Thanks, Sporgon, for your reply.
You're right, I totally messed up the specs of the 70-300L photo
, the picture was taken at 70mm f4.
But regarding contrast and distance the pictures were all taken under very similar circumstances:
- the distance was roughly 20-30 times the focal length
- for lighting i used a directed 1000W light (classical bulb no pulsed light-source)
- camera mounted on a tripod on the same height above the ground directed perpendicular to the target
- fairly small target to reduce remaining angular misalignments
- liveview+phase af
- eos util and 200% magnification to optimize the focus
The pictures are indeed heavily cropped, the attached photos are 100% crops of the original image. However there is one thing that I'm pretty unsure afterwards: if I really did switch IS off. Maybe I'll repeat the test.
Regarding the lens hood, it's good to know that this is quite normal for that lens. The last lens I owned that had a similar stiff (and scratchy mount) was my ancient EF 28-80 USM MkI.
Thanks a lot!
Don't expect the 24-105 L to be as sharp as the 70-300 L. But your tests are flawed. [..]
First off your lighting looks very flat, low contrast, which results in less sharpness. It also tends to equal lenses perceived sharpness, or lack of.
[..]Remember to switch IS off.
And yes the 24-105 lens hood is stiff - I'd call it positive. Been like that on all the copies I have used.