So I was never happy with the 24-105. I mean, yes, it's a great lens - it's brilliant in low light and I've gotten some great people photos with it. The problem is it's heavy and doesn't have the focal range that I'm used to. So I bit the bullet and got a 24-240. Reviews online were mixed - "Jack of all trades but master of none" as one review called it. But in terms of pixels, it wins. By a lot.
The big test is a repeat of the shots I took of Black Mountain Tower.
First up - the benchmark - my old 600D, 135mm (~200mm equivalent)
Old 24-105 105mm (full zoom) vs new 24-240 ~105mm (~ half zoom) .. so old vs new at approx same magnification.. honestly.. there's barely any difference in quality
And finally the 24-240 at 240mm (full zoom) .. ok yes it's a little wibbly (it's 8.47km away!) .. but far out.. this blows everything else out of the water!
And from those same photos here's UC.. again raw pixels.
The 600D at full zoom
The 24-105 at full zoom
The 24-240 at ~105mm
24-240 at 240mm. I wonder how much of the wibbliness is actually air distortion.. we're talking a distance of 4.3km as the crow flies.
Here's a few more
Only 87mm on this, but relatively low light
This was 240mm from across the room, with the same not great lighting.. it did pretty well!
And most importantly .. can it do full zoom macros?
Why yes, yes it can.. 240mm here
And here
Cropped closer, not bad!
240mm dandelion
Same, raw pixels.. it's actually pretty sharp
I did find I couldn't get as close to things and still be able to focus.. but what you lose in closeness you gain in zoomage..
So yeah.. pretty happy. This will likely be the lens I cart around most of the time, and certainly when travelling. The other one will likely get used for people photos and things like museums and other specific indoor photography.
Sylvia Johnson
Glad you are happy with your new lens. Now all you need to do is go on a holiday to really try it out!