How bad is the 24-105?

[Pi]

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

 

[scott]

number 1 a,b,&c

 

[Pi]

number 1 a,b,&c

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

 

[Dylan777]

@ f11, my RX100 II will deliver same result in the sunny day :-\

 

[skoobey]

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]

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.

 

[Pi]

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.

 

[Pi]

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]

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]

Who said it's a bad lens??? ;D

Two people so far.

 

[skoobey]

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]

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]

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.

 

[seamonster]

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.

 

[J.R.]

@ 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

 

[Pi]

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.

 

[Pi]

@ f11, my RX100 II will deliver same result in the sunny day :-\

As the 35L on FF?

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Who said it's a bad lens??? ;D

Two people so far.

three ;D me

 

[skoobey]

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]

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.