July 24, 2014, 07:34:32 PM

Author Topic: How bad is the 24-105?  (Read 15479 times)

Pi

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
    • Math and Photography
Re: How bad is the 24-105?
« Reply #15 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.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: How bad is the 24-105?
« Reply #15 on: October 13, 2013, 12:47:10 AM »

Pi

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
    • Math and Photography
Re: How bad is the 24-105?
« Reply #16 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?

LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3284
    • View Profile
Re: How bad is the 24-105?
« Reply #17 on: October 13, 2013, 12:53:18 AM »

skoobey

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 67
    • View Profile
Re: How bad is the 24-105?
« Reply #18 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?

Magnardo

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 34
  • Beauty exists even if the beholder is blind.
    • View Profile
Re: How bad is the 24-105?
« Reply #19 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.
   
Beauty exists even if the beholder is blind.

Zv

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1151
    • View Profile
    • Zee-bytes
Re: How bad is the 24-105?
« Reply #20 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!
5D II | 17-40L | 24-105L | 70-200 f4L IS | 135L | SY 14mm f/2.8 | Sigma 50 f/1.4

EOS M | 22 f/2 | 11-22 IS

Sporgon

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1682
  • 5% of gear used 95% of the time
    • View Profile
    • www.buildingpanoramics.com
Re: How bad is the 24-105?
« Reply #21 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.



canon rumors FORUM

Re: How bad is the 24-105?
« Reply #21 on: October 13, 2013, 03:02:16 AM »

Magnardo

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 34
  • Beauty exists even if the beholder is blind.
    • View Profile
Re: How bad is the 24-105?
« Reply #22 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.
Beauty exists even if the beholder is blind.

Sporgon

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1682
  • 5% of gear used 95% of the time
    • View Profile
    • www.buildingpanoramics.com
Re: How bad is the 24-105?
« Reply #23 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.  ;)

J.R.

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1461
  • A Speedlight Junkie!
    • View Profile
Re: How bad is the 24-105?
« Reply #24 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  :)
Light is language!

Tyroop

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
Re: How bad is the 24-105?
« Reply #25 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?

Rienzphotoz

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3320
  • Peace unto all ye Canon, Nikon & Sony shooters
    • View Profile
Re: How bad is the 24-105?
« Reply #26 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.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2013, 05:37:19 AM by Rienzphotoz »
Canon 5DMK3 70D | Nikon D610 | Sony a7 a6000 | RX100M3 | 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 | 10-18/4 OSS 16-50 | 24-70/4OSS | 55/1.8 | 55-210 OSS | 70-200/4 OSS | 28-300VR | HVL-F43M | GoPro Black 3+ & DJI Phantom

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 13536
    • View Profile
Re: How bad is the 24-105?
« Reply #27 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.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

canon rumors FORUM

Re: How bad is the 24-105?
« Reply #27 on: October 13, 2013, 06:57:20 AM »

jdramirez

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2166
    • View Profile
Re: How bad is the 24-105?
« Reply #28 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.
Upgrade  path.->means the former was sold for the latter.

XS->60D->5d Mkiii:18-55->24-105L:75-300->55-250->70-300->70-200 f4L USM->70-200 f/2.8L USM->70-200 f/2.8L IS Mkii:50 f/1.8->50 f/1.4->100 f/2.8L->85mm f/1.8 USM->135L -> 8mm ->100L

Pi

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
    • Math and Photography
Re: How bad is the 24-105?
« Reply #29 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.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2013, 10:43:43 AM by Pi »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: How bad is the 24-105?
« Reply #29 on: October 13, 2013, 09:34:04 AM »