Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 25 Dec 2011 (Sunday) 05:39
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

24-105 - very sharp lens!

 
LibertyToad
Member
120 posts
Joined Oct 2009
     
Dec 27, 2011 14:55 |  #76

ben805 wrote in post #13596967 (external link)
I used the 24-105L as a cash cow for almost two years in the studio and location portraits, it was very sharp wide open from 24mm to 105mm, great lens to have if you can live with f/4.

I recently bought the Canon 35mm f/2.0 and was pretty happy to see that my 24-105mm L is about as sharp as the 35mm in most situations. It's hard to fault the 24-105, plus it covers a nice zoom range. It is on my camera 80% of the time.


Canon 7D, 17-85mm USM IS, 70-300mm USM IS, 24-105mm f/4 USM IS L, 35mm f/2

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
cherrymoon
Senior Member
Avatar
533 posts
Joined Mar 2008
     
Dec 27, 2011 15:17 |  #77

Got the 35L and my 24-105 is still my most used lens.
More efficient in some situations ! The rang is ideal, I can shot everythin and OMG at night I'm unable to take a good picture with 35L. f4+IS+High ISO is my only deal !

Love mine, mostly coupled with 135L for walkaround.


5D² 40 pancake | 50/1.4 | 85L II | 135L | 16-35L IS | 24-105L | 70-200 f2.8 L IS II and a TT bike
Complete Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JuliusUpNorth
Senior Member
522 posts
Joined Jun 2007
Location: Whitehorse, Yukon Territory, Canada
     
Dec 27, 2011 16:32 |  #78

Love my 24-105--it is on my camera (50D) whenever my 100-400 takes a break, it seems, and it also takes amazingly sharp close-ups!

Julius




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wombatHorror
Goldmember
1,937 posts
Joined Sep 2010
Location: NJ
     
Dec 27, 2011 16:55 |  #79

Ferrari_Alex wrote in post #13596500 (external link)
I never had a macro lens, but I was testing different top notch lenses recently and was always comparing to 24-105 because you can select different FL:-)

I was shocked that I did not see a lens that is sharper than 24-105 and I was testing several Zeiss primes!!!!!!!!!!!!

I was always under impression that 24-105 is not so good and always had a feeling that I need to get something better. What a mistake! It is not so expensive, but extremely good and versatile.

I did not see any, absolutely any difference in color, sharpness, rendering - all was 100% identical.

So for all 24-105 users - be happy with the lens you have, cherish it and use it to maximum:-)

that is shocking since the two I tried were stinkers

i'm stunned your 24-105 even beat zeiss primes?????????

my 24-105 did beat an old coke bottom that i rigged to my 5D2 though :lol:

24-105 wasn't even as sharp, not even in the center, as a 1/4 priced tamron 28-75 I had!

on aps-c it was sharp although not crazy sharp like a tamron 17-50 or 28-75 or even 17-50L on FF it had mushy edges, nasty, near 24mm, even f/8 and f/10, same for second copy I tried, identical

you either have really bad luck with zeiss or insanely good luck with 24-105s




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wombatHorror
Goldmember
1,937 posts
Joined Sep 2010
Location: NJ
     
Dec 27, 2011 16:58 |  #80

smorter wrote in post #13596635 (external link)
I'm surprised the difference isn't as great as I thought.

Based on results below, it looks like the 2 lenses are almost identical in corners, which is amazing that the 24-105L can stand up to a prime in the corner.

In the centre, the 24-105L is a smidge worse, but it is not a day and night difference.

However, what does stand out more is that the 35L has:
- Better Contrast
- More vivid colours
- More "pop"
- Is so sharp at f/4 it causes the sensor to show moire
- Brighter at any given aperture

By extrapolation, 35L > Zeiss 35 :D

Testing Parameters:
DPP raw conversions
All NR etc. disabled
Camera in same position
Manually focused in Live view, and used Contrast Detect AF, then picked sharpest of each set.

Centre:
QUOTED IMAGE


Corners:
QUOTED IMAGE

if that was on the 5D2 your 24-105 does pretty well in the corners, maybe 35mm makes all the difference though, i only carefully tested edges 24mm and 28mm, the two i tried looked way way worse than that, especially on my real world shots where the edges and corners were really bad (perhaps the FC of the 24-105 fits very poorly to some of the compositions I shoot)

your 35L blows it away in the center though

i supposed some of it can be in the focusing though, i found that you really need best of at least six attempts to fairly compare, although it sounds like you gave it a few tries, not sure how many


and perhaps the extreme colors mask corner CA and blurring?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wombatHorror
Goldmember
1,937 posts
Joined Sep 2010
Location: NJ
     
Dec 27, 2011 17:01 |  #81

JeffreyG wrote in post #13596666 (external link)
I would suggest that this is not true. When you shoot flat test charts, you are getting look at how the lens performs exactly at the plane of focus (unless the plane of focus is really curved like on the 24-70L, but I digress).

So a test chart (or pile of books as is the case here) gives you an idea of the maximum resolution of the lens at just one plane. In reality, we rely on the depth of field to cover three dimentional scenes and subjects. The loss of sharpness associated with using the region around the depth of field is much bigger than the difference I see here.

In general, real world shooting suffers from all kinds of challenges (high ISO, 3D subjects, focus error, subject motion, camera shake) that all conspire to take away from maximum resolution. Teeny little differences in lenses are probably the least of it.

I find the difference also translate into the areas not quite at the plane of exact focus more than you'd think though.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Ferrari_Alex
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,787 posts
Joined Nov 2007
     
Dec 28, 2011 01:51 |  #82

wombatHorror wrote in post #13606332 (external link)
that is shocking since the two I tried were stinkers

i'm stunned your 24-105 even beat zeiss primes?????????

my 24-105 did beat an old coke bottom that i rigged to my 5D2 though :lol:

24-105 wasn't even as sharp, not even in the center, as a 1/4 priced tamron 28-75 I had!

on aps-c it was sharp although not crazy sharp like a tamron 17-50 or 28-75 or even 17-50L on FF it had mushy edges, nasty, near 24mm, even f/8 and f/10, same for second copy I tried, identical

you either have really bad luck with zeiss or insanely good luck with 24-105s

As you can see, it is not only my copy of 24-105 is sharp. I know now that i will never sell it. It is relatively not expensive, it can take amazing pictures and it i s as sharp as prime lenses.

My copy of zeiss is a good copy...it is what zeiss designed it to be. But they did a poor job with it, it will never be legendary...


Alex || www.dylikowski.com (external link)
_______________
Canon 5D MKII | 24-105 f/4 IS L | 70-200 f/2.8 IS II L |Zeiss 35 f/1.4 ZE

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"That's what I do."
Avatar
16,044 posts
Gallery: 180 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 6232
Joined Dec 2008
Location: from Pennsylvania, now in Washington state, road trip back and forth a lot, with extensive detouring
     
Dec 28, 2011 02:57 |  #83

Referring back to the test images Smorter showed us in post # 12:

I think this is a huge difference! In my opinion, the 35L is so much sharper in the center - and quite a bit sharper on the corner.

To my eye, the difference in sharpness is extremely substantial. I don't understand those who think the lenses are very close to each other in sharpness, based on these test images.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Ferrari_Alex
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,787 posts
Joined Nov 2007
     
Dec 28, 2011 04:46 |  #84

Tom Reichner wrote in post #13608657 (external link)
Referring back to the test images Smorter showed us in post # 12:

I think this is a huge difference! In my opinion, the 35L is so much sharper in the center - and quite a bit sharper on the corner.

To my eye, the difference in sharpness is extremely substantial. I don't understand those who think the lenses are very close to each other in sharpness, based on these test images.

Have you seen my examples versus zeiss 35? People could not guess


Alex || www.dylikowski.com (external link)
_______________
Canon 5D MKII | 24-105 f/4 IS L | 70-200 f/2.8 IS II L |Zeiss 35 f/1.4 ZE

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Invertalon
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,495 posts
Likes: 23
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Cleveland, OH
     
Dec 28, 2011 07:17 |  #85

My copy of the 24-105 is amazing... I get blown away how excellent the IQ is for a zoom lens like this. It is always a pleasure to use. The size, weight and build quality are all top notch as well.


-Steve
Facebook (external link)
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Marco2011
Member
139 posts
Joined Dec 2011
     
Jul 08, 2012 15:53 |  #86

Ferrari_Alex wrote in post #13599614 (external link)
OK, the truth revealed:-)

TEST 1 - Zeiss is the IMAGE 2 and 24-105 is the IMAGE 1. You can look forever, there is no difference in sharpness, they are completely identical, which I think is pretty good for a kit zoom vs super expensive Zeiss prime lens.

TEST 2 - 24-105 is IMAGE 1 and 70-200 II is IMAGE 2. If you look carefully, especially on the left side of the crop where the DISTAGON name on the box is, you will see that the second crop is sharper.

Test 1, I guessed it correctly, because, Canon L lenses are very contrasty :) I'll buy a 24-105 this tuesday :D can't wait... thanks for your comparion images also.. both images look great


Eos 550D Gripped :D Canon Speedlite 430ex ii :D Canon EF 70-200mm F4L IS USM :D Canon 18-55mm kit lens :(

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

11,646 views & 0 likes for this thread
24-105 - very sharp lens!
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Flo29
872 guests, 246 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.