canon rumors FORUM

Gear Talk => Lenses => Topic started by: Pi on October 12, 2013, 10:21:09 PM

Title: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: Pi on October 12, 2013, 10:21:09 PM
A few shots, all in good light, all well stopped (f/11), same SS. One is taken with the 24-105, the other with either the 35L, or the 100L. Same parameters in LR, including WB, except for some exposure compensation to equate the brightness. Can you tell which is which? Of course, not a sharpness test, the size is limited to width=1024. One of the "A" images was slightly cropped, and one of the "B" images was slightly cropped as well, for the same AOV. Shot off hand. Camera: 5D2.

Click for "full" size.

(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3740/10237090095_8cd193fbb8_z.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/105206784@N04/10237090095/)
A1 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/105206784@N04/10237090095/#) 

(http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2892/10236983254_baf4f501ae_z.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/105206784@N04/10236983254/)
A2 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/105206784@N04/10236983254/#) 
-------------------------------------------------
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5454/10236959356_6830627fca_z.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/105206784@N04/10236959356/)
B1 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/105206784@N04/10236959356/#)

(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7340/10236956416_26c17e9e5e_z.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/105206784@N04/10236956416/)
B2 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/105206784@N04/10236956416/#) 
---------------------------------
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7396/10237133313_52060d1569_z.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/105206784@N04/10237133313/)
C1 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/105206784@N04/10237133313/#) 

(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3783/10237057115_6b7ab094dc_z.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/105206784@N04/10237057115/)
C2 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/105206784@N04/10237057115/#) 
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: scott on October 12, 2013, 10:38:13 PM
number 1 a,b,&c
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: Pi on October 12, 2013, 10:46:46 PM
number 1 a,b,&c

You mean, A1, B1, C1 is the zoom?
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: Dylan777 on October 12, 2013, 11:14:57 PM
@ f11, my RX100 II will deliver same result in the sunny day :-\
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: skoobey on October 12, 2013, 11:32:09 PM
Who said it's a bad lens???  ;D

Not sure about second image, but I'd say all 1's are the 24-105, as it is quite obvious where you compensated for the distortion.

It's a great all rounder, great walk around ,lens, and If you really need to capture something geometrical, be sure to shoot it at 35mm.

Apart form that, I love it. I find that I mostly shoot on 35 and 70-100mm range, so I'm getting a prime, but 24-105 is a great lens, make no mistake. It's just not an architecture, or a product lens, but a walk around zoom.
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: Magnardo on October 12, 2013, 11:51:57 PM
I do not like it.
Purple fringing is horrendous as well as distortion.
I do not understand how people do not mind distortion.
When shooting people it feels like a machete.
I prefer primes.
Never like to sacrifice image quality.

Excellent zoom?
18-35, F 1.8.
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: Pi on October 12, 2013, 11:57:35 PM
Not sure about second image, but I'd say all 1's are the 24-105, as it is quite obvious where you compensated for the distortion.

Actually, they are all auto corrected for distortion by LR, except one of the landscape shots. At 32mm (same AOV as the 35L), my 24-105 distorts less than the 35L - at least the LR profile corrects less.
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: Pi on October 12, 2013, 11:58:42 PM
I do not like it.
Purple fringing is horrendous as well as distortion.
I do not understand how people do not mind distortion.
When shooting people it feels like a machete.
I prefer primes.
Never like to sacrifice image quality.

Excellent zoom?
18-35, F 1.8.

You forgot to say which 3 of the 6 you do not like.  :)
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: Kwanon on October 13, 2013, 12:05:55 AM
It's bad. Huge distortion, scary vignetting.
I just sold mine and bought the non L 35mm 2.0 IS and i'm much happier using that.
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: Pi on October 13, 2013, 12:14:16 AM
Who said it's a bad lens???  ;D

Two people so far.  :)
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: skoobey on October 13, 2013, 12:20:35 AM
I do not like it.
Purple fringing is horrendous as well as distortion.
I do not understand how people do not mind distortion.
When shooting people it feels like a machete.
I prefer primes.
Never like to sacrifice image quality.

Excellent zoom?
18-35, F 1.8.

I tend to care more about what I am shooting, then the tools. That's why I don't mind the "fringing". Distortion is a SERIOUS problem, but you can always shoot full body shots at 35-70, so it can be dealt with.

It's not trying to be a prime.

Anyone who must have the best lens to be any good, isn't very skilled to begin with.
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: pwp on October 13, 2013, 12:20:45 AM
It's bad. Huge distortion, scary vignetting...
I'd be more inclined to be asking how GOOD the 24-105 is.
It doesn't get to be a bazillion photographers across the planet's most used lens for any negative reasons.

Any distortion, vignetting etc can be corrected instantly and automatically on import into Lightroom.

Sure, it may be out-performed by premium primes, but they're not direct competition for this fantastically flexible lens.

-pw
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: skoobey on October 13, 2013, 12:23:39 AM
It's bad. Huge distortion, scary vignetting...
I'd be more inclined to be asking how GOOD the 24-105 is.
It doesn't get to be a bazillion photographers across the planet's most used lens for any negative reasons.

Any distortion, vignetting etc can be corrected instantly and automatically on import into Lightroom.

Sure, it may be out-performed by premium primes, but they're not direct competition for this fantastically flexible lens.

-pw

And that's not completely true, either.

There is no such thing as removing distortion, a you will distort the person in the photo. It only works for inanimate subjects to an extent.
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: seamonster on October 13, 2013, 12:43:02 AM
The 24-105 is just an "enough" lens for enough situations. It will not excel at any single task nor will it catastrophically fail either. f/4 used to be a bottleneck back in the day when sensors couldn't handle high ISO well. That is obviously no longer the case. There are plenty of reasons why ALOT of people buy it as their first L lens and for those who get it in a kit, there are ultimately fewer reasons to get rid of it than to keep it.
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: J.R. on October 13, 2013, 12:44:12 AM
@ f11, my RX100 II will deliver same result in the sunny day :-\

And so it should ... I don't see what Pi is trying to prove in this post. Two photos taken at same FL at same apertures* with different (pretty good) lenses, subsequently downsized, will be next to impossible to tell apart.

Edit: stopped down apertures
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: Pi on October 13, 2013, 12:47:10 AM
There is no such thing as removing distortion, a you will distort the person in the photo. It only works for inanimate subjects to an extent.

Of course, there is. This is one of the few things you can correct with little penalty. Lenses having very irregular and non-consistent (from copy to copy) distortion wild create more headaches. My 17-55, for example, was harder to correct than my 24-105.
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: Pi on October 13, 2013, 12:48:09 AM
@ f11, my RX100 II will deliver same result in the sunny day :-\

As the 35L on FF?
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: LetTheRightLensIn on October 13, 2013, 12:53:18 AM
Who said it's a bad lens???  ;D

Two people so far.  :)

three  ;D me
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: skoobey on October 13, 2013, 01:09:53 AM
There is no such thing as removing distortion, a you will distort the person in the photo. It only works for inanimate subjects to an extent.

Of course, there is. This is one of the few things you can correct with little penalty. Lenses having very irregular and non-consistent (from copy to copy) distortion wild create more headaches. My 17-55, for example, was harder to correct than my 24-105.

You're claiming that just by "correcting" it in post, you can get AN INFINITE number of distortion-casused problems go away??? You do realise that there is such a thing as INFINITE number of focal plains on which any detail can be captured, and that you'll need correct each and every one, and not to mention that you cannot correct a detail missing, in order to get something taht you could've just shoot with a different lens? How on Earth is that viable to you?
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: Magnardo on October 13, 2013, 02:33:29 AM
    Skill of photographer has nothing to do with the lens used.
A better lens does not make the photographer less or more skilled.

Purple fringing and distortion cannot be corrected to my satisfaction on the 24-105.

   I have seen plenty of pros use the 24-105 and they proudly display pictures with a lot of distortion and then they claim they are fine. The person in  the middle looks like a human being,...the rest to the side, look like idiotic super hungry aliens.

    I bought it with the 5d Mark III, took to in a trip to NY,....and I thought even the Pancake 40 2.8 was way better.
Sold it for $700 as soon as I got back.
    I see a lot of pros advocating shitty zooms for convenience and weight.
  I see no reason ever to sacrifice quality for laziness.
   Moments cannot be resurrected in post.
   
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: Zv on October 13, 2013, 02:35:14 AM
It's prob not my best lens, but then again I've spoiled myself with the 135L which is just a different class of lens. However, the 24-105L isn't a bad lens at all. I avoid 24-28mm f/4 as I know that is a weakness. For those focal lengths the 17-40L seems to perform better. That's cool because that's why I have a wide angle zoom. I needed something that was decent around 35mm and above to use as a standard lens and for that it does alright especially considering how much I paid for it!

I haven't noticed any fringing (not noticeable amounts anyway) with my copy. Vignetting is not an issue thanks to LR. In fact I like vignetting so I usually add some in later anyway.

The lens could be sharper though.

Overall it gets the job done in a very standard and unspectacular fashion!
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: Sporgon on October 13, 2013, 03:02:16 AM
@ f11, my RX100 II will deliver same result in the sunny day :-\

And so it should ... I don't see what Pi is trying to prove in this post. Two photos taken at same FL at same apertures* with different (pretty good) lenses, subsequently downsized, will be next to impossible to tell apart.

Edit: stopped down apertures

+ 1, my thought exactly. At f11 all lenses begin to average out and even at optimum resolution apertures I wouldn't expect to see any difference with reduced size samples apart from warmer colour of the zoom.

Apart from bad distortion at 24 mil the area where the 24-105 is weak is when resolving very small detail mid ( and of course extreme ) frame when compared with 'better' lenses. So if your subject is relatively large within the frame you are playing to the 24-105 strenghs, but if it's far away and small it's the reverse.

At Building Panoramics we are stitching vertical frames with substantial overlap, so just using the best part of the frame and always at f8.  Also the stitching results in a much larger format. In this situation the 24-105 produces results that are as good as any other lens. There is simply no difference in the pictures shot on the 24-105 and the 35L for instance. In fact our 35L has gone the way of e bay.


Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: Magnardo on October 13, 2013, 03:10:48 AM
   Lenses are stronger and weaker in an evident fashion, when they are shot in less then perfect conditions.
Give me examples of people in the shots,... not just ants.
  And also give me examples with difficult lighting,....and if you sold the 35 L in order to keep 24-105, I will light a candle for you because you are indeed a good person with a good heart.
  You gave the best away to your brothers on e-bay, only out of the goodness of your heart and that is a great and rare thing.
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: Sporgon on October 13, 2013, 03:19:44 AM
   Lenses are stronger and weaker in an evident fashion, when they are shot in less then perfect conditions.
Give me examples of people in the shots,... not just ants.
  And also give me examples with difficult lighting,....and if you sold the 35 L in order to keep 24-105, I will light a candle for you because you are indeed a good person with a good heart.
  You gave the best away to your brothers on e-bay, only out of the goodness of your heart and that is a great and rare thing.
;D ;D

Horses for courses.

We have the new 24-70 f4 IS which is really good, and have replaced the 35L with ........wait for it........the 40mm pancake. No distortion, sharp across the frame - wonderful.

You are welcome to your ultra fast wide angles, there is too much penalty to pay in both cash and corner sharpness stopped down.  ;)
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: J.R. on October 13, 2013, 04:04:09 AM
   Lenses are stronger and weaker in an evident fashion, when they are shot in less then perfect conditions.
Give me examples of people in the shots,... not just ants.
 

Absolutely. More often than not, the differences between lenses can be seen only when you shoot in less than ideal conditions. That's why I don't usually bother with "which lens was this shot taken with" challenges. 


Horses for courses.


Yes sir ... Always!

BTW, upon reading your posts regarding the 40mm, I recently tried some panoramas using the pancake and was pleasantly surprised with the results  :)
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: Tyroop on October 13, 2013, 05:02:08 AM
Those photos brought back some wonderful memories of visiting the Biltmore estate around 21 years ago.  Who cares which lens?
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: Rienzphotoz on October 13, 2013, 05:09:40 AM
@ f11, my RX100 II will deliver same result in the sunny day :-\

And so it should ... I don't see what Pi is trying to prove in this post. Two photos taken at same FL at same apertures* with different (pretty good) lenses, subsequently downsized, will be next to impossible to tell apart.

Edit: stopped down apertures
+1 ... I always find it amusing when people want to prove that a certain lens is good because it performs similarly with another lens at a smaller aperture ... but the fact of the matter is that different lenses are made for different purposes ... people buy a 85 f/1.2 for a specific reason and the same goes for a 24-105, it is a fantastic all round lens worth every single penny spent on it ... but it has its limitations, just like every single lens out there.
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: neuroanatomist on October 13, 2013, 06:57:20 AM
I always find it amusing when people want to prove that a certain lens is good because it performs similarly with another lens at a smaller aperture ...

Indeed.  Amusing...and rather pointless, as well, in this case.
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: jdramirez on October 13, 2013, 07:17:28 AM
 I  was  correcting  my  daughter's 18-55  is lady night...  so  count me in on those who say,  not bad at all,  in  comparison.
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: Pi on October 13, 2013, 09:34:04 AM
Tough crowd.

Sorry to sound like KR but I limited the size to 1024 on purpose. I was not testing sharpness, including in the corners, where sharpness is not for given, even at f/11 but see also (2) below. There is much more to a lens than sharpness.

The 24-105 is sometimes bashed as a lens having low contrast, blah colors; somebody was claiming "too much clarity in dull light" (I will test that, too), and all that sort of nonsense. It is NOT true that all lenses perform similarly at f/11. Here are a dew differences:

1.   Color: for example, the 100L is much more colorful (not always in a good way) than the 135L. Lenses like the 50/1.8 and the 50/1.4 are really dull in terms of color rendition compared to modern and not so modern L lenses. Even in the samples I posted, you can see that the 35L is slightly cooler than the zoom.  L lenses can render reds very differently; the newer ones are much warmer, in my experience. 

2.   Contrast: Some lenses (the worst I have seen is the 18-55 IS) have noticeably low contrast like a haze over the whole image – gray blacks but not only that. The 135L has lower contrast in the highlights than the 100L but deep blacks. There are also micro-contrast differences among lenses, visible even at this resolution.

3.   "DOF" and brightness (T-stop as opposed to F-stop). You cannot see that at 1024 pixels but the landscape shots show something very interesting, which I will investigate further. The 35L is 0.4 stops brighter (in both cases) and has more "DOF" (measured with very small CoC) than the zoom. I will post crops later. They are both focused where the yellow flowers end and the trees start but the background in the corners is (a) very sharp with the prime and (b) starts to get fuzzy with the zoom, still within the accepted DOF range though, after all, I focused past the hyperfocal distance. Now, (b) is expected but I am surprised by (a). In contrast, the lower (close) corners do not differ too much by sharpness.

4. (EDIT) And, of course, flare (and this is connected to (2)), in which the 24-105 is an average performer bit often good enough. Flare can and does affect contrast in some situations however.

Yes, those shots are in good light, and I did say so.
Title: Answers:
Post by: Pi on October 13, 2013, 09:36:44 AM
CORRECTION!

The zoom is used in A1, B1 and C2.
Title: A new set: comparisons with the 85L and the 50L
Post by: Pi on October 13, 2013, 11:18:04 AM
Two more comparisons: against the 85LII (f/5) and against the 50L (f/5.6), good light, handheld, distortion corrections and partial vignetting corrections in LR on, some exposure compensation. If you think that all lenses are the same at f/5 - f/5.6, please move on, nothing to see here.

85mm (this is easy), f/5:

(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7377/10247672574_b73a5c81e8_z.jpg)D1 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/105206784@N04/10247672574/)
 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/105206784@N04/10247672574/#) 

(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3803/10247763195_9b02e1b913_z.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/105206784@N04/10247763195/)
D2 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/105206784@N04/10247763195/#)

--------
50mm, f/5.6 (not too hard, there are obvious clues)

(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7341/10247664204_a99ab884e8_z.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/105206784@N04/10247664204/)
E1 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/105206784@N04/10247664204/#) 

(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7358/10247864573_6f3efecf3e_z.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/105206784@N04/10247864573/)
E2 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/105206784@N04/10247864573/#) 
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: drmikeinpdx on October 13, 2013, 11:41:53 AM
   I see no reason ever to sacrifice quality for laziness.
   Moments cannot be resurrected in post.
 

Interesting comment, but I find the opposite to be true more often.  I love my primes and will shoot with them when I can control the flow of a photoshoot.  However, there are situations where a zoom allows me to get more usable shots.  If you miss a shot because you were changing lenses, or did not bring the right prime with you, that lost moment cannot be resurrected in post.

I haven't had my 24-105 very long.  I bought a white box copy for around $700 last spring and I've been very impressed.  I always shoot it wide open.  I don't use a tripod too often, so the stabilization actually makes it sharper than my L lenses in actual use.  I have noticed no chromatic aberration and I haven't used it for shooting buildings so I haven't noticed any distortion.

I'm taking it out today for a waterfall/fall foliage hike.  Maybe I'll leave the tripod at home.
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: distant.star on October 13, 2013, 12:45:24 PM
.
Will someone please wake me when it's over?

Thanks.

Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: Rienzphotoz on October 13, 2013, 12:49:39 PM
.
Will someone please wake me when it's over?

Thanks.
OK ... go back to sleep now ;D
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: LetTheRightLensIn on October 13, 2013, 02:07:03 PM
A few shots, all in good light, all well stopped (f/11), same SS. One is taken with the 24-105, the other with either the 35L, or the 100L. Same parameters in LR, including WB, except for some exposure compensation to equate the brightness. Can you tell which is which? Of course, not a sharpness test, the size is limited to width=1024. One of the "A" images was slightly cropped, and one of the "B" images was slightly cropped as well, for the same AOV. Shot off hand. Camera: 5D2.

Click for "full" size.



You can't judge much from such tiny images (I didn't bother to click them since that doesn't go to Original size anyway), but well hard to say for the first image, on the second set the 24-105 might be the second one since the colors look a like flatter, for the third one it looks like the zoom must be the first one since the crispness and color look duller (but at such a small size.... it might just be the re-sizing algorithm happening to not interact well with the particular scale of those details? first one of the last pair does look worse even at that small scale, for whatever reason though, even if just for how this website happened to rescale them).
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: Pi on October 13, 2013, 02:32:32 PM
You can't judge much from such tiny images (I didn't bother to click them since that doesn't go to Original size anyway), but well hard to say for the first image, on the second set the 24-105 might be the second one since the colors look a like flatter, for the third one it looks like the zoom must be the first one since the crispness and color look duller (but at such a small size.... it might just be the re-sizing algorithm happening to not interact well with the particular scale of those details? first one of the last pair does look worse even at that small scale, for whatever reason though, even if just for how this website happened to rescale them).

I posted the answers above this morning but they were wrong, and I corrected them now. Anyway, the zoom is A1, B1, C2.

To me, the 100L (C1) looks a bit warmer. Surprisingly, the zoom is slightly warmer and more colorful than the 35L but not by much.

Again, the EXIF and full size are enabled now.
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: Dylan777 on October 13, 2013, 03:38:22 PM
The 24-105 is sometimes bashed as a lens having low contrast, blah colors; somebody was claiming "too much clarity in dull light" (I will test that, too), and all that sort of nonsense. It is NOT true that all lenses perform similarly at f/11. Here are a dew differences:

It's. The only benefit I see from this is 24mm to 105. IQ sucks.

Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: Rienzphotoz on October 13, 2013, 04:34:51 PM
The 24-105 is sometimes bashed as a lens having low contrast, blah colors; somebody was claiming "too much clarity in dull light" (I will test that, too), and all that sort of nonsense. It is NOT true that all lenses perform similarly at f/11. Here are a dew differences:

It's. The only benefit I see from this is 24mm to 105. IQ sucks.
???
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: Janbo Makimbo on October 13, 2013, 04:41:45 PM
Its a fine lens...... In the right hands!!
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: Pi on October 13, 2013, 04:54:55 PM
The 24-105 is sometimes bashed as a lens having low contrast, blah colors; somebody was claiming "too much clarity in dull light" (I will test that, too), and all that sort of nonsense. It is NOT true that all lenses perform similarly at f/11. Here are a dew differences:

It's. The only benefit I see from this is 24mm to 105. IQ sucks.

I was afraid that the reaction would be - nobody is bashing that lens.  ;)
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: Skulker on October 13, 2013, 05:35:23 PM
Isn't it interesting that few people try to determine the lens used to take the images, as the OP asked.

But more started making fairly bold statements. And by bold I was meaning FIRM AND DEFINITE not brave or accurate. ;D
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: Sporgon on October 13, 2013, 05:45:26 PM
Isn't it interesting that few people try to determine the lens used to take the images, as the OP asked.

But more started making fairly bold statements. And by bold I was meaning FIRM AND DEFINITE not brave or accurate. ;D

People haven't tried to guess which is which because it it pointless comparing one excellent lens with a very good one at at web resolution. Even the OP knows this:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=17183.30 (http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=17183.30)
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: Pi on October 13, 2013, 06:30:43 PM
People haven't tried to guess which is which because it it pointless comparing one excellent lens with a very good one at at web resolution.

Maybe "people" did not read the part where I said that this was not a resolution comparison?
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: Pi on October 14, 2013, 08:20:06 PM
Time for my concluding rant.

I was not trying to prove anything and it was amusing to read how somebody found it amusing that I was trying to prove whatever, and another one quickly agreed. I did it for fun, to see if in perfect conditions it is worth using L primes, looking for evidence of that "3D look" (without bokeh), "popup colors", clarity, better contrast, and anything else of that sort but not for resolution differences. About half of the responders took it lightly but the other half took it as a signal for attack.

I did learn something from it, after pixel-peeping (the original resolution files are available now). A weakness of the 24-105 which I suspected but never bothered to check. It has less DOF (with pixel-peeper's small CoC) at f/11 than my 35L when focused close to the hyperfocal distance. The borders and the corners are not really softer (at 35mm). They just stay sharp over a smaller distance range. If you focus at infinity, no problem but then of course, you blur the foreground. This fact alone makes it worthwhile to use a prime for landscapes instead, when critical sharpness is important. 

Why not testing it low light? What is the point - I know the answer. But as somebody mentioned in another thread - in some situations the IS is more useful that speed.
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: takesome1 on October 14, 2013, 08:35:37 PM
I actually found it to be a senseless comparison and a  little shallow.
Having owned and used each of these lenses I know they each have a use and a function and the comparisons if anything were set up to make the 24-105 look better.
The set up was presented as if it were from someone who had a complete misunderstanding of what makes the 35mm f/1.4L great. What sets it apart is what it can do closer to f/1.8 than at f/11.
The 24-105 a great walk around lens, and that is what it does well.

So in that respect if you were not trying to prove anything, you succeeded and well done.
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: Pi on October 14, 2013, 09:05:25 PM
[...]  and the comparisons if anything were set up to make the 24-105 look better.

Quote
The set up was presented as if it were from someone who had a complete misunderstanding of what makes the 35mm f/1.4L great. What sets it apart is what it can do closer to f/1.8 than at f/11.

Two more totally unfounded claims.
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: takesome1 on October 14, 2013, 09:11:56 PM
[...]  and the comparisons if anything were set up to make the 24-105 look better.

Quote
The set up was presented as if it were from someone who had a complete misunderstanding of what makes the 35mm f/1.4L great. What sets it apart is what it can do closer to f/1.8 than at f/11.

Two more totally unfounded claims.

It seems the evidence for both were presented very well in this thread.
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: Pi on October 14, 2013, 09:18:53 PM
[...]  and the comparisons if anything were set up to make the 24-105 look better.

Quote
The set up was presented as if it were from someone who had a complete misunderstanding of what makes the 35mm f/1.4L great. What sets it apart is what it can do closer to f/1.8 than at f/11.

Two more totally unfounded claims.

It seems the evidence for both were presented very well in this thread.

Yet another one. I just asked if you can tell which is which in my OP, no statements. The accusation that I actually tried to make the 24-105 look better is ridiculous. How did I do that? How in the world do you know, and even see "evidence" of what I understand and what I do not about the 35L?

BTW, in my "concluding" rant, I said that I discovered another weakness of the 24-105.
Title: Re: A new set: comparisons with the 85L and the 50L
Post by: JonB8305 on October 14, 2013, 09:21:19 PM
Two more comparisons: against the 85LII (f/5) and against the 50L (f/5.6), good light, handheld, distortion corrections and partial vignetting corrections in LR on, some exposure compensation. If you think that all lenses are the same at f/5 - f/5.6, please move on, nothing to see here.

85mm (this is easy), f/5:

(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7377/10247672574_b73a5c81e8_z.jpg)D1 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/105206784@N04/10247672574/)
 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/105206784@N04/10247672574/#) 

(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3803/10247763195_9b02e1b913_z.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/105206784@N04/10247763195/)
D2 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/105206784@N04/10247763195/#)

--------
50mm, f/5.6 (not too hard, there are obvious clues)

(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7341/10247664204_a99ab884e8_z.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/105206784@N04/10247664204/)
E1 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/105206784@N04/10247664204/#) 

(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7358/10247864573_6f3efecf3e_z.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/105206784@N04/10247864573/)
E2 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/105206784@N04/10247864573/#)

Is this Toronto?
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: takesome1 on October 14, 2013, 09:26:28 PM
[...]  and the comparisons if anything were set up to make the 24-105 look better.

Quote
The set up was presented as if it were from someone who had a complete misunderstanding of what makes the 35mm f/1.4L great. What sets it apart is what it can do closer to f/1.8 than at f/11.

Two more totally unfounded claims.

It seems the evidence for both were presented very well in this thread.

Yet another one. I just asked if you can tell which is which in my OP, no statements. The accusation that I actually tried to make the 24-105 look better is ridiculous. How did I do that? How in the world do you know, and even see "evidence" of what I understand and what I do not about the 35L?

BTW, in my "concluding" rant, I said that I discovered another weakness of the 24-105.

Maybe you unknowingly set it up to equalize the 24-105mm, but the set up of the test worked to equalize the 24-105 with the other lenses. It was really not much of a comparison.

Second you are correct I know nothing about what you know about the 35L because you haven't presented any information in this thread that would tell me you have nothing more than limited hands on knowledge.

Still for someone who wasn't trying to make a point, you now seem to be defending your set up.
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: candc on October 14, 2013, 09:39:08 PM
I don't see any meaningful differences, if your point is to show that a zoom like the 24-105 performs as well as anything else in normal shooting conditions then you have done so and that's a good point for everyone to keep in mind.
Title: Re: A new set: comparisons with the 85L and the 50L
Post by: Pi on October 14, 2013, 09:41:00 PM
Is this Toronto?

Yes, both shots. Last summer, the weather was gorgeous, I had a great time (and I had  to work there, too).

Second you are correct I know nothing about what you know about the 35L because you haven't presented any information in this thread that would tell me you have nothing more than limited hands on knowledge.

I have presented noting to tell you otherwise but you chose to believe what you wanted to believe.
Title: Re: A new set: comparisons with the 85L and the 50L
Post by: candc on October 14, 2013, 10:03:08 PM
Is this Toronto?

Yes, both shots. Last summer, the weather was gorgeous, I had a great time (and I had  to work there, too).

Second you are correct I know nothing about what you know about the 35L because you haven't presented any information in this thread that would tell me you have nothing more than limited hands on knowledge.

I have presented noting to tell you otherwise but you chose to believe what you wanted to believe.

That's very cryptic so I am not sure what you are asking, I don't claim to have any specific knowledge of the 35l, your post was asking about a comparison between sets of images which is what I offered a response to
Title: Re: A new set: comparisons with the 85L and the 50L
Post by: Pi on October 14, 2013, 10:09:43 PM
That's very cryptic so I am not sure what you are asking, I don't claim to have any specific knowledge of the 35l, your post was asking about a comparison between sets of images which is what I offered a response to

This is hilarious. I own the 35L and have not said anything which would let you believe that I do not value its fast aperture. You "don't claim to have any specific knowledge of the 35L", and telling me that I do not know what its real strength is?
Title: Re: A new set: comparisons with the 85L and the 50L
Post by: candc on October 14, 2013, 10:21:32 PM
That's very cryptic so I am not sure what you are asking, I don't claim to have any specific knowledge of the 35l, your post was asking about a comparison between sets of images which is what I offered a response to

This is hilarious. I own the 35L and have not said anything which would let you believe that I do not value its fast aperture. You "don't claim to have any specific knowledge of the 35L", and telling me that I do not know what its real strength is?
I ma not sure where you are coming from on this, maybe you have misread another poster as me or something? I never made any reference to the 35l I just said the images looked the same,  isn't that what you are asking?
Title: Re: A new set: comparisons with the 85L and the 50L
Post by: takesome1 on October 14, 2013, 10:25:21 PM
That's very cryptic so I am not sure what you are asking, I don't claim to have any specific knowledge of the 35l, your post was asking about a comparison between sets of images which is what I offered a response to

This is hilarious. I own the 35L and have not said anything which would let you believe that I do not value its fast aperture. You "don't claim to have any specific knowledge of the 35L", and telling me that I do not know what its real strength is?

What is hilarious is that you misquoted candc and confused him. Now you are debating with him a comment he didn't make.
Title: Re: A new set: comparisons with the 85L and the 50L
Post by: candc on October 14, 2013, 10:32:26 PM
That's very cryptic so I am not sure what you are asking, I don't claim to have any specific knowledge of the 35l, your post was asking about a comparison between sets of images which is what I offered a response to

This is hilarious. I own the 35L and have not said anything which would let you believe that I do not value its fast aperture. You "don't claim to have any specific knowledge of the 35L", and telling me that I do not know what its real strength is?

What is hilarious is that you misquoted candc and confused him. Now you are debating with him a comment he didn't make.

Thanks, I thought maybe I copied wrong or missed something?
Title: Re: A new set: comparisons with the 85L and the 50L
Post by: Pi on October 14, 2013, 10:35:02 PM
I ma not sure where you are coming from on this, maybe you have misread another poster as me or something? I never made any reference to the 35l I just said the images looked the same,  isn't that what you are asking?

Sorry, I took you for  takesome1. I typed in the wrong name here: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=17440.msg323871#msg323871 (http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=17440.msg323871#msg323871). My apologies. 
Title: Re: A new set: comparisons with the 85L and the 50L
Post by: candc on October 14, 2013, 10:38:00 PM
I ma not sure where you are coming from on this, maybe you have misread another poster as me or something? I never made any reference to the 35l I just said the images looked the same,  isn't that what you are asking?

Sorry, I took you for  takesome1. I typed in the wrong name above.
No harm.
Title: Re: A new set: comparisons with the 85L and the 50L
Post by: takesome1 on October 14, 2013, 10:47:48 PM
Is this Toronto?

Yes, both shots. Last summer, the weather was gorgeous, I had a great time (and I had  to work there, too).

Second you are correct I know nothing about what you know about the 35L because you haven't presented any information in this thread that would tell me you have nothing more than limited hands on knowledge.

I have presented noting to tell you otherwise but you chose to believe what you wanted to believe.

Since the bottom was a response to my quote and not candc;
I agreed with you, you have presented nothing to tell us otherwise so I do not believe one way or the other what you know or do not know about the 35L.

The reason I make the comment about the 35mm L is that by testing at a very narrow aperture in bright sunlight many of the advantages that the 35mm would have over the 24-105mm disappear. Why would someone that knows the benefit of the 35mm L set up a comparison that neutralizes its advantage to show that the 24-105mm can perform as well?

The exercise appeared pointless, and you have already said it had no point. I agree.
Title: Re: A new set: comparisons with the 85L and the 50L
Post by: Pi on October 14, 2013, 11:07:02 PM
Why would someone that knows the benefit of the 35mm L set up a comparison that neutralizes its advantage to show that the 24-105mm can perform as well?

To test things that are not so obvious, I explained it a few times already. "Clarity", contrast, including micro-contrast, color rendition, how well it performs in landscape type of shots (even though the Biltmore garden pair may not be considered a typical landscape). With respect to the latter, it does not perform as well.

BTW, the garden shots got about 150-200 view on Flickr for two days or so, not bad for a pointless comparison. Many of my "artistic" shots on my other Flickr account receive much less attention.  ;)
Title: Re: A new set: comparisons with the 85L and the 50L
Post by: takesome1 on October 14, 2013, 11:13:20 PM

BTW, the garden shots got about 150-200 view on Flickr for two days or so, not bad for a pointless comparison. Many of my "artistic" shots on my other Flickr account receive much less attention.  ;)

People like a puzzle.
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: RLPhoto on October 14, 2013, 11:30:22 PM
I didn't find it a bad lens at all for what it is.
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: LetTheRightLensIn on October 14, 2013, 11:36:40 PM
A problem with this test is that the 24-105 never really suffered from poor color or large-scale contrast, it has fairly rich color and large-scale contrast, not best of the best of the best, but better than most to all non-L from Canon and most non-Zeiss Distagon. It struggles with distortion (which you corrected), sharpness (center compared to the best but OK and edges/corners, especially at the wide end near 24mm) and micro-contrast, purple fringing under some conditions (not tested here), curvature and DOF that don't fit certain types of natural world scenes at the end end (not tested here).
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: Pi on October 15, 2013, 12:22:20 AM
A problem with this test is that the 24-105 never really suffered from poor color or large-scale contrast, it has fairly rich color and large-scale contrast, not best of the best of the best, but better than most to all non-L from Canon and most non-Zeiss Distagon. It struggles with distortion (which you corrected), sharpness (center compared to the best but OK and edges/corners, especially at the wide end near 24mm) and micro-contrast, purple fringing under some conditions (not tested here), curvature and DOF that don't fit certain types of natural world scenes at the end end (not tested here).

I did not try to test everything possible. Those are just fun shots. I do not even believe much in direct comparisons - I believe in long term experience (something I learned in my audiophile past). I mentioned above, for example, that it can suffer from loss of contrast in strong direct light (like large areas of overcast sky in the frame), weakness at 24mm. I did notice DOF/curvature problems (the garden shot), and I mentioned it several times. Again, this is not a test of the 24-105! If I ever decide to do that (I guess, never), I will test much more than you list.

About PF - I strongly disagree. I did not try to test this here but I have hundreds of shots to pixelpeep, and my copy is not worse than the average L lens I tried or used, and I have experience with many of them. I already posted two crops. Here is another shot, 24/11. Feel free to pixelpeep the upper right corner. There are some signs of not perfectly corrected CA (CA correction is on but PF correction is OFF) but I do not see "spades of PF".

http://www.flickr.com/photos/105206784@N04/10284440233/# (http://www.flickr.com/photos/105206784@N04/10284440233/#)

EDIT: I can believe that you had problems with PF with your copy.

Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: thgmuffin on October 15, 2013, 02:40:51 AM
Is it just me or is the 40mm pancake is sharper than my 24-105? I own both and I love using them both, but I really like the pancake as it is ultra light ;)
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: Sporgon on October 15, 2013, 02:54:15 AM
Is it just me or is the 40mm pancake is sharper than my 24-105? I own both and I love using them both, but I really like the pancake as it is ultra light ;)

Yes the 40 mil achieves more resolution than the 24-105. In actual use it is still noticeably better in the very centre and then far superior mid and edge of frame. As always much more noticeable when resolving detail that is very small within the frame.

It is doubtful you would see any difference in the sort of comparisons the OP has done here though at web resolution levels. Perhaps if you compared the four corners you might see the benefit of the 40.

Don't be fooled by the price of the 40. It's image quality is generally stellar.
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: Pi on October 15, 2013, 10:27:35 AM
Resolution again... Pixel peeping should be allowed with a license only.  :)

The 50/1.8 is even sharper - well, very often not where you focused. I sold it years ago and would never look back.
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: Sporgon on October 15, 2013, 12:09:13 PM
Resolution again... Pixel peeping should be allowed with a license only.  :)


No, not pixel peeping at all, but resolution; yes.

I can see the difference between the 40mm pancake and the 24-105 in a moderately sized print - sometimes. It depends on so many factors. In the centre of the frame the zoom can almost be a match, but not all pictures are about the centre of the frame and that is where the weakness comes in.

I've stated before, at Building Panoramics many of our pictures have been taken on various copies of the 24-105, and as we stitch portrait format frames with a good overlap, always close to or at f8, there is no real discernible difference between this lens and others such as the 35L, 135L, 40mm pancake, 50mm 1.4 even on large 3 metre wide prints.

However if I take a single frame landscape shot with the 24-105 at 24mm, where the detail is small and far away, I am disappointed with the result when compared with a 24mm prime or the new 24-70 L IS. I don't need pixel peeping to see the difference. I would never buy one more expensive lens compared with another if I could only see the difference at 100% on screen.

The 'tests' you have done play to the strength of the 24-105. You have shot in its best focal length ranges at a stopped down aperture of subjects that are quite close to you and relatively easy to resolve, and you have compared it against ultra fast aperture primes which are not the best lenses for stopped down photography ( in the corners ) anyway. Then of course there is the huge compromise with the image size.

I think the 24-105 is a pretty good general purpose lens, but I know where its weaknesses are and try to avoid them. I thought your picture of the temple tower in the misty dusk that you posted as taken with the 24-105 was very good, and I didn't have to pixel peep at that  ;)
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: MrFotoFool on October 15, 2013, 12:19:02 PM
If all the various threads on this lens are to be believed, it has about the widest copy to copy variance of any Canon lens made.  Some people - myself included - love it and find it to be very sharp.  I have never had an issue with sharpness or resolution.  The attached photo is blown up 40 by 60 inches in my loft and to me it looks great.  (Taken with Ektar 100 film, but I also have images with the same lens on a 5D2 digital that look good).

I have also not noticed the alleged purple fringing.  The only lens I have ever noticed it on is my Sigma 85 1.4 (in strongly backlit situations).  IMO, there are one of two things going on with this lens (and perhaps a combination of both).

1. There is a very real quality control issue with some great and some bad copies going out.

2. Since it is an L lens, photo geeks who take the time to post on forums are being overly critical and comparing it at unrealistic amounts of enlargement to more expensive prime lenses.
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: Rienzphotoz on October 15, 2013, 12:59:08 PM
I have also not noticed the alleged purple fringing.  IMO, there are one of two things going on with this lens (and perhaps a combination of both).

1. There is a very real quality control issue with some great and some bad copies going out.

2. Since it is an L lens, photo geeks who take the time to post on forums are being overly critical and comparing it at unrealistic amounts of enlargement to more expensive prime lenses.
+1
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: duydaniel on October 15, 2013, 01:05:40 PM
This is 24-105 at f11
no crop on 5D3
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: sunnyVan on October 15, 2013, 01:07:50 PM
A Honda Accord and a Ferrari can both get you to the same destination.  Question is whether you want excellent performance under extreme condition.  An Accord provides great value for the price. Both can perform well on a local road.  It's on the freeway that they begin to differentiate.

By any measure the 24-105 is an above average performer. Just be realistic and don't expect it to outperform prime lenses.  In the right hands it could be a decent lens producing decent (but not perfect) pictures.   
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: And-Rew on October 15, 2013, 01:28:05 PM
ahhh - the good old 24-105 debate.

All Canon owners should be please with a lens that an awful lot of Nikon owners would love to own if Nikon made anything as good.

Got mine for Xmas in 2007 and it has to be pretty much the first lens that leaves the house on  a body - changing only for a shot that requires a more purposeful lens, or, because i fancied reminding myself of the wonders of a nifty fifty.

It wasn't the sharpest lens i owned, it wasn't the lens with the best build quality - but it was the lens that most often 'get the shot' because of its focal range and quality of glass. Bolt it on a 5Dx series camera and you've got the perfect match - though i have to say my old 40D seemed to enjoy it as well. ;)
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: CarlTN on October 15, 2013, 01:37:27 PM
A few shots, all in good light, all well stopped (f/11), same SS. One is taken with the 24-105, the other with either the 35L, or the 100L. Same parameters in LR, including WB, except for some exposure compensation to equate the brightness. Can you tell which is which? Of course, not a sharpness test, the size is limited to width=1024. One of the "A" images was slightly cropped, and one of the "B" images was slightly cropped as well, for the same AOV. Shot off hand. Camera: 5D2.

Click for "full" size.

(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3740/10237090095_8cd193fbb8_z.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/105206784@N04/10237090095/)
A1 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/105206784@N04/10237090095/#) 

(http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2892/10236983254_baf4f501ae_z.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/105206784@N04/10236983254/)
A2 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/105206784@N04/10236983254/#) 
-------------------------------------------------
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5454/10236959356_6830627fca_z.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/105206784@N04/10236959356/)
B1 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/105206784@N04/10236959356/#)

(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7340/10236956416_26c17e9e5e_z.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/105206784@N04/10236956416/)
B2 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/105206784@N04/10236956416/#) 
---------------------------------
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7396/10237133313_52060d1569_z.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/105206784@N04/10237133313/)
C1 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/105206784@N04/10237133313/#) 

(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3783/10237057115_6b7ab094dc_z.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/105206784@N04/10237057115/)
C2 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/105206784@N04/10237057115/#)

Nice shots of the Vanderbilt house-estate near Asheville, NC...good comparison also.  I'm guessing the frontal shot is cropped a bit?

I recently bought a mint copy of the Canon 24-105.  I had previously rented one a year ago.  The IS seems not very effective, especially at the wide end for some reason.  Canon claims 3 stops, but it's really more like 2 to 2.5.  (The very best IS lens I have used was the 200 f/2L, and I think its IS must be a bit more than 4 stops...)

Other than the IS, and some extreme corner softness (and perhaps a lack of any significant macro magnification), there's really not much to fault about the Canon 24-105.  No doubt the Sigma will be optically superior and its stabilization will be better.  But not only is it a pound or so heavier, but I'll just bet it will cost more than the Canon version has sold for over much of its production run (recent price hikes to over $1000 are ridiculous...I bought a mint copy last week for $725 via Ebay, which was un-used and part of a kit where they had gotten a deal on several of the kits and were selling the lenses, keeping the body.) 

Adding to the cost would be the larger filter size...

I am disappointed in Sigma for bringing forth an f/4 lens, when the real tease was an "f/2" 24-70 zoom lens (whether it had "OS" or not).  Was that tease pure myth?

Since I bought the Canon version, I personally have no use for "super high rez" in an f/4 24-105 zoom lens.  I own the 6D, not a 40+ MP camera (assuming the future Sigma will be that sharp, which it may not be...time will tell.) 

From a current Canon standpoint, a very high resolution lens is better suited for Nikon users...not that they could necessarily exploit full use of it, but their sensors could.

The next wide angle lens I want, is the Zeiss 18mm f/3.5.  It's surely the bargain of all the Zeiss EF mounts.

One final point about my "new" 24-105.  It autofocuses superbly via the 6D, needs no AFMA, and servo tracks extremely well with it (far better than the 135L does...and almost as good as the 70-200 f/4 does).  As for the CA, it's minimal...one click of the checkbox in LR reduces it to absolute zero.  The Sigma 24mm f/1.8 prime I recently bought has far more CA, yet it also gets banished out of existence simply by LR.

So, this thread asks the wrong question.  It's not how bad is it, it's how good is it?
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: CarlTN on October 15, 2013, 01:41:45 PM
This is 24-105 at f11
no crop on 5D3

Nice image!
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: Lichtgestalt on October 15, 2013, 01:57:06 PM
.
Will someone please wake me when it's over?

Thanks.

+1   ;D
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: Fleetie on October 15, 2013, 03:47:42 PM
I'll re-post here something I originally posted about the 24-105L elsewhere; it's more relevant in this thread than in the original one, anyway.


Recently I have been gaining new respect for my 24-105mm lens. I've been finding it sharp pretty much down to pixel level (on my 5D3) at both ends of its zoom range, and wide-open at f/4.I was out with it today (well, yesterday now), and I shot a big public clock face at f/4 and exactly the same at f/8. I could not tell the difference on the LCD at maximum playback magnification, and I couldn't tell between them back home, either.


Also, interestingly (I thought), on a previous trip when I had that lens as my walkabout, I shot an information notice board by the side of a canal. This featured in one area a map with tiny, tiny street names on it; black text on a white background. Conventional wisdom says that SOOC JPGs aren't the best for sharpness, so I took the RAW into DPP and played around with the sharpness sliders. I was unable to improve the legibility of that tiny, tiny text compared to how it was on the SOOC JPG.Sure, I could make it *look* sharper, i.e. have more edge contrast, by playing with the sliders, but always at the cost of actual legibility.


And at any rate, I think the lens, given that it is considered "good, but not super-sharp", did very well indeed. Maybe I'm blessed with a good copy, or maybe my expectations are not "high enough", but I'd say my copy is sharp to damn-near pixel level (on my 5D3), wide-open, and at both zoom extremes.

It certainly does exhibit CA at the edges of the field, but DPP does a very good job of removing that.


I'm curious about the 24-70 f/2.8 L II though, because of the extra aperture, so I may yet buy one. But the 135 f/2 L is probably next. Oh, and the next EOS M when/if they ever get around to releasing it!!
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: mycanonphotos on October 15, 2013, 03:57:01 PM
24-105 is fantastic on the 5D III
ACR edits only on these
(http://jasonsphotography.net/img/s8/v15/p1702374950-4.jpg)
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: CarlTN on October 15, 2013, 03:58:48 PM

I'm curious about the 24-70 f/2.8 L II though, because of the extra aperture, so I may yet buy one. But the 135 f/2 L is probably next. Oh, and the next EOS M when/if they ever get around to releasing it!![/font][/color][/b]


At or close to 105mm, certainly you will notice the 24-105 will lose contrast, sharpness, and color (compared to what it has below 70mm).  This is especially noticeable outside of the center of the frame.  That said though, again...it's nothing that post processing can't fix.  For a 40+ MP sensor though, it would be less ultimate resolution than a sharper lens would be.
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: mycanonphotos on October 15, 2013, 04:02:15 PM
(http://jasonsphotography.net/img/s9/v96/p1797075040-5.jpg)
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: CarlTN on October 15, 2013, 04:03:58 PM
(http://jasonsphotography.net/img/s9/v96/p1797075040-5.jpg)

You've got flare...and what is the large dirt wall behind?
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: triggermike on October 15, 2013, 05:17:12 PM
"No doubt the Sigma will be optically superior"

? Nothing in that MTF chart that leads me to feel this would be so.
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: mycanonphotos on October 15, 2013, 06:11:21 PM
(http://jasonsphotography.net/img/s9/v96/p1797075040-5.jpg)

You've got flare...and what is the large dirt wall behind?

I know...I like that look dont you... thats the chaulk bluffs along the owens river in Bishop, CA
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: Pi on October 15, 2013, 06:59:12 PM
Nice shots of the Vanderbilt house-estate near Asheville, NC...good comparison also.  I'm guessing the frontal shot is cropped a bit?

No, the 100L seems to be longer than the zoom at 100mm, and the zoom is at 96mm, actually.
Quote

So, this thread asks the wrong question.  It's not how bad is it, it's how good is it?

It was a provocative title.  :)
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: Pi on October 15, 2013, 07:17:05 PM
However if I take a single frame landscape shot with the 24-105 at 24mm, where the detail is small and far away, I am disappointed with the result when compared with a 24mm prime or the new 24-70 L IS. 

I mentioned this at least three times. It is not a problem with detail far away, if you focus there. It just has smaller DOF (measured with a really small CoC).

Quote
The 'tests' you have done play to the strength of the 24-105. You have shot in its best focal length ranges at a stopped down aperture of subjects that are quite close to you and relatively easy to resolve, and you have compared it against ultra fast aperture primes which are not the best lenses for stopped down photography ( in the corners ) anyway. Then of course there is the huge compromise with the image size.

I have not done full tests of the 24-105, how many times do I have to repeat this? I had absolutely no intention to compare resolution, wasn't I clear enough since the beginning? You keep talking to yourself.

BTW, do you really believe that the Vanderbilt house was "quite close" to me? Really? And that the 100L is an ultra-fast prime? The full size is available now, feel free to pixelpeep. The differences in resolution are almost non-existent,  the borders included, and the prime has a bit better contrast but not by much. And the long end is supposed to be a really weak spot of the zoom?
Title: Re: A new set: comparisons with the 85L and the 50L
Post by: JonB8305 on October 15, 2013, 10:52:19 PM
Is this Toronto?

Yes, both shots. Last summer, the weather was gorgeous, I had a great time (and I had  to work there, too).

Second you are correct I know nothing about what you know about the 35L because you haven't presented any information in this thread that would tell me you have nothing more than limited hands on knowledge.

I have presented noting to tell you otherwise but you chose to believe what you wanted to believe.

Cool, I stayed at that Marriott a few months ago. I'm assuming those Kayaks are on Toronto island. Thats a gorgeous city.
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: Magnardo on October 16, 2013, 02:40:39 AM
Back and forth like gay marriage.

    Those who like the honda,...24-105 please continue to like it.
Those that like good lenses,....also job well done.

To the dude advocating flare,....Sorry man,...you do not need flare to feel artistic.
In fact,....please try to be artistic without flare.
Exaggerated flare went out of style for at least 2 years now.
Same as making black and white photographs with one element of color in it.
Except for the people in Krakozhia,... everyone knows that by now.
"But did you know the pyramids were actually a mistake?" or,..." Did you know that some owls are not that smart?"

Good luck to all.
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: Rienzphotoz on October 16, 2013, 05:36:57 AM
The 'tests' you have done play to the strength of the 24-105. You have shot in its best focal length ranges at a stopped down aperture of subjects that are quite close to you and relatively easy to resolve, and you have compared it against ultra fast aperture primes which are not the best lenses for stopped down photography ( in the corners ) anyway. Then of course there is the huge compromise with the image size.

how many times do I have to repeat this? I had absolutely no intention to compare resolution, wasn't I clear enough since the beginning?
Well, you did deliberately choose a "provocative title" ... gotta accept some back lash like a man ;)
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: Northstar on October 16, 2013, 05:37:06 AM
I don't see any meaningful differences, if your point is to show that a zoom like the 24-105 performs as well as anything else in normal shooting conditions then you have done so and that's a good point for everyone to keep in mind.

I think it's that simple.

Yes, the 24-105 in normal conditions is a fine lens and can hold its own even when compared to quality primes.
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: Northstar on October 16, 2013, 05:38:44 AM
Back and forth like gay marriage.

    Those who like the honda,...24-105 please continue to like it.
Those that like good lenses,....also job well done.

To the dude advocating flare,....Sorry man,...you do not need flare to feel artistic.
In fact,....please try to be artistic without flare.
Exaggerated flare went out of style for at least 2 years now.
Same as making black and white photographs with one element of color in it.
Except for the people in Krakozhia,... everyone knows that by now.
"But did you know the pyramids were actually a mistake?" or,..." Did you know that some owls are not that smart?"

Good luck to all.

My head hurts after reading your post. ???
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: Rienzphotoz on October 16, 2013, 05:43:01 AM
Back and forth like gay marriage.

    Those who like the honda,...24-105 please continue to like it.
Those that like good lenses,....also job well done.

To the dude advocating flare,....Sorry man,...you do not need flare to feel artistic.
In fact,....please try to be artistic without flare.
Exaggerated flare went out of style for at least 2 years now.
Same as making black and white photographs with one element of color in it.
Except for the people in Krakozhia,... everyone knows that by now.
"But did you know the pyramids were actually a mistake?" or,..." Did you know that some owls are not that smart?"

Good luck to all.

My head hurts after reading your post. ???
Ha ha ha  ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: Magnardo on October 16, 2013, 01:50:10 PM
If your head hurts,...go and and get an oil change.
It might run faster.
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: jdramirez on October 16, 2013, 02:16:21 PM
I have the cash to get a 24-70 mkii,  but I don't think I will.   I'm not that fond of the focal length and while I love s sharp lens,  the 24-105 hasbeen more than sufficient for me
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: canon1dxman on October 16, 2013, 03:16:56 PM
I have the cash to get a 24-70 mkii,  but I don't think I will.   I'm not that fond of the focal length and while I love s sharp lens,  the 24-105 hasbeen more than sufficient for me

Same here. I have had a 24-105 for many years and used it with a 1D3, 7D and 1Dx. It's not perfect by any means but it's, for me, a great all round lens that I have no intention of selling. I can live with it's minor failings. It's still worth as much on the used market in the UK that I paid for it new which speaks volumes.
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: CarlTN on October 16, 2013, 03:55:15 PM
Nice shots of the Vanderbilt house-estate near Asheville, NC...good comparison also.  I'm guessing the frontal shot is cropped a bit?

No, the 100L seems to be longer than the zoom at 100mm, and the zoom is at 96mm, actually.
Quote

So, this thread asks the wrong question.  It's not how bad is it, it's how good is it?

It was a provocative title.  :)

Haha, ok...And you're saying the frontal shot is not cropped?  Was this done with a crop camera?  Seems like if you were on the observation hill with the walkway, at the other end of the "front yard", then the mansion would show smaller in the field of view (at least on a full frame camera at 100mm).  I could be wrong...I've not visited there since I got into digital photography.  Were these shot very recently?
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: CarlTN on October 16, 2013, 03:57:53 PM

I know...I like that look dont you... thats the chaulk bluffs along the owens river in Bishop, CA

Interesting bluffs, they look man-made.  I don't really care for the flare, myself...it's a bit too pronounced, and has the look of it being unintentional...It's not a terrible picture though :P
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: hwoarang5 on October 17, 2013, 06:28:24 AM
24-105 F4 is not bad at all if u match it with a great body like 5dmkIII, i love it... only draw back is the focusing softness issue which can be calibrated... apart of that its a awesome lens ...
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: Pi on October 17, 2013, 09:00:50 AM
Haha, ok...And you're saying the frontal shot is not cropped?  Was this done with a crop camera?  Seems like if you were on the observation hill with the walkway, at the other end of the "front yard", then the mansion would show smaller in the field of view (at least on a full frame camera at 100mm).  I could be wrong...I've not visited there since I got into digital photography.  Were these shot very recently?

Shot with FF, no cropping at all. 96mm vs. 100mm according to the EXIF. Yes, I was on the observation hill.  Shot a week or so ago.
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: CarlTN on October 25, 2013, 07:40:05 PM
Haha, ok...And you're saying the frontal shot is not cropped?  Was this done with a crop camera?  Seems like if you were on the observation hill with the walkway, at the other end of the "front yard", then the mansion would show smaller in the field of view (at least on a full frame camera at 100mm).  I could be wrong...I've not visited there since I got into digital photography.  Were these shot very recently?

Shot with FF, no cropping at all. 96mm vs. 100mm according to the EXIF. Yes, I was on the observation hill.  Shot a week or so ago.

Have you ever stayed at the house?
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: Pi on October 25, 2013, 08:28:27 PM
I did not even know that one could stay there (or on the estate). I spent one full day there.
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: CarlTN on October 25, 2013, 08:36:44 PM
I did not even know that one could stay there (or on the estate). I spent one full day there.

Well, I don't know if you still can, but you could stay as of a couple of years ago.  I've only been there twice, would like to go again.  Btw, on Wednesday we drove over the Cherohala Skyway, was lovely...ice on the fall foliage.  Not as good as snow, but still nice.  Got some quite decent shots, may attempt to sell a few.  Even though the Harley ride was last weekend, there were still a few crazy riders out in the freezing cold...I don't understand them.
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: Rienzphotoz on October 26, 2013, 04:13:22 AM
Even though the Harley ride was last weekend, there were still a few crazy riders out in the freezing cold...I don't understand them.
I never understand them. A 60 year old colleague of mine (who regularly buys some of my camera gear) had a heart attack last year while driving his Harley (luckily survived the fall) ... the doc told him to take it easy but the guy was driving his Harley in less than a month of his stroke ... I keep telling him that I am worried for him coz I might lose a good customer. ;D
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: YuengLinger on October 26, 2013, 06:52:47 AM
Going for color today, photographing a gay pride parade.  Held at high noon.  I'm bringing the 24-105mm because it works best in full sun with subjects close or medium distance.  Plus it's focal range is great for such occasions.

Will also bring 70=200mm in case, and for speeches and music on a stage after the parade.

I have a 24-70mm, but because of the expected usual issues with noon sun, and the slightly shorter range, will be leaving it at home.

If the weather were cloudy, I'd probably bring the 24-70mm, as my 24-105mm does not like overcast days.
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: Pi on October 26, 2013, 10:45:20 AM
If the weather were cloudy, I'd probably bring the 24-70mm, as my 24-105mm does not like overcast days.

Since you have both zooms, perhaps you can post a comparison in an overcast day? One of the obvious advantages I can see is to shoot wide open; then the 24-70 would blur more the grayish background and make the main subject pop more but I am wondering if there is some other difference even at the same aperture. And I am not talking about resolution.
Title: Re: How bad is the 24-105?
Post by: CarlTN on October 28, 2013, 02:55:45 PM
Even though the Harley ride was last weekend, there were still a few crazy riders out in the freezing cold...I don't understand them.
I never understand them. A 60 year old colleague of mine (who regularly buys some of my camera gear) had a heart attack last year while driving his Harley (luckily survived the fall) ... the doc told him to take it easy but the guy was driving his Harley in less than a month of his stroke ... I keep telling him that I am worried for him coz I might lose a good customer. ;D

Haha, oh my!  Well I know why women like to ride Harleys, but can't understand why men like riding them so much...especially alone without the woman!  I guess it's not difficult to pick up women on a Harley (because of the previous unstated reason??  Hahahaha)... 

For myself, I prefer to save my hearing for listening to high end audio.  There's no amount of noise cancelling or earplugs that can filter out the low-end of the Harley (or other loud bike) drone...I also don't like the idea of being on any bike on the road.  Enough people have road rage with me (and vice versa) and have tried to kill me many times over the years...just while driving my car.  If I road bikes on the road very much, I would have been dead long ago.  Offroad is another story...but I've spent so much money on camera gear that I need to sell one of those bikes.