Alright 24-105 f/4L owners: we need results

[Tsmith]

I know some of you out there have managed to snag one these lens since its redistribution process, so post some photos for us too see. If this lens is sharp enough I might have to sell my Tamron and opt for this L to fill my 40mm ~ 70mm void ... if they truly solved the flare bug.

Thanks

[PetKal]

I know some of you out there have managed to snag one these lens since its redistribution process, so post some photos for us too see. If this lens is sharp enough I might have to sell my Tamron and opt for this L to fill my 40mm ~ 70mm void ... if they truly solved the flare bug.

Thanks

Hear, hear....I second that. Lottsa talking about that lens, but I do not remember seeing any convincing let alone excellent photos taken with the lens yet.:rolleyes:

[condyk]

Hear, hear....I second that. Lottsa talking about that lens, but I do not remember seeing any convincing let alone excellent photos taken with the lens yet.:rolleyes:

I've seen plenty to convince of its technical qualities (I'll leave aside the excellent photo criteria!!) and I don't care about flare in freak conditions ... I ordered 17 September and still no deliveries at my dealer after checking again last week.

[PetKal]

I've seen plenty to convince of its technical qualities (I'll leave aside the excellent photo criteria!!) and I don't care about flare in freak conditions ... I ordered 17 September and still no deliveries at my dealer after checking again last week.

You know Dave, if Drisley, or FstoppageJojo or Schmoeltz had gotten the lens, this venerable Forum would have been flooded with shots !

Granted......with his prodigeous PP skills, Schmoeltzel could make even images obtained with an EF24-70 f2.8L look sharp and stunning.

[Cadwell]

:lol: Oh, it's OK. About what you'd expect from an L series :lol:

[condyk]

... this venerable Forum would have been flooded with shots !

Chin up chief!

Once your copy arrives we should get plenty of opportunity to see its resolving qualities at least: Wren at 1000m ;) When mine arrives I doubt there'll be any German Sausages left for me to photograph. The EEC Mandarins will long since have banned such delicacies.

[RAitch]

Not the best examples, but these were taken with the 24-105L at f4.0 and f4.5 respectively.
http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=114846

[PetKal]

:lol: Oh, it's OK. About what you'd expect from an L series :lol:

L-series like 17-40, 135, 200, 70-200, 300, 100-400, 400....or
Lseries like 15, 24, 16-35, 24-70... ?

[RAitch]

I used the 24-105 and the 70-200 on a couple outings and the best shots came from the 70-200 f4. Mind you, I've had that lens longer and "know it" a bit better.
That being said, I wouldn't trade the 24-105 away. I love the lens, the range is what sells me.

[PetKal]

Thanx landsmann....the beach rock looks real nice.
I suppose one should not be exactly shocked if the 70-200 f4 yields nicer images overall. I am hoping, perhaps forlornly, that my incoming 24-105 would not lag behind by much :rolleyes:

[PetKal]

Chin up chief!

Once your copy arrives we should get plenty of opportunity to see its resolving qualities at least: Wren at 1000m ;) When mine arrives I doubt there'll be any German Sausages left for me to photograph. The EEC Mandarins will long since have banned such delicacies.

Well, maybe not at 1000m, but 100 ft wren or chickadee shootout will take place.
In my little mind, for $1700+CAN it is not unreasonable to expect the lens to deliver a superior image quality in addition to the IS(@105 mm not really a deal maker), red barrel ring, and a tank-like build. If not, then it goes back to its bological parents.....the Canon Supply Chain ;) .

[RAitch]

And to be fair... I haven't had a lot of time to put it through some severe testing. I've just shot it, but haven't paid close attention to things like sharpest aperture setting or the like.

I was disapointed a little when I got back from my windsurfing set. I guess I had the shutter speed too slow and I was trying to pan with the surfers. I haven't had much practice with that. I think I had IS enabled and I'm not sure if I should have for sideways panning... probably not.

Most of the images looked sharp, but there was motion blur that I wasn't expecting. As I said before, after some practice, I'm sure the quality of images will rival the 70-200.

Either way, I'm happy with what I'm getting and it takes something HUGE to get that lens off my XT.

[RAitch]

Thanx landsmann....the beach rock looks real nice.
I suppose one should not be exactly shocked if the 70-200 f4 yields nicer images overall. I am hoping, perhaps forlornly, that my incoming 24-105 would not lag behind by much :rolleyes:
PS, who the heck is landsmann?

[Master-9]

L-series like 17-40, 135, 200, 70-200, 300, 100-400, 400....or
Lseries like 15, 24, 16-35, 24-70... ?

What's wrong with the 24-70L???

[Tsmith]

but _ I still wanna see some results > ie; sharpness - color - contrast and the such. Those B&W look good RAitch: you gotta have some color ones?

[GyRob]

i would like to see a few shots to ,this lens is as rare as hens teeth ;)
Rob.

[Tsmith]

You can see some results on PBase but some of it ain't that good: user error maybe. :confused:

[PetKal]

PS, who the heck is landsmann?

In my poor Yidish it means "Countryman";)

[PetKal]

What's wrong with the 24-70L???

Master9, based on your fine portrait work I have seen recently, there ain't much wrong with your copy of the lens, if 24-70 was the one you used.;)

[RAitch]

Here's a shot I took a while ago of my cat... it's flash and indoors. Absolutely no PP done... just resize using Save For Web straight from XT in JPEG mode (not RAW).

100% crop, click for full image resized to 1024 wide
http://raitch.myftp.org/temp/mindy100crop.jpg (http://raitch.myftp.org/temp/mindyfull.jpg)

Is this super sharp? Probably not... but I'm sure I can get better.

[RAitch]

Here's another one of my son... again... absolutely no PP done, just 100% copy and resize whole image down to 1024 wide.

click for whole image...
http://raitch.myftp.org/temp/tyler100crop.jpg (http://raitch.myftp.org/temp/tylerfull.jpg)

[Tsmith]

Now thats what I'm talking about RAitch, those are pretty sharp especially for JPEG. What shutter and aperture is that at of your kid.

Thanks

[Snapman]

Here's a quick one I've just taken especially for you :)

Zoomed to 90mm wide open at f4. The only PP is auto levels.

[RAitch]

Now thats what I'm talking about RAitch, those are pretty sharp especially for JPEG. What shutter and aperture is that at of your kid.

Thanks

The one of my son was taken on Manual mode at
1/80 @ F4.0 @ 55.0mm
partial metering
ISO 100
420EX with auto WB

The cat was the same just at 93.0mm

Not too bad at all, for JPEG like you said. It's not crystal clear/sharp at 100% view (like crop) but it's pretty darn nice considering just how much of the image you're looking at... or not seeing for that matter.

Those are indoor flash pictures, I'll see if I can get out (away from baby :() and get some more shots for you.

[Tsmith]

The one of my son was taken on Manual mode at
1/80 @ F4.0 @ 55.0mm
partial metering
ISO 100
420EX with auto WB

The cat was the same just at 93.0mm

Not too bad at all, for JPEG like you said. It's not crystal clear/sharp at 100% view (like crop) but it's pretty darn nice considering just how much of the image you're looking at... or not seeing for that matter.

Those are indoor flash pictures, I'll see if I can get out (away from baby :() and get some more shots for you.

That'd be great. Whatever you can come up with & you too Snapman.

I was kinda thinking with the IS of this lens it might work as well as my Tamron being f/2.8 vs IS f/4L ... just thinking here as compared to the larger size of the Canon 24-70L.

[jerrypeisen]

Nothing spectacular, just a few since getting mine last week.

http://www.pbase.com/vciinc/canon_5d_w_24105_canon_lens_

Jerry

[Moikle]

What's a 24-105? I dreamed I had one once but it went to the big Canon in the sky 'cos it was poorly. Sniff.........never heard from it since.

[Snapman]

That'd be great. Whatever you can come up with & you too Snapman.

I was kinda thinking with the IS of this lens it might work as well as my Tamron being f/2.8 vs IS f/4L ... just thinking here as compared to the larger size of the Canon 24-70L.
I'm over the moon with the Image Stabiliser, as, despite having shaky hands, I find I can take sharp pictures hand-held of static subjects at 15th on maximum zoom of 105mm :)

The lens is bigger and heavier than I'd anticipated though but, as I've never handled a 24-70 f2.8 L, I can't compare the two.

[RAitch]

Here are a couple I shot last night at about 1am using a spot light to paint.
These ones however have some PP done. ;)

http://raitch.myftp.org/night/WinterBench(4526).jpg
http://raitch.myftp.org/night/spookytree(4534).jpg
http://raitch.myftp.org/night/spookytree(4520).jpg

[mrclark321]

Nice shots Richard, is that by Colborne Rd. Beach?

Dan

[RAitch]

Dan, you know your stuff! Yup, went for a LATE night walk down the beach last night.

[sasa007]

First one(cropped) was done with 420 speedlite.It is hungry for LIGHT and best performer is with flash...

[Tsmith]

It is hungry for LIGHT and best performer is with flash...

meaning it has a hard time focusing in low light? > :confused:

Nice results and yours too Richard.

[RAitch]

It's slow focussing in low light, but so is every other lens I've had.
Of course you'd get better performance with a faster lens, but I would never complain about the focusing speed of this lens.
I think it responds the same as the F4 70-200.

[Jetmech1]

I really want a copy of this lens. But I'll have to wait for a few months. But the good news is I have 2 lenses that should be here this week. A 17-40 and 50 F/1.4. Oh the wait.

[RAitch]

From what I've seen, you made a good choice with the 17-40. I bought the 24-105 to replace my kit lens but sacrificed a bit of the range. Having the 17-40 in your "back pocket" should be a really nice companion!! I've also seen some people that use the 17-40 for about 90% of their work. I don't think you're going to be upset either way.

[rklepper]

Very nice shots RAitch. Thanks for sharing. I wish I could want another lens, but my wife has been so generous this year (see my signature).

[RAitch]

Mr. Klepper... now seeing your full sized avatar I have a different vision of you. You should tighten up the avatar crop so we can see you better.

Thanks for the compliments... and you're welcome.
Your wife sounds as wonderful as mine. I got my whole sig this year since March and not a complaint.

Hey, how do you like that grip on the XT?

[mrclark321]

Until I opened up your link Doc I thaught you looked like Fred Sandford. :rolleyes: Mr. Klepper... now seeing your full sized avatar I have a different vision of you. You should tighten up the avatar crop so we can see you better.

[RAitch]

I didn't want to say it... but yeah, that was my vision.
See, it's nice to get to know the people on the board.

[Tsmith]

Ontil I opened up your link Doc I thaught you looked like Fred Sandford. :rolleyes:

That is way too funny as I was thinking the same thing after reading Richards post ... :D

[RAitch]

I know some of you out there have managed to snag one these lens since its redistribution process, so post some photos for us too see. If this lens is sharp enough I might have to sell my Tamron and opt for this L to fill my 40mm ~ 70mm void ... if they truly solved the flare bug.

Thanks

WAY back to the first post... about the flare bug... I have yet to see it.
I have seen normal looking flare circles that I would expect to see on any lens at that focal length and aperture... but none of those beams from heaven.
I have an affected lens (if all of them before UT1000 are).

This should fill your gap nicely... and might I say that you're also going to love your christmas gift!! I love my copy!

[Tsmith]

Thanks Richard for your time and I have one more favor to ask: a photo with the lens hood attached > if possible. I can't seem to locate any on line.

As for the Christmas gift its still in my bag as of now but any day the wife might snag it when I least expect it. It's a tack sharp lens for sure.

[RAitch]

OK, I'll get my wife's P&S camera.

[RAitch]

Man I don't miss P&S cameras... yuck! ;)

Here you go... taken at 24 with it's bigger brother the 70-200 F4 and at 105 (extended) with the 70-200 and it's hood.
As you can see, the 24-105 with the lens hood attached mounted is about as long as the 70-200. Put the hood on the 70-200 and there's no comparison.

Hope this helps.
http://raitch.myftp.org/temp/xt24-105.jpg

[RAitch]

There are other pictures here (http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=105964) but the hood isn't actually attached.

[Tsmith]

Again thanks a bunch Richard for your time. Looks to be the same size (not zoomed) as the 17-40L ... decisions now as it'll fit quiet nicely in my Lowepro Nova 4AW in place of the Tamron if I decide to for go this path in the near future. I appreciate it.

[RAitch]

I've got the Nova 3 AW and I've got a WHACK of stuff packed in there (as my sig says).

First, I put the 24-105 hood in the bottom facing up. Then I put the 70-200 hood inside of that (just a bit smaller).
Then I put the XT with the 24-105 mounted with the lens dropping into the hoods.
I've got my flash on one side leaving a hole for my tubes and any extra pieces (caps).
The other side holds my 70-200 top to bottom which leaves a hole for my 50 stacked on the kit.
I've got my shutter release under the camera beside the hoods.
All my cables in the roof, and batteries in the front pouch.

There's not any room to spare, but assuming the 4 is bigger than my bag, you should be able to pack it nicely.

[Tsmith]

Holy Cow! ... thats some stuff in a 3 AW. Here's mine and I thought it was packed:

http://www.pbase.com/smith_xt/image/52439266.jpg

[RAitch]

Here's my NOVA-3
http://raitch.myftp.org/temp/xtcase.jpg

[RAitch]

BTW, looks like somebody needs a POTN strap!!