Help: 5D III & 24-105 sharpness

[Dylan777]

Hi guys,
With your expert eyes, can you guys tell me if I need to bring my lens 24-105 and 5d III to Canon Service Center for lens calibration or Micro Adjustment?

Thank you,
Dylan

http://s1195.photobucket.com/albums/aa384/fifo_warehouse/5D%20III%20ISO%20100%20Sharpness%20Test/?start=all

[dturano]

Other than boring suburban photos    looks like what you would expect from average photos.  The first seem to have some color finge when zoomed in but thats nothing crazy.  Images look sharp, nice colors.

I dont consider my eyes expert eyes, I trust what i shoot and just get a feel for what i like and dont like, as far as technical issues with your gear, I would just get out and shoot a lot in the next whatever your return window is, if in however many days you aren't satisfied, aren't wowed compared to your 60d, or have doubts about if things are working properly, box it all up and start with something else.

I asked a friend, why do you shoot canon over nikon, "i dont know, canon felt more comfortable - in my end results, nikon didn't do it for me"  its a feeling and a comfort level.  If the new camera didnt do it for you, maybe its fine equipment but you expected more or want something else form your gear.

I understand your probably nervous based on the recent posts of issues, dont let it get to you if it is, get out and enjoy the new gear, if issues develop you will probably recognize it.  If they dont and you are always worried, get a new camera.  I love cameras new and old, and obsessed the first few hours of receiving my 5dmk3, but after looking at the results of the jpg i shot, im thrilled and really happy with the upgrade.

[Chris Geiger]

The photos look ok but can't really tell with seeing a 100% crop of the focus area. Shoot the same object with both your 24-105 and your 70-200 at f4 and see how the sharpness compares (pick a common focal length like 105mm). Also you can do the micro adjustment yourself, no need to send it in something that simple.

Try shooting something like a tape measure from one end. With your photo you will be able to see if focus is right on or is too far forward or backward. Adjust accordingly and retest.

Here is an example photo.  Do the test a few times to verify the results.

[EvilTed]

I think a great deal of the soft image problems are stemming from the 24-105mm lens they are shipping as a kit lens.
I took test shots with mine when I received it and I hated the results.
Soft, dull, dark and not what I was expecting from a highly rated camera.
My previous Nikon D7000 + 50mm F/1.4 G was way way sharper and brighter.
I was almost in the same boat as you, but I just didn't believe the camera was at fault.

For shits and giggles I ordered a $100 50mm F/1.8 which arrived from Amazon today.
I also changed the focusing to single point (which I do with primes anyway).
The results are absolutely stunning and tack sharp and now way way better than the D7000 combo

My advice, if you want those tack sharp but dreamy bokeh shots, you need to get fast primes and learn how to shoot them.
$100 is a good way to learn and a lot lighter to lug around than the 24-105...

ET

[marekjoz]

Hi guys,
With your expert eyes, can you guys tell me if I need to bring my lens 24-105 and 5d III to Canon Service Center for lens calibration or Micro Adjustment?

Thank you,
Dylan

http://s1195.photobucket.com/albums/aa384/fifo_warehouse/5D%20III%20ISO%20100%20Sharpness%20Test/?start=all

 Abit difficult to tell not knowing what you pointed when focusing.

[ereka]

I think a great deal of the soft image problems are stemming from the 24-105mm lens they are shipping as a kit lens.
I took test shots with mine when I received it and I hated the results.
Soft, dull, dark and not what I was expecting from a highly rated camera.
ET

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,303.0.html

[AUGS]

I think a great deal of the soft image problems are stemming from the 24-105mm lens they are shipping as a kit lens.
I took test shots with mine when I received it and I hated the results.
Soft, dull, dark and not what I was expecting from a highly rated camera.
My previous Nikon D7000 + 50mm F/1.4 G was way way sharper and brighter.
I was almost in the same boat as you, but I just didn't believe the camera was at fault.
For S___s and giggles I ordered a $100 50mm F/1.8 which arrived from Amazon today.
I also changed the focusing to single point (which I do with primes anyway).
The results are absolutely stunning and tack sharp and now way way better than the D7000 combo
My advice, if you want those tack sharp but dreamy bokeh shots, you need to get fast primes and learn how to shoot them.
$100 is a good way to learn and a lot lighter to lug around than the 24-105...
ET

The nifty 50 is a great lens, I agree.  Have you tried your 24-105 lens with only single point focusing?  What were the results like?

[dturano]

I have only had the 25-105 for one day, pretty happy with the results.  Only shot in jpg since no raw support in aperture yet.  Minor teak in aperture.


Here is a direct link
http://danturano.com/dgreg/DTT_0201.jpg


Here at 100%

http://danturano.com/dgreg/DTT_0201100.jpg

[JR]

Hi guys,
With your expert eyes, can you guys tell me if I need to bring my lens 24-105 and 5d III to Canon Service Center for lens calibration or Micro Adjustment?

Thank you,
Dylan

http://s1195.photobucket.com/albums/aa384/fifo_warehouse/5D%20III%20ISO%20100%20Sharpness%20Test/?start=all

Sorry cant view the image from work but as others elluded to, first make sure you are using single point AF or single spot AF when you make your test.  Next, if you have another lens (or rent one if you can) do the same test and see if you still have softness.

Personally I always found the 24-105 copy I tried to be on the "soft" side compared to my other L prime lenses.  That is why I prefer getting the body only and get the 24-70 II later instead...

[neuroanatomist]

I think a great deal of the soft image problems are stemming from the 24-105mm lens they are shipping as a kit lens.
I took test shots with mine when I received it and I hated the results.
...I ordered a $100 50mm F/1.8 which arrived from Amazon today.
I also changed the focusing to single point (which I do with primes anyway).

Sounds like the problem with the 24-105mm wasn't the lens, but maybe the person holding the camera.  If you let the camera decide what it thinks you want to focus on, and don't like the results, the camera isn't to blame. 

As the above example shows (and I have many similarly sharp shots from my 24-105mm), the lens is fine. 

I AM Ken Rockwell and you've all been had!

Well, probably not...but you seem to be doing a fair imitation...   

[marekjoz]

I have only had the 25-105 for one day, pretty happy with the results.  Only shot in jpg since no raw support in aperture yet.  Minor teak in aperture.


Here is a direct link
http://danturano.com/dgreg/DTT_0201.jpg


Here at 100%

http://danturano.com/dgreg/DTT_0201100.jpg

The fan at the ceiling was off or the shutter was so high?
Nice result

[Drizzt321]

I have only had the 25-105 for one day, pretty happy with the results.  Only shot in jpg since no raw support in aperture yet.  Minor teak in aperture.


Here is a direct link
http://danturano.com/dgreg/DTT_0201.jpg


Here at 100%

http://danturano.com/dgreg/DTT_0201100.jpg

The fan at the ceiling was off or the shutter was so high?
Nice result

I think his point with the 2nd photo was the actual eyes seem slightly soft/out of focus, like the actual plane of focus is slightly forward or back from the actual eye ball.

[stipotle]

Thank you dturano, I am taking your photo as final proof that the MkIII is a great camera. (I didn't really doubt that, though it's tough with all the awful shots people have been posting on here the last week with their complaints)

Looks sharp and beautiful to me, but I recognized a familiar blur I get if the camera is set to auto or aperture priority and my flash sync isn't set to 1/200 (in the custom functions). While I am writing this, I see someone posted about it looking out of focus. I think it's just the 1/60 exposure with the flash.
Maybe you know all about it already and just hadn't set it yet (or maybe I'm mistaken), but if you didn't it can make a big difference so I thought I'd mention it.

 

I have only had the 25-105 for one day, pretty happy with the results.  Only shot in jpg since no raw support in aperture yet.  Minor teak in aperture.

[Dylan777]

[/quote]

Sounds like the problem with the 24-105mm wasn't the lens, but maybe the person holding the camera.  If you let the camera decide what it thinks you want to focus on, and don't like the results, the camera isn't to blame. 

As the above example shows (and I have many similarly sharp shots from my 24-105mm), the lens is fine. 

I AM Ken Rockwell and you've all been had!

Well, probably not...but you seem to be doing a fair imitation...   
[/quote]

neuroanatomist,
These pics were shot with Tv mode, selected single AF, with all NR in camera off.

The camera didn't select focus points, I did - maybe that the problem

I do not have problem with sharpness with 70-200 f2.8 IS II on 5D III.

My 24-105 works just fine with my 5D II, but not on 5D III.

I highlighted the focus areas, see pics

[Drizzt321]

Thank you dturano, I am taking your photo as final proof that the MkIII is a great camera. (I didn't really doubt that, though it's tough with all the awful shots people have been posting on here the last week with their complaints)

Looks sharp and beautiful to me, but I recognized a familiar blur I get if the camera is set to auto or aperture priority and my flash sync isn't set to 1/200 (in the custom functions). While I am writing this, I see someone posted about it looking out of focus. I think it's just the 1/60 exposure with the flash.
Maybe you know all about it already and just hadn't set it yet (or maybe I'm mistaken), but if you didn't it can make a big difference so I thought I'd mention it.

 

I have only had the 25-105 for one day, pretty happy with the results.  Only shot in jpg since no raw support in aperture yet.  Minor teak in aperture.

Ah, very good point. I didn't look at the EXIF, I thought this was with a much faster shutter speed. Totally agree, I think it was probably a shutter at 1/60 with some subject movement.