Fordsabroad
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,058
- Name
- Gordon
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I have an R5 and a bunch of EF lenses. I am replacing a couple of EF lenses with the RF versions, Currently I have an RF 15 - 35 f2.8 and an RF 24 - 105 f4 on order. I want them for land/sea scape and woodland photography. I do not need them for portraits or indoor work. I photograph for pleasure only and am not particularly a pixel peeper although I do print pictures fairly large for putting on my wall (up to 40ish inches x 17 inches)
I am too old to hike up mountains but do want the kit to be light enough to be out and about for a few hours daily without feeling like a burden. (I do have an M50 with a range of lenses which suits this but I prefer the R5).
After that lengthy preamble here is my question. Do any of you own the RF 24-240? I have read many reports, some good and some more critical but in all honesty I prefer opinions from real world users. Is the image quality good enough to replace the RF 24 -105? The obvious advantage is that I would only need the carry two lenses to cover 16mm - 240mm.
Any thoughts would be appreciated.
I am too old to hike up mountains but do want the kit to be light enough to be out and about for a few hours daily without feeling like a burden. (I do have an M50 with a range of lenses which suits this but I prefer the R5).
After that lengthy preamble here is my question. Do any of you own the RF 24-240? I have read many reports, some good and some more critical but in all honesty I prefer opinions from real world users. Is the image quality good enough to replace the RF 24 -105? The obvious advantage is that I would only need the carry two lenses to cover 16mm - 240mm.
Any thoughts would be appreciated.
