How bad is the 24-105?

[Pi]

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]

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]

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

 

[Pi]

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]

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.

 

[takesome1]

I actually found it to be a senseless comparison and a little shallow.
Having owned and used each of these lenses I know they each have a use and a function and the comparisons if anything were set up to make the 24-105 look better.
The set up was presented as if it were from someone who had a complete misunderstanding of what makes the 35mm f/1.4L great. What sets it apart is what it can do closer to f/1.8 than at f/11.
The 24-105 a great walk around lens, and that is what it does well.

So in that respect if you were not trying to prove anything, you succeeded and well done.

 

[Pi]

[...] and the comparisons if anything were set up to make the 24-105 look better.

The set up was presented as if it were from someone who had a complete misunderstanding of what makes the 35mm f/1.4L great. What sets it apart is what it can do closer to f/1.8 than at f/11.

Two more totally unfounded claims.

 

[takesome1]

[...] and the comparisons if anything were set up to make the 24-105 look better.

The set up was presented as if it were from someone who had a complete misunderstanding of what makes the 35mm f/1.4L great. What sets it apart is what it can do closer to f/1.8 than at f/11.

Two more totally unfounded claims.

It seems the evidence for both were presented very well in this thread.

 

[Pi]

[...] and the comparisons if anything were set up to make the 24-105 look better.

The set up was presented as if it were from someone who had a complete misunderstanding of what makes the 35mm f/1.4L great. What sets it apart is what it can do closer to f/1.8 than at f/11.

Two more totally unfounded claims.

It seems the evidence for both were presented very well in this thread.

Yet another one. I just asked if you can tell which is which in my OP, no statements. The accusation that I actually tried to make the 24-105 look better is ridiculous. How did I do that? How in the world do you know, and even see "evidence" of what I understand and what I do not about the 35L?

BTW, in my "concluding" rant, I said that I discovered another weakness of the 24-105.

 

[JonB8305]

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

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
http://www.flickr.com/photos/105206784@N04/10247672574/#


D2

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


E1


E2

Is this Toronto?

 

[takesome1]

[...] and the comparisons if anything were set up to make the 24-105 look better.

The set up was presented as if it were from someone who had a complete misunderstanding of what makes the 35mm f/1.4L great. What sets it apart is what it can do closer to f/1.8 than at f/11.

Two more totally unfounded claims.

It seems the evidence for both were presented very well in this thread.

Yet another one. I just asked if you can tell which is which in my OP, no statements. The accusation that I actually tried to make the 24-105 look better is ridiculous. How did I do that? How in the world do you know, and even see "evidence" of what I understand and what I do not about the 35L?

BTW, in my "concluding" rant, I said that I discovered another weakness of the 24-105.

Maybe you unknowingly set it up to equalize the 24-105mm, but the set up of the test worked to equalize the 24-105 with the other lenses. It was really not much of a comparison.

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.

Still for someone who wasn't trying to make a point, you now seem to be defending your set up.

 

[candc]

I don't see any meaningful differences, if your point is to show that a zoom like the 24-105 performs as well as anything else in normal shooting conditions then you have done so and that's a good point for everyone to keep in mind.

 

[Pi]

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.

 

[candc]

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.

That's very cryptic so I am not sure what you are asking, I don't claim to have any specific knowledge of the 35l, your post was asking about a comparison between sets of images which is what I offered a response to

 

[Pi]

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

That's very cryptic so I am not sure what you are asking, I don't claim to have any specific knowledge of the 35l, your post was asking about a comparison between sets of images which is what I offered a response to

This is hilarious. I own the 35L and have not said anything which would let you believe that I do not value its fast aperture. You "don't claim to have any specific knowledge of the 35L", and telling me that I do not know what its real strength is?

 

[candc]

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

That's very cryptic so I am not sure what you are asking, I don't claim to have any specific knowledge of the 35l, your post was asking about a comparison between sets of images which is what I offered a response to

This is hilarious. I own the 35L and have not said anything which would let you believe that I do not value its fast aperture. You "don't claim to have any specific knowledge of the 35L", and telling me that I do not know what its real strength is?

I ma not sure where you are coming from on this, maybe you have misread another poster as me or something? I never made any reference to the 35l I just said the images looked the same, isn't that what you are asking?

 

[takesome1]

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

That's very cryptic so I am not sure what you are asking, I don't claim to have any specific knowledge of the 35l, your post was asking about a comparison between sets of images which is what I offered a response to

This is hilarious. I own the 35L and have not said anything which would let you believe that I do not value its fast aperture. You "don't claim to have any specific knowledge of the 35L", and telling me that I do not know what its real strength is?

What is hilarious is that you misquoted candc and confused him. Now you are debating with him a comment he didn't make.

 

[candc]

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

That's very cryptic so I am not sure what you are asking, I don't claim to have any specific knowledge of the 35l, your post was asking about a comparison between sets of images which is what I offered a response to

This is hilarious. I own the 35L and have not said anything which would let you believe that I do not value its fast aperture. You "don't claim to have any specific knowledge of the 35L", and telling me that I do not know what its real strength is?

What is hilarious is that you misquoted candc and confused him. Now you are debating with him a comment he didn't make.

Thanks, I thought maybe I copied wrong or missed something?

 

[Pi]

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

I ma not sure where you are coming from on this, maybe you have misread another poster as me or something? I never made any reference to the 35l I just said the images looked the same, isn't that what you are asking?

Sorry, I took you for takesome1. I typed in the wrong name here: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=17440.msg323871#msg323871. My apologies.

 

[candc]

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

I ma not sure where you are coming from on this, maybe you have misread another poster as me or something? I never made any reference to the 35l I just said the images looked the same, isn't that what you are asking?

Sorry, I took you for takesome1. I typed in the wrong name above.

No harm.