I'm often carrying two bodies, two lenses, tripod, and that's enough gear to walk with at my grand old age of 72.
 
Messages
12,987
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
I wouldn't use flash for wildlife either, just macro where I'm going to be stopped down to f/11 - f/16 and you're also blocking a lot of light with your body/gear. It's a must for macro really. I do some natural light close ups and macro but that wouldn't be for anything above 1:2 magnification. It's just an exercise in frustration beyond that point.
 
Messages
6,010
Name
Robin
Edit My Images
Yes
I wouldn't use flash for wildlife either, just macro where I'm going to be stopped down to f/11 - f/16 and you're also blocking a lot of light with your body/gear. It's a must for macro really. I do some natural light close ups and macro but that wouldn't be for anything above 1:2 magnification. It's just an exercise in frustration beyond that point.
.... I guess I am limiting myself but it just seems like too much hard work for me to close macro shoot mini-beasts which move and which are temporarily perched on plants which also move in the slightest breeze. I don't have a clue about magnification ratios - I just go for what I can see in the viewfinder.
 
Messages
12,987
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
.... I guess I am limiting myself but it just seems like too much hard work for me to close macro shoot mini-beasts which move and which are temporarily perched on plants which also move in the slightest breeze. I don't have a clue about magnification ratios - I just go for what I can see in the viewfinder.
I just do it for fun tbh, it's like entering a whole other world. Even when I don't come away with any interesting shots, which would usually be through my lack of skill or patience, I enjoy watching them up close. I sometimes put on a David Attenborough voice and pretend I'm doing a nature docu .... :LOL:

It's horses for courses though isn't it? I'm not into shooting birds in flight for example, that seems much more effort to me , lugging hefty tele lenses about and traveling to areas the birds are known to frequent. Bit of laziness in the mix, but I find insects as interesting as birds in general too. The gear for wildlife is usually more expensive too, where macro is accessible to anyone no matter the budget. Anyway, I'm not submitting my images to Nat Geo or anything :D
 
Last edited:
Messages
527
Edit My Images
Yes
.... I don't find that image stabilisation has benefits for lenses other than telephoto and macro - Simply because both these lens types amplify the photographer's movement in the viewfinder.

Although it might be nice to have IS/IBIS on an RF 28-70mm I don't think you really need it to still take good shots within that range of focal lengths. I haven't used an RF 28-70mm but the EOS-R sensor is a market leader regarding shooting in low light.

It's speculation but surely it's possible that Canon are thinking that a RF lens such as the 28-70mm costing £3k will be primarily bought by professionals and they will be using the higher spec EOS-R 'X' or 'R1' when it comes out in 2021(?) which may well have IBIS. Canon made a considered decision not to introduce IBIS yet.

Do you actually rely on IS to get your best photos? - I certainly don't.
Just to throw in my tuppence on the matter.

Having owned the 28-70 for a few months now, I haven’t found the need for any form of IS. Despite the fact it weighs quite a substantial amount (for something of that focal range) I find it very well balanced and easy to hand hold. And I’m not exactly ‘hefty’ in the build or weight area kind of bloke.

It’s clearly a personal preference. But despite the new 85 1.2 weighing about 200g lighter than the 28-70. I know which one I prefer to carry around on a day out :D
 
Messages
6,010
Name
Robin
Edit My Images
Yes
RF 24-240mm versus RF 24-105mm < Both mounted on EOS-R + Battery Grip

I have shot about 600 images on the 24-240mm most of which were a recent full day at an agricultural show and I have owned and used the 24-105mm for about a year. I only shoot RAW. The weight and size differences between the two lenses are negligible.

Whereas in the context of my personal preferences each of the two lenses has its pros and cons, I find that the cons of the 24-240mm are a deal breaker and so regretfully it is probably about to be returned.

The deal-breaker is that I am simply not at all happy to live with any lens which has such appalling vignetting when shot at its widest focal length (24mm in this case) and furthermore to have to restrict the choice of aperture values to reduce the vignetting is not an acceptable solution. Neither is it acceptable to have to crop the image composition in post-processing. It might be slightly more palatable if you could actually see the vignetting whilst shooting and therefore adjust the focal length but you can't.

IMPORTANT UPDATE:
I have had a long phone chat (they rang me back) with Canon Tech Support about the vignetting and they are aware of it and inform me that it is only evident in RAW files, not JPEGs, and that processing the RAW files in Canon DPP software will solve the issue. The vignetting is a compromise in order to avoid compromising other onboard and lens design features. No-one knows if a future firmware update would solve this problem which is unique to RAW because RAW is naked data captured by the sensor - As it's already solvable in DPP I think it unlikely that Canon will solve it in future firmware. Chatting with WEX it seems that there is an unfortunate modern trend from all camera manufacturers to solve such issues in offboard rather than onboard software.

Such vignetting is apparently very common on superzoom lenses and not exclusive to Canon's.

This vignetting issue is very disappointing in what would otherwise be a very practical and flexible lens. The photographer Christopher Frost has made a full review of each of the two lenses and covers what I would have written plus much more about the detail.

The reviewer very comprehensively illustrates the vignetting from about 5:50 in this first video :

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLk7GsbPye0


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYaPpqmkZms


So I may be going to go back to having my RF 24-105mm + EOS-R ready in my Lowepro holster and my EF 100-400mm L + 1DX-2 on my cross chest strap. An unexpected disadvantage of trying to politely get a shooting position with just the R combo visible is that I look just like another member of the public and no-one gives way, whereas a big white telephoto lens and two cameras gives people the impression that you are a serious professional and they don't want to interfere with you trying to do your job.

In summary I would say that the RF 24-240mm is very practical for casual use and particularly with the EOS-RP, but there are reasons why it is much cheaper than the RF 24-105mm L.

SHIRE HORSE &#x27;CAPTAIN&#x27; LIKES A DRINK AFTER A HARD DAY&#x27;S WORK
by Robin Procter, on Flickr

&#x27;CAPTAIN&#x27; THE SHIRE HORSE
by Robin Procter, on Flickr

WALKING THE COURSE
by Robin Procter, on Flickr

^ Am I being sexist if I call this last photo nice 'eye-candy'? Nah, just being heterosexual.

In due course I'll post some more images shot on the RF 24-240mm.
 
Last edited:
Messages
6,010
Name
Robin
Edit My Images
Yes
A few more images from shooting with the RF 24-240mm on my EOS-R + Battery Grip :

I have no criticisms of its general image quality when viewed with the naked eye and I very much like its handling. I hate the inconvenience of the extra work dealing with its harsh solid black corner vignetting at around 24-28mm - I didn't choose a 30-240mm but a 24-240mm lens! At least with an ultra wide or fisheye lens you can see what's happening while shooting.

Overall I think the L quality of my RF 24-105mm with its constant F/4 option is more suitable for me and I can make more effort to get used to avoid turning the manual focus ring when feeling for the zoom and control rings. My EF 100-400mm L II + Control Ring Adapter (or + 1DX-2) can take better care of the 105mm to 240mm range and well beyond, especially if I optionally mount my 1.4x III when even more reach is desirable. I am used to carrying two cameras plus two lenses on walkabout and using them to my advantage.

SHIRE HORSES &#x27;CAPTAIN&#x27; &amp; &#x27;BETTY&#x27;
by Robin Procter, on Flickr

SHIRE HORSES &#x27;CAPTAIN&#x27; &amp; &#x27;BETTY&#x27;
by Robin Procter, on Flickr

^ Shot at F/25 and definitely aperture value overkill! I love the star 'artefact'.

SHIRE HORSE &#x27;CAPTAIN&#x27;
by Robin Procter, on Flickr

^ In the exact science of hindsight I could/should have shot this at smaller aperture than F/5.6 but I find the result acceptable and a good test. Every lens has a learning curve.
 
Last edited:
Messages
12,987
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
The 24-240 is a bit shockingly bad without corrections! Did they think nobody would notice? That guy, Christopher Frost always tests lenses with and without corrections on. I think that's the worst I've ever seen. Unfortunate, as a lens like this would be attractive to many
 
Messages
6,010
Name
Robin
Edit My Images
Yes
The 24-240 is a bit shockingly bad without corrections! Did they think nobody would notice? That guy, Christopher Frost always tests lenses with and without corrections on. I think that's the worst I've ever seen. Unfortunate, as a lens like this would be attractive to many
.... When shooting RAW files the heavy black corner vignetting is shockingly bad even when the EOS-R body is set via the Menu to Enable all three 'Lens aberration correction' options of 'Peripheral illum corr', 'Distortion correction', and 'Digital Lens Optimiser'. And this is even when your specific RF lens is mounted and shown as identified.

As I added to my comparison post #1306, Canon TechSupport have informed me that this heavy black vignetting, looking as if one had fitted the wrong lens hood or mounted more than one lens filter, is captured in the RAW data but not in the JPEG images. Their solution is to assume that it's acceptable to fix it in their DPP software rather than onboard camera. This issue is not unique to Canon and is common, hitherto unknown to myself, in superzoom lenses - 'Superzoom' describing the range of a wide-angle to long focal length lens. The RF 24-105mm is just a 'zoom' lens and does not suffer from the vignette shocker - Hence partly why I am keeping it and returning the RF 24-240mm.

Whereas I can understand that other features might be compromised by solving such superzoom lens issues onboard and that they also have a cost influence, I personally find the issue and method of partially solving it offboard camera to be unacceptable. No wonder professional photographers are inclined to stay away from superzooms.

The EOS-R or RP plus RF 24-240mm could be a great camera for wedding photographers but only as long as they shoot JPEG, not RAW, and don't show the mother of the bride what looks like black smudges on her daughter's expensive white wedding dress! Don't tell the bride! [I love that TV series!].

As you say, Keith, this lens would be attractive to many and it is unfortunate, very unfortunate. But perhaps there are many camera users out there who aren't as discerning as photographers like us. Yet I am not a pixel-peeper and only judge my efforts on what I can see with the naked eye.

I don't think that Christopher Frost mentioned that the non-corrected images didn't have the issue in JPEG, so I'll message him. I must say that I like his calm and objective reviews.
 
Last edited:
Messages
6,010
Name
Robin
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm using the RF 24-105 for weddings and it is great, even for rear camera previews for couples / families.
.... Hi Dilip, I have just looked at your PassionPix website (your Flickr link doesn't load) and read your 'About' you. Nice approach and some very nice pictures which are not over contrived as some wedding pics are. I can see how the EOS-R + RF 24-105mm combo is ideal and also because its Silent Shooting Mode really is silent. It's Vario-angle screen is also doubtless a great advantage. I like some stealth!

I am glad I tried out the RF 24-240mm but am in no doubt now that for me the RF 24-105mm is superior in too many ways to make a swop worthwhile. The extra reach is primarily what tempted me. The weight and size differences between the two lenses are negligible.
 
Messages
6,010
Name
Robin
Edit My Images
Yes
Last edited:
Messages
6,010
Name
Robin
Edit My Images
Yes
According to CanonRumors which are usually fairly reliable, Canon have filed a patent for a RF 70-400mm F/4.5-5.6 L IS lens and it is rumoured to be announced in first half of 2020.

https://www.canonrumors.co/patent-canon-rf-70-400mm-f-4-5-5-6l-is-usm-lens/

You might say that this lens is a RF version of the excellent EF 100-400mm L IS II.

As Canon introduce more RF telephoto lenses to the market they need to also introduce 1.4x and 2x RF Extenders. Until they do so, photographers like myself will stick to our EF telephoto lenses which work so well with Canon Extenders.
 
Messages
12,987
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
According to CanonRumors which are usually fairly reliable, Canon have filed a patent for a RF 70-400mm F/4.5-5.6 L IS lens and it is rumoured to be announced in first half of 2020.

https://www.canonrumors.co/patent-canon-rf-70-400mm-f-4-5-5-6l-is-usm-lens/

You might say that this lens is a RF version of the excellent EF 100-400mm L IS II.

As Canon introduce more RF telephoto lenses to the market they need to also introduce 1.4x and 2x RF Extenders. Until they do so, photographers like myself will stick to our EF telephoto lenses which work so well with Canon Extenders.
Hmm, wonder what the price would be? It's an L so not cheap
 
Messages
6,010
Name
Robin
Edit My Images
Yes
Hmm, wonder what the price would be? It's an L so not cheap
.... It's a long time ago now but I think the EF 100-400mm L IS II was just over £2k when it was first launched. I got mine from HDEW for about £1.7k. So, I would guesstimate about £2.2 - 2.5k?

I haven't looked into RF vs EF prices but I wonder how the launch prices of the EF and RF 24-105mm L compare. Or other same/equivalent spec RF and EF lenses.

My EF 100-400mm works really well when mounted on the EOS-R + Adapter including when the EF 1.4x is also mounted, so no need for me to change unless I also changed my D-SLR 1DX-2 to its EOS mirrorless equivalent yet to be officially announced < All getting VERY expensiiiive!
 
Messages
12,987
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
.... It's a long time ago now but I think the EF 100-400mm L IS II was just over £2k when it was first launched. I got mine from HDEW for about £1.7k. So, I would guesstimate about £2.2 - 2.5k?

I haven't looked into RF vs EF prices but I wonder how the launch prices of the EF and RF 24-105mm L compare. Or other same/equivalent spec RF and EF lenses.

My EF 100-400mm works really well when mounted on the EOS-R + Adapter including when the EF 1.4x is also mounted, so no need for me to change unless I also changed my D-SLR 1DX-2 to its EOS mirrorless equivalent yet to be officially announced < All getting VERY expensiiiive!
Certainly is, they're not having much mercy on the budget photographer these days when it comes to FFML. The body prices are falling, but as ever it's more about the lenses. I wonder will they do an RF non-L 70-300
 
Messages
6,010
Name
Robin
Edit My Images
Yes
Even with noise reduction selectively applied to the background, the bokeh of the RF 24-240mm is slightly disappointing but I guess this is the compromise of having wide-angle zoom options. The first shot with the showjumper competing in the ring was shot in harsh high contrast sunlight though. I'll have to specifically examine bokeh results I have shot on my RF 24-105mm but I don't recall being disappointed given that it's also a wide-angle zoom lens and is neither my EF 100-400mm nor EF 500mm which has exceptional bokeh as to be expected from longer reach prime telephoto lenses.

AGRICULTURAL SHOW JUMPER
by Robin Procter, on Flickr

^ EOS-R + RF 24-240mm, @213mm, F/6.3, 1/800s, ISO 250

ENERGY!!! WARMING UP IN TROT
by Robin Procter, on Flickr

^ EOS-R + RF 24-240mm, @140mm, F/7.1, 1/4000s, ISO 6400

Lens sharpness not an issue though. Neither is high ISO.
 
Last edited:
Top