TDP Image Quality posted - 24-105L II

[YuengLinger]

Since my basic travel lens when hiking is the 24-105 when limiting weight and changing lenses in bad weather, I really wanted this lens. So to get one early since I was already upgrading to the 5 D Mark IV, I ordered the kit. Took tons of photos inside, architecture, landscape, etc. and was super pleased with extra resolution and sharpness. Decided to test lens by itself. So shot same shots on the 5 D Mark III and 5 D Mark IV using my original 24-105 and the two version. My first impression was my original lens was the same and maybe slightly better which I could not believe. So I set up my own test. Used tripod, timer and shot same scene at various set ISO settings and tested at F 4, F 5.6, F 8 and F 11 for each focal length of 24, 50, 70 and 105. I could not see any real difference in my perceived sharpness in most cases and actually thought my original lens may have been better. Called Canon to discuss and the rep I talked to indicated that I would not see a difference in sharpness. The improvements were internal- one better stop of IS, quieter, quicker focus, etc. None of which mattered to me. To return the lens I had to send the entire kit back. Now waiting to get just the 5 D Mark IV and credit for the difference. So these results are not a surprise.

Totally missed this post. Thanks for sharing.

A Mk II that isn't sharper than its predecessor? Between TDP and a few early adopters, we're not exactly hearing any ringing praise.

- A

Samsung.

 

[AJ]

Since my basic travel lens when hiking is the 24-105 when limiting weight and changing lenses in bad weather, I really wanted this lens. So to get one early since I was already upgrading to the 5 D Mark IV, I ordered the kit. Took tons of photos inside, architecture, landscape, etc. and was super pleased with extra resolution and sharpness. Decided to test lens by itself. So shot same shots on the 5 D Mark III and 5 D Mark IV using my original 24-105 and the two version. My first impression was my original lens was the same and maybe slightly better which I could not believe. So I set up my own test. Used tripod, timer and shot same scene at various set ISO settings and tested at F 4, F 5.6, F 8 and F 11 for each focal length of 24, 50, 70 and 105. I could not see any real difference in my perceived sharpness in most cases and actually thought my original lens may have been better. Called Canon to discuss and the rep I talked to indicated that I would not see a difference in sharpness. The improvements were internal- one better stop of IS, quieter, quicker focus, etc. None of which mattered to me. To return the lens I had to send the entire kit back. Now waiting to get just the 5 D Mark IV and credit for the difference. So these results are not a surprise.

Totally missed this post. Thanks for sharing.

A Mk II that isn't sharper than its predecessor? Between TDP and a few early adopters, we're not exactly hearing any ringing praise.

- A

It's a very consistent message.

 

[Maximilian]

By the way:

If you take a look at the MTF charts these results can only be interpreted that Bryan got a bad copy.
Or... I don't read the MTF charts properly ... or ... they're faked, which I cannot believe with Canon.

Canon's MTF charts are computer generated charts and show a perfect lens (no such animal). However, lenses should be reasonably close.

Bryan knows what he is doing, and can recognize a lens that has been damaged or mis-assembled, because they almost always are out of alignment internally which becomes obvious in a photo.

What he cannot check for is internal lenses that are out of specification or slightly out of tolerance such that the error stacks up.

Based on his images, the lens appears to be assembled correctly with no shipping damage, so the most likely conclusion is that it is as tested. However, its also possible that production screwed up on internal lens grinding, which could only be found by disassembly of a lens and using Canon's specifications to check it. If that is the issue, then future copies might have some tweaking done, and magically provide better images. I wonder.

I understand your arguments and I am quite willing to follow them.
I wasn't suggesting a damage but maybe a lens to the limits of the production tolerances.

But if that isn't the reason I must say seeing what Canon could achieve with new lens releases lately got me quite disappointed that this lens doesn't seem to deliver an optical improvement over it's predecessor.

So maybe we'll have to wait for further tests and I am now eagerly awaiting the analysis from Roger and his colleagues at LR and maybe they're also doing a copy variation evaluation as well.

 

[hne]

Since my basic travel lens when hiking is the 24-105 when limiting weight and changing lenses in bad weather, I really wanted this lens. So to get one early since I was already upgrading to the 5 D Mark IV, I ordered the kit. Took tons of photos inside, architecture, landscape, etc. and was super pleased with extra resolution and sharpness. Decided to test lens by itself. So shot same shots on the 5 D Mark III and 5 D Mark IV using my original 24-105 and the two version. My first impression was my original lens was the same and maybe slightly better which I could not believe. So I set up my own test. Used tripod, timer and shot same scene at various set ISO settings and tested at F 4, F 5.6, F 8 and F 11 for each focal length of 24, 50, 70 and 105. I could not see any real difference in my perceived sharpness in most cases and actually thought my original lens may have been better. Called Canon to discuss and the rep I talked to indicated that I would not see a difference in sharpness. The improvements were internal- one better stop of IS, quieter, quicker focus, etc. None of which mattered to me. To return the lens I had to send the entire kit back. Now waiting to get just the 5 D Mark IV and credit for the difference. So these results are not a surprise.

Totally missed this post. Thanks for sharing.

A Mk II that isn't sharper than its predecessor? Between TDP and a few early adopters, we're not exactly hearing any ringing praise.

- A

I'd guess one of the things they prioritized in the design of this lens is to fix the issue with the aperture flex cable being damage.

 

[Josh Denver]

The price of the lens did not have a pump up, and it fixed the most requested defect in the MK I which is barrel distortion at 24mm. And designed an entirely new USM motor that does not produce sound while retaining USM speed. IS for both video and photos is also improved over the already IS king MK I. It also fixes the huge problem we video shooters had with the MKI which is exposure change whilst zooming (and returning back to normal momentarily which is why it doesn't affect photography)

Along with the body improvements, I am quite content as a video shooter to upgrade to the MKII. Very excited as the MKI is the best FF video lens ever made. Even with no optical leaps, with these key improvement, it's absolutely a worthy successor. It's a cheap lens, much cheaper than L designation requirements.

The delay the lens had also might be due to Quality Control issues on the optical level. We never know. And I never judge any product until it's a full production model normally sold by the company.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Very excited as the MKI is the best FF video lens ever made.

Really?

I don't think its in the top 10, or 50 even. It might be good for a low cost lens, but is not even parfocal like the high end video lenses.

Proclaiming it the best FF video lens ever made seems questionable. Zeiss, for example makes FF video lenses that blow it away, Canon makes FF video lenses that are surpurb, and a number of other lens makers too.

 

[YuengLinger]

I compare to Samsung because they had such a disaster with the phones AND washing machines in a short time.

I hope we aren't seeing the same thing with the 24-105mm and the 16-35 f/2.8 III!

 

[3kramd5]

Very excited as the MKI is the best FF video lens ever made.

Really?

I don't think its in the top 10, or 50 even. It might be good for a low cost lens, but is not even parfocal like the high end video lenses.

It's maybe the best low-cost zoom lens for video purposes where matching, gearing, etc. aren't considerations?

 

[davidj]

Proclaiming it the best FF video lens ever made seems questionable. Zeiss, for example makes FF video lenses that blow it away, Canon makes FF video lenses that are surpurb, and a number of other lens makers too.

Aren't the Canon cinema lenses (assuming that's what you're talking about) for Super 35 sensors?

 

[Loswr]

Proclaiming it the best FF video lens ever made seems questionable. Zeiss, for example makes FF video lenses that blow it away, Canon makes FF video lenses that are surpurb, and a number of other lens makers too.

Aren't the Canon cinema lenses (assuming that's what you're talking about) for Super 35 sensors?

AFAIK, the Canon CN-E primes cover a FF image circle, but the CN-E zooms only cover Super35. Zeiss makes FF cine zooms.

 

[ahsanford]

Proclaiming it the best FF video lens ever made seems questionable. Zeiss, for example makes FF video lenses that blow it away, Canon makes FF video lenses that are surpurb, and a number of other lens makers too.

Aren't the Canon cinema lenses (assuming that's what you're talking about) for Super 35 sensors?

AFAIK, the Canon CN-E primes cover a FF image circle, but the CN-E zooms only cover Super35. Zeiss makes FF cine zooms.

Yep, a few years back, Uncle Rog at LR posted on using a Zeiss 70-200 T2.9 for stills and if I recall correctly, it outresolved every other 70-200 f/2.8 out there, including the fairly legendary Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II.

I tried to link that posting, but apparently it was lost in the move to the new site design. Anyway, here's the link:
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/04/first-look-zeiss-cz-2-70-200mm-t2-9/

So, yes, there are cine lenses out there that might take stellar stills, but (a) they are shockingly expensive, (b) they lack AF, (c) they are heavy as hell and (d) the reason they are shockingly expensive is that at a ton of cost/material was sunk into ideal video functionality that a stills user may not give a damn about (smooth focus pulls, obsessiveness about focusing calibrations, being parfocal, different erognomic setup, etc.).

But yeah, if you are an optics obsessive and lust after retrofitting NASA glass on to your SLR, have at it. I'll keep clicking away with stuff ideally made for stills on a native EF mount.

- A

 

[3kramd5]

Odd that Arri uses Cooke glass in promo material instead of the class leading 24-105.