November 27, 2014, 12:46:22 AM

Author Topic: How bad is the 24-105?  (Read 17929 times)

Pi

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
    • Math and Photography
How bad is the 24-105?
« 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.


A1 


A2 
-------------------------------------------------

B1


B2 
---------------------------------

C1 


C2 
« Last Edit: October 12, 2013, 10:28:05 PM by Pi »

canon rumors FORUM

How bad is the 24-105?
« on: October 12, 2013, 10:21:09 PM »

scott

  • Power Shot G7X
  • **
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
Re: How bad is the 24-105?
« Reply #1 on: October 12, 2013, 10:38:13 PM »
number 1 a,b,&c

Pi

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
    • Math and Photography
Re: How bad is the 24-105?
« Reply #2 on: October 12, 2013, 10:46:46 PM »
number 1 a,b,&c

You mean, A1, B1, C1 is the zoom?

Dylan777

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4279
    • View Profile
Re: How bad is the 24-105?
« Reply #3 on: October 12, 2013, 11:14:57 PM »
@ f11, my RX100 II will deliver same result in the sunny day :-\
Bodies: 1DX -- 5D III
Zooms: 16-35L f4 IS -- 24-70L II -- 70-200L f2.8 IS II
Primes: 40mm -- 85L II -- 135L -- 200L f2 IS -- 400L f2.8 IS II

skoobey

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 103
    • View Profile
Re: How bad is the 24-105?
« Reply #4 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.

Magnardo

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 34
  • Beauty exists even if the beholder is blind.
    • View Profile
Re: How bad is the 24-105?
« Reply #5 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.
Beauty exists even if the beholder is blind.

Pi

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
    • Math and Photography
Re: How bad is the 24-105?
« Reply #6 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.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: How bad is the 24-105?
« Reply #6 on: October 12, 2013, 11:57:35 PM »

Pi

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
    • Math and Photography
Re: How bad is the 24-105?
« Reply #7 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.  :)

Kwanon

  • Guest
Re: How bad is the 24-105?
« Reply #8 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.

Pi

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
    • Math and Photography
Re: How bad is the 24-105?
« Reply #9 on: October 13, 2013, 12:14:16 AM »
Who said it's a bad lens???  ;D

Two people so far.  :)

skoobey

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 103
    • View Profile
Re: How bad is the 24-105?
« Reply #10 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.

pwp

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1615
    • View Profile
Re: How bad is the 24-105?
« Reply #11 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

skoobey

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 103
    • View Profile
Re: How bad is the 24-105?
« Reply #12 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.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: How bad is the 24-105?
« Reply #12 on: October 13, 2013, 12:23:39 AM »

seamonster

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 39
    • View Profile
Re: How bad is the 24-105?
« Reply #13 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.
[5D Mk.III] [40mm f/2.8 STM] [85mm f/1.8 USM] [24-105mm f/4L IS USM] [70-200mm f/4L IS USM] [Tamron SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD] [600 EX-RT]

J.R.

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1515
    • View Profile
Re: How bad is the 24-105?
« Reply #14 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
« Last Edit: October 13, 2013, 12:48:19 AM by J.R. »
5D3, 6D, 600D, RX100
16-35L, 24-70L II, 70-200L II, 100-400L, 50L, 85L II, 135L, 24TSE, 40, 100 macro, 18-55 II, 55-250 II, 600RT x 4
I come here to learn something new, not to learn how bad my gear is - I know that already ;-)!

canon rumors FORUM

Re: How bad is the 24-105?
« Reply #14 on: October 13, 2013, 12:44:12 AM »