How bad is the 24-105?

[takesome1]

Re: A new set: comparisons with the 85L and the 50L

Is this Toronto?

Yes, both shots. Last summer, the weather was gorgeous, I had a great time (and I had to work there, too).

Second you are correct I know nothing about what you know about the 35L because you haven't presented any information in this thread that would tell me you have nothing more than limited hands on knowledge.

I have presented noting to tell you otherwise but you chose to believe what you wanted to believe.

Since the bottom was a response to my quote and not candc;
I agreed with you, you have presented nothing to tell us otherwise so I do not believe one way or the other what you know or do not know about the 35L.

The reason I make the comment about the 35mm L is that by testing at a very narrow aperture in bright sunlight many of the advantages that the 35mm would have over the 24-105mm disappear. Why would someone that knows the benefit of the 35mm L set up a comparison that neutralizes its advantage to show that the 24-105mm can perform as well?

The exercise appeared pointless, and you have already said it had no point. I agree.

 

[Pi]

Re: A new set: comparisons with the 85L and the 50L

Why would someone that knows the benefit of the 35mm L set up a comparison that neutralizes its advantage to show that the 24-105mm can perform as well?

To test things that are not so obvious, I explained it a few times already. "Clarity", contrast, including micro-contrast, color rendition, how well it performs in landscape type of shots (even though the Biltmore garden pair may not be considered a typical landscape). With respect to the latter, it does not perform as well.

BTW, the garden shots got about 150-200 view on Flickr for two days or so, not bad for a pointless comparison. Many of my "artistic" shots on my other Flickr account receive much less attention.

 

[takesome1]

Re: A new set: comparisons with the 85L and the 50L

BTW, the garden shots got about 150-200 view on Flickr for two days or so, not bad for a pointless comparison. Many of my "artistic" shots on my other Flickr account receive much less attention.

People like a puzzle.

 

[RLPhoto]

I didn't find it a bad lens at all for what it is.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

A problem with this test is that the 24-105 never really suffered from poor color or large-scale contrast, it has fairly rich color and large-scale contrast, not best of the best of the best, but better than most to all non-L from Canon and most non-Zeiss Distagon. It struggles with distortion (which you corrected), sharpness (center compared to the best but OK and edges/corners, especially at the wide end near 24mm) and micro-contrast, purple fringing under some conditions (not tested here), curvature and DOF that don't fit certain types of natural world scenes at the end end (not tested here).

 

[Pi]

A problem with this test is that the 24-105 never really suffered from poor color or large-scale contrast, it has fairly rich color and large-scale contrast, not best of the best of the best, but better than most to all non-L from Canon and most non-Zeiss Distagon. It struggles with distortion (which you corrected), sharpness (center compared to the best but OK and edges/corners, especially at the wide end near 24mm) and micro-contrast, purple fringing under some conditions (not tested here), curvature and DOF that don't fit certain types of natural world scenes at the end end (not tested here).

I did not try to test everything possible. Those are just fun shots. I do not even believe much in direct comparisons - I believe in long term experience (something I learned in my audiophile past). I mentioned above, for example, that it can suffer from loss of contrast in strong direct light (like large areas of overcast sky in the frame), weakness at 24mm. I did notice DOF/curvature problems (the garden shot), and I mentioned it several times. Again, this is not a test of the 24-105! If I ever decide to do that (I guess, never), I will test much more than you list.

About PF - I strongly disagree. I did not try to test this here but I have hundreds of shots to pixelpeep, and my copy is not worse than the average L lens I tried or used, and I have experience with many of them. I already posted two crops. Here is another shot, 24/11. Feel free to pixelpeep the upper right corner. There are some signs of not perfectly corrected CA (CA correction is on but PF correction is OFF) but I do not see "spades of PF".

http://www.flickr.com/photos/105206784@N04/10284440233/#

EDIT: I can believe that you had problems with PF with your copy.

 

[thgmuffin]

Is it just me or is the 40mm pancake is sharper than my 24-105? I own both and I love using them both, but I really like the pancake as it is ultra light

 

[Sporgon]

Is it just me or is the 40mm pancake is sharper than my 24-105? I own both and I love using them both, but I really like the pancake as it is ultra light

Yes the 40 mil achieves more resolution than the 24-105. In actual use it is still noticeably better in the very centre and then far superior mid and edge of frame. As always much more noticeable when resolving detail that is very small within the frame.

It is doubtful you would see any difference in the sort of comparisons the OP has done here though at web resolution levels. Perhaps if you compared the four corners you might see the benefit of the 40.

Don't be fooled by the price of the 40. It's image quality is generally stellar.

 

[Pi]

Resolution again... Pixel peeping should be allowed with a license only.

The 50/1.8 is even sharper - well, very often not where you focused. I sold it years ago and would never look back.

 

[Sporgon]

Resolution again... Pixel peeping should be allowed with a license only.

No, not pixel peeping at all, but resolution; yes.

I can see the difference between the 40mm pancake and the 24-105 in a moderately sized print - sometimes. It depends on so many factors. In the centre of the frame the zoom can almost be a match, but not all pictures are about the centre of the frame and that is where the weakness comes in.

I've stated before, at Building Panoramics many of our pictures have been taken on various copies of the 24-105, and as we stitch portrait format frames with a good overlap, always close to or at f8, there is no real discernible difference between this lens and others such as the 35L, 135L, 40mm pancake, 50mm 1.4 even on large 3 metre wide prints.

However if I take a single frame landscape shot with the 24-105 at 24mm, where the detail is small and far away, I am disappointed with the result when compared with a 24mm prime or the new 24-70 L IS. I don't need pixel peeping to see the difference. I would never buy one more expensive lens compared with another if I could only see the difference at 100% on screen.

The 'tests' you have done play to the strength of the 24-105. You have shot in its best focal length ranges at a stopped down aperture of subjects that are quite close to you and relatively easy to resolve, and you have compared it against ultra fast aperture primes which are not the best lenses for stopped down photography ( in the corners ) anyway. Then of course there is the huge compromise with the image size.

I think the 24-105 is a pretty good general purpose lens, but I know where its weaknesses are and try to avoid them. I thought your picture of the temple tower in the misty dusk that you posted as taken with the 24-105 was very good, and I didn't have to pixel peep at that

 

[MrFotoFool]

If all the various threads on this lens are to be believed, it has about the widest copy to copy variance of any Canon lens made. Some people - myself included - love it and find it to be very sharp. I have never had an issue with sharpness or resolution. The attached photo is blown up 40 by 60 inches in my loft and to me it looks great. (Taken with Ektar 100 film, but I also have images with the same lens on a 5D2 digital that look good).

I have also not noticed the alleged purple fringing. The only lens I have ever noticed it on is my Sigma 85 1.4 (in strongly backlit situations). IMO, there are one of two things going on with this lens (and perhaps a combination of both).

1. There is a very real quality control issue with some great and some bad copies going out.

2. Since it is an L lens, photo geeks who take the time to post on forums are being overly critical and comparing it at unrealistic amounts of enlargement to more expensive prime lenses.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

I have also not noticed the alleged purple fringing. IMO, there are one of two things going on with this lens (and perhaps a combination of both).

1. There is a very real quality control issue with some great and some bad copies going out.

2. Since it is an L lens, photo geeks who take the time to post on forums are being overly critical and comparing it at unrealistic amounts of enlargement to more expensive prime lenses.

+1

 

[duydaniel]

This is 24-105 at f11
no crop on 5D3

 

[sunnyVan]

A Honda Accord and a Ferrari can both get you to the same destination. Question is whether you want excellent performance under extreme condition. An Accord provides great value for the price. Both can perform well on a local road. It's on the freeway that they begin to differentiate.

By any measure the 24-105 is an above average performer. Just be realistic and don't expect it to outperform prime lenses. In the right hands it could be a decent lens producing decent (but not perfect) pictures.

 

[And-Rew]

ahhh - the good old 24-105 debate.

All Canon owners should be please with a lens that an awful lot of Nikon owners would love to own if Nikon made anything as good.

Got mine for Xmas in 2007 and it has to be pretty much the first lens that leaves the house on a body - changing only for a shot that requires a more purposeful lens, or, because i fancied reminding myself of the wonders of a nifty fifty.

It wasn't the sharpest lens i owned, it wasn't the lens with the best build quality - but it was the lens that most often 'get the shot' because of its focal range and quality of glass. Bolt it on a 5Dx series camera and you've got the perfect match - though i have to say my old 40D seemed to enjoy it as well.

 

[CarlTN]

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

Nice shots of the Vanderbilt house-estate near Asheville, NC...good comparison also. I'm guessing the frontal shot is cropped a bit?

I recently bought a mint copy of the Canon 24-105. I had previously rented one a year ago. The IS seems not very effective, especially at the wide end for some reason. Canon claims 3 stops, but it's really more like 2 to 2.5. (The very best IS lens I have used was the 200 f/2L, and I think its IS must be a bit more than 4 stops...)

Other than the IS, and some extreme corner softness (and perhaps a lack of any significant macro magnification), there's really not much to fault about the Canon 24-105. No doubt the Sigma will be optically superior and its stabilization will be better. But not only is it a pound or so heavier, but I'll just bet it will cost more than the Canon version has sold for over much of its production run (recent price hikes to over $1000 are ridiculous...I bought a mint copy last week for $725 via Ebay, which was un-used and part of a kit where they had gotten a deal on several of the kits and were selling the lenses, keeping the body.)

Adding to the cost would be the larger filter size...

I am disappointed in Sigma for bringing forth an f/4 lens, when the real tease was an "f/2" 24-70 zoom lens (whether it had "OS" or not). Was that tease pure myth?

Since I bought the Canon version, I personally have no use for "super high rez" in an f/4 24-105 zoom lens. I own the 6D, not a 40+ MP camera (assuming the future Sigma will be that sharp, which it may not be...time will tell.)

From a current Canon standpoint, a very high resolution lens is better suited for Nikon users...not that they could necessarily exploit full use of it, but their sensors could.

The next wide angle lens I want, is the Zeiss 18mm f/3.5. It's surely the bargain of all the Zeiss EF mounts.

One final point about my "new" 24-105. It autofocuses superbly via the 6D, needs no AFMA, and servo tracks extremely well with it (far better than the 135L does...and almost as good as the 70-200 f/4 does). As for the CA, it's minimal...one click of the checkbox in LR reduces it to absolute zero. The Sigma 24mm f/1.8 prime I recently bought has far more CA, yet it also gets banished out of existence simply by LR.

So, this thread asks the wrong question. It's not how bad is it, it's how good is it?

 

[CarlTN]

This is 24-105 at f11
no crop on 5D3

Nice image!

 

[Lichtgestalt]

.
Will someone please wake me when it's over?

Thanks.

+1 ;D

 

[Fleetie]

I'll re-post here something I originally posted about the 24-105L elsewhere; it's more relevant in this thread than in the original one, anyway.


Recently I have been gaining new respect for my 24-105mm lens. I've been finding it sharp pretty much down to pixel level (on my 5D3) at both ends of its zoom range, and wide-open at f/4.I was out with it today (well, yesterday now), and I shot a big public clock face at f/4 and exactly the same at f/8. I could not tell the difference on the LCD at maximum playback magnification, and I couldn't tell between them back home, either.


Also, interestingly (I thought), on a previous trip when I had that lens as my walkabout, I shot an information notice board by the side of a canal. This featured in one area a map with tiny, tiny street names on it; black text on a white background. Conventional wisdom says that SOOC JPGs aren't the best for sharpness, so I took the RAW into DPP and played around with the sharpness sliders. I was unable to improve the legibility of that tiny, tiny text compared to how it was on the SOOC JPG.Sure, I could make it *look* sharper, i.e. have more edge contrast, by playing with the sliders, but always at the cost of actual legibility.


And at any rate, I think the lens, given that it is considered "good, but not super-sharp", did very well indeed. Maybe I'm blessed with a good copy, or maybe my expectations are not "high enough", but I'd say my copy is sharp to damn-near pixel level (on my 5D3), wide-open, and at both zoom extremes.

It certainly does exhibit CA at the edges of the field, but DPP does a very good job of removing that.


I'm curious about the 24-70 f/2.8 L II though, because of the extra aperture, so I may yet buy one. But the 135 f/2 L is probably next. Oh, and the next EOS M when/if they ever get around to releasing it!!

 

[mycanonphotos]

24-105 is fantastic on the 5D III
ACR edits only on these