April 20, 2014, 08:55:54 PM

Author Topic: How bad is the 24-105?  (Read 12993 times)

Pi

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
    • Math and Photography
Answers:
« Reply #30 on: October 13, 2013, 09:36:44 AM »
CORRECTION!

The zoom is used in A1, B1 and C2.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2013, 02:15:44 PM by Pi »

canon rumors FORUM

Answers:
« Reply #30 on: October 13, 2013, 09:36:44 AM »

Pi

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
    • Math and Photography
A new set: comparisons with the 85L and the 50L
« Reply #31 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:

D1
 


D2

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


E1 


E2 

drmikeinpdx

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 265
  • Photographing stuff for over 40 years!
    • View Profile
    • Beyond Boudoir Photo
Re: How bad is the 24-105?
« Reply #32 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.
Current bodies:  5D3, 7D, 550D, S100
Favorite lenses: 135 f/2.0 L, 85 f/1.8 200 f/2.8 L, 50 f1.4 Sigma, 40mm pancake, 24-105 L.
blog:   http://www.BeyondBoudoirPhoto.com

distant.star

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1342
    • View Profile
    • Tracy's Shooting Gallery
Re: How bad is the 24-105?
« Reply #33 on: October 13, 2013, 12:45:24 PM »
.
Will someone please wake me when it's over?

Thanks.

Walter: Were you listening to The Dude's story? Donny: I was bowling. Walter: So you have no frame of reference here, Donny. You're like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie and wants to know...

Rienzphotoz

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 3255
  • Peace unto all ye Canon, Nikon & Sony shooters
    • View Profile
Re: How bad is the 24-105?
« Reply #34 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
Canon 5DMK3 70D G1X | Nikon D610 | Sony a7 | 16-35/2.8LII | 70-200/2.8LISII | 100/2.8LIS | 100-400LIS | 40/2.8 | 50/1.4 | 85/1.8 | 600EX-RTx2 | ST-E3-RT | 24/3.5 T-S | 24-70OSS | 28-300VR | HVL-F43M | Metabones EF adapter | GoPro Black 3+ | DJI Quadcopter | Manfrotto+Gorilap

LetTheRightLensIn

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 2987
    • View Profile
Re: How bad is the 24-105?
« Reply #35 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).
« Last Edit: October 13, 2013, 02:08:45 PM by LetTheRightLensIn »

Pi

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
    • Math and Photography
Re: How bad is the 24-105?
« Reply #36 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.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: How bad is the 24-105?
« Reply #36 on: October 13, 2013, 02:32:32 PM »

Dylan777

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 3146
    • View Profile
    • http://www.dylanphotography.phanfare.com/
Re: How bad is the 24-105?
« Reply #37 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.

Body: 5D III(x2) -- A7r
Zoom: 16-35L II -- 24-70L II -- 70-200L f2.8 IS II
Prime: 40mm -- 50L -- 85L II -- 135L -- 400L f2.8 IS II -- Zeiss FE 55mm f1.8

Rienzphotoz

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 3255
  • Peace unto all ye Canon, Nikon & Sony shooters
    • View Profile
Re: How bad is the 24-105?
« Reply #38 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.
???
Canon 5DMK3 70D G1X | Nikon D610 | Sony a7 | 16-35/2.8LII | 70-200/2.8LISII | 100/2.8LIS | 100-400LIS | 40/2.8 | 50/1.4 | 85/1.8 | 600EX-RTx2 | ST-E3-RT | 24/3.5 T-S | 24-70OSS | 28-300VR | HVL-F43M | Metabones EF adapter | GoPro Black 3+ | DJI Quadcopter | Manfrotto+Gorilap

Janbo Makimbo

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 156
  • 6D
    • View Profile
Re: How bad is the 24-105?
« Reply #39 on: October 13, 2013, 04:41:45 PM »
Its a fine lens...... In the right hands!!

Pi

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
    • Math and Photography
Re: How bad is the 24-105?
« Reply #40 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.  ;)

Skulker

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 313
    • View Profile
Re: How bad is the 24-105?
« Reply #41 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

Sporgon

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1455
  • 5% of gear used 95% of the time
    • View Profile
    • www.buildingpanoramics.com
Re: How bad is the 24-105?
« Reply #42 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

canon rumors FORUM

Re: How bad is the 24-105?
« Reply #42 on: October 13, 2013, 05:45:26 PM »

Pi

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
    • Math and Photography
Re: How bad is the 24-105?
« Reply #43 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?

Pi

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
    • Math and Photography
Re: How bad is the 24-105?
« Reply #44 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.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: How bad is the 24-105?
« Reply #44 on: October 14, 2013, 08:20:06 PM »