« 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!!