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 29 Dec 2012 (Saturday) 00:20
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

24-105 slightly soft?

 
ejenner
Goldmember
Avatar
3,860 posts
Gallery: 96 photos
Likes: 1045
Joined Nov 2011
Location: Denver, CO
     
Mar 12, 2013 12:07 |  #76

Excelisus wrote in post #15704874 (external link)
From that perspective, you have a valid point. I am not saying that you can get other lenses exactly the same range as the 24-105mm. I'm only saying that the lens is not very sharp. If that zoom range is very important to you, then you pretty much have no other choice because there are no other choices in that exact range. But like many people, IQ is very important for me. Also, I don't really care too much about zoom below 70mm because the reach is still small and can be easily taken care of by cutting down the distance (portrait vs body shot, for example), whereas a zoom like 70-200 or beyond is quite useful when trying to shoot from a distance. So having one prime lens in the range of 30-50mm and a zoom lens beyond 70mm, both of which have much better IQ and much further reach, is a much better alternative, at least for those who don't have your zoom needs.

OK, I agree entirely. If you want IQ get a 70-200 and/or a prime or two for sure (24-70II is supposed to be good, but I'd go the prime route myself). As I probably mentioned either before in this thread or others, I do agree this lens, while sharp in the very center, quickly gets quite soft. Compared with some of my other lenses I'm actually surprised at how sharp it is in the center at f8, but I am still bewildered by people that call this lens 'tack sharp' and wonder what they are comparing it to, or how they are comparing it.

And yes it has vignetting (all the way to f11 at 24mm), CA at each end (but definitely fixable, unlike my 18-55IS which seemed inconsistent) and bokeh that leaves something to be desired (or perhaps 'interestingly different').

I don't have my 18-55IS kit lens anymore, but when I bought the 24-105 I didn't get it to get better sharpness than the kit and didn't notice a night-and-day difference. I think what happens is that a lot of people go from a cheap lens to this and it does in fact meet their needs and they have spent $$$ on it so they rave about IQ. Or maybe they are just so good they can get great shots with a mediocre lens and 'blame' the lens for their good results?


Edward Jenner
5DIV, M6, GX1 II, Sig15mm FE, 16-35 F4,TS-E 17, TS-E 24, 35 f2 IS, M11-22, M18-150 ,24-105, T45 1.8VC, 70-200 f4 IS, 70-200 2.8 vII, Sig 85 1.4, 100L, 135L, 400DOII.
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/48305795@N03/ (external link)
https://www.facebook.c​om/edward.jenner.372/p​hotos (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
PitaDaVespa
Member
82 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 12
Joined Jul 2009
Location: Alentejo - Portugal
     
Mar 12, 2013 12:30 |  #77

wisdom2thewise wrote in post #15705732 (external link)
Took a spontaneous shot of my daughter the other day. I turned around and fired the camera with the following settings:

Tv @ Al Focus mode
1/125 / iso 100 / 75mm / f/8

I like the photo, despite being a tad soft. Surely my camera skills & settings were to blame??

QUOTED IMAGE
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/92488751@N07/8​545404003/  (external link)
Katie (external link) by wisdom2thewise (external link), on Flickr"]http://www.flickr.com …/92488751@N07/8​545404003/ (external link)
Katie (external link) by wisdom2thewise, on Flickr (external link)

Hi,

I don't think this is a soft picture. I think it's just not focused where it should be, because the girl is moving (it seems focused behind the girl), and 1/125s is not enough to freeze the girls movement.

I have one myself and love it. It's not sharper them my primes thought...




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Excelisus
Member
84 posts
Joined Jun 2007
     
Mar 12, 2013 13:43 |  #78

ejenner wrote in post #15706683 (external link)
OK, I agree entirely. If you want IQ get a 70-200 and/or a prime or two for sure (24-70II is supposed to be good, but I'd go the prime route myself). As I probably mentioned either before in this thread or others, I do agree this lens, while sharp in the very center, quickly gets quite soft. Compared with some of my other lenses I'm actually surprised at how sharp it is in the center at f8, but I am still bewildered by people that call this lens 'tack sharp' and wonder what they are comparing it to, or how they are comparing it.

And yes it has vignetting (all the way to f11 at 24mm), CA at each end (but definitely fixable, unlike my 18-55IS which seemed inconsistent) and bokeh that leaves something to be desired (or perhaps 'interestingly different').

I don't have my 18-55IS kit lens anymore, but when I bought the 24-105 I didn't get it to get better sharpness than the kit and didn't notice a night-and-day difference. I think what happens is that a lot of people go from a cheap lens to this and it does in fact meet their needs and they have spent $$$ on it so they rave about IQ. Or maybe they are just so good they can get great shots with a mediocre lens and 'blame' the lens for their good results?

We're pretty much on the same page. I don't understand why some call this a very sharp lens either and that's why I'm surprised by the performance. I think the issue here is two-fold. First, it's the expectation that anything with a red ring must be very sharp and hence a sort of a placebo-sharpness effect to justify the high cost, and second, it's the plethora of posted images that seem to be sharp, but almost everyone forgets that you cannot judge IQ looking at a photo output of a website resolution. At that resolution, even photos from my T2i and the kit lens look sharp. Very few of the sample photos go beyond the size of 2048 pixels. It also doesn't help that anytime someone questions the sharpness of an expensive, Canon L lens, there is an outpouring of criticisms - sometimes even insults - instead of constructive discussion. It's pretty funny seeing people with amateur portfolios express these vociferous opinions (the 24-70 softness thread comes to mind). I simply wanted to add to this thread that I've head a similar experience with this lens as many others here.

By the way, I don't care too much about CA or vignetting because Lightroom does a good and quick job correcting those issues. I'll still try a few extra techniques just to see how far I can take the IQ. It's sharpest at 5.6 and by f8 it starts to get soft again. This is unfortunate because it makes it hard to get sharp photos where good DoF is needed.

I really like the range of this lens, but at least for me, I am finding it very hard to justify $1000+ cost when its IQ is more equivalent to zoom lenses 1/4 of that cost. I should have never looked at the IQ of 100mm 2.8L macro lens. Ignorance is certainly a bliss in that case. I'm just delaying the inevitable plunge that is the 70-200 2.8L II.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
clarnibass
Senior Member
796 posts
Likes: 11
Joined May 2011
     
Mar 12, 2013 23:37 |  #79

Anthon wrote in post #15705909 (external link)
I did a nightclub shoot recently - on 24-35mm range the picture looks razor sharp on 100% crop, even on f4 with iso 1600 and 50 luminance noise reduction in lightroom.

Can you post an example of that? I'm just curious, because I never use that high Luminance NR even for ISO 6400 photos. I use (all approx) 30 in extreme cases and usually 0-15 with the occasional 20 or 25. Is it because ISO 1600 doesn't have that much noise yet so a lot of Luminance NR doesn't actually remove much detail? Just wondering and would like to see an example of what you described if you can post one.


www.nitailevi.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
clarnibass
Senior Member
796 posts
Likes: 11
Joined May 2011
     
Mar 12, 2013 23:52 |  #80

wisdom2thewise wrote in post #15705732 (external link)
Took a spontaneous shot of my daughter the other day. I turned around and fired the camera with the following settings:

Tv @ Al Focus mode
1/125 / iso 100 / 75mm / f/8

I like the photo, despite being a tad soft. Surely my camera skills & settings were to blame??

It's hard to say. At normal sizes it doesn't look particularly soft. Assuming you had IS on it is unlikely to have any motion from the camera moving.

It's hard to see if auto focus was really on her or not. There aren't any completley sharp in focus parts to know. Focusing on something like a kid moving towards you is not easy even for the best cameras, which might not get 100% in focus photos.

There is some motion blur (e.g. her hands) so it's not unlikely that actually her entire body has motion blur.

So overall I'm guessing mostly motion blur with possibly some misfocus and for printing or displaying a "small" or "medium" size photo it doesn't look soft. If you want to verify how sharp the lens is at any focal length and/or aperture, try shooting a still contrasty subject and check.


www.nitailevi.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kin2son
Goldmember
4,546 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2011
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
Mar 12, 2013 23:59 |  #81
bannedPermanent ban

It's not hard to get the girl in focus instead of an oof shot say focused on background instead...

What's hard is to get accurate and sharp focus on the eye, especially when your subject is on the move.

@ f8, you can pretty much aim at any part of her and still get a reasonable result, but that's not how it's done properly...


5D3 Gripped / 17-40L / Σ35 / 40 Pancake / Zeiss 50 MP / Σ85 / 100L Macro / 70-200 f2.8L II IS / 430 EX II / 580 EX II / Canon 2xIII TC / Kenko Ext. Tubes
EOS M / EF-M 18-55 / EF-M 22f2 / Ricoh GR aka Ultimate street camera :p
Flickr (external link) | My Images on Getty®‎ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wisdom2thewise
Member
127 posts
Joined Jan 2013
Location: Melbourne, Australia.
     
Mar 13, 2013 05:33 as a reply to  @ kin2son's post |  #82

Thanks for the feedback guys.


Sold my first DSLR & lens = 6D (24-105L) & (40)
Now what prime should i get with the 7d mark ii?...

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Anthon
Senior Member
267 posts
Joined May 2012
     
Mar 14, 2013 16:26 |  #83

clarnibass wrote in post #15709240 (external link)
Can you post an example of that? I'm just curious, because I never use that high Luminance NR even for ISO 6400 photos. I use (all approx) 30 in extreme cases and usually 0-15 with the occasional 20 or 25. Is it because ISO 1600 doesn't have that much noise yet so a lot of Luminance NR doesn't actually remove much detail? Just wondering and would like to see an example of what you described if you can post one.

This is 100% crop from 5DII + 24-105 @ f4 and 24mm iso 1600, around centre of the frame. Exported from Light Room with 50 luminance noise reduction

IMAGE: http://i49.tinypic.com/245ha2d.jpg

I must admit, I'm new to LR - but I adjusted noise reduction, keeping in mind that the pictures would be uploaded on social websites.
You won't notice any loss in sharpness, but reduction in noise is certainly visible.
There is still noticeable noise in blacks @ iso 1600 if you export with DPP - but LR removes just about everything by default (NR at 0). So yeah, I was kinda pushing it - testing the waters, so to speak.

But here luminance NR is 50 (iso 1600), and as you can see, even 100% crop has plenty of detail left. It looks like iso 200 from my 600D exported with DPP. Probably even better.

Canon 5D mark II Gripped / 17-40mm f4 L / 24-105mm f4 L / Canon 70-200 f4 L / Samyang 14mm 2.8 AE / Pentax SMC 50mm f1.7 / Pentax SMC 28 2.8 / Canon Speedlite 600ex-rt / Canon Speedlite 580ex II / YN560 II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rivas8409
Goldmember
Avatar
2,477 posts
Likes: 432
Joined Mar 2011
Location: Lemoore, California
     
Mar 15, 2013 01:35 |  #84

kin2son wrote in post #15419170 (external link)
Don't expect too much from a mediocre kit lens. Less pixel peeping also helps ;)

This is one "mediocre kit lens" that I'd LOVE to have in my bag.


Body: Canon 5DmkII│50D│M50
Glass: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8│Canon 85mm f/1.8│Canon 24-105mm f/4L│Canon 135mm f/2L│Canon EF-M 22mm f/2.0
Lights: Flashpoint XPLOR 400PRO│Flashpoint Streaklight 360│Flashpoint Zoom Li-on│AB800
Results: WEBSITE (external link)FACEBOOK (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DeafEyeJedi
Hatchling
Avatar
6 posts
Joined Dec 2012
Location: Los Angeles
     
Apr 24, 2013 02:03 |  #85

Guys...it just takes practices to master the 24-105. Just like riding a bike. Once you feel it, you'll ride it.

It still works great on the 5D3.

Happy Shooting!


5DIII | 24-105L | 50L | 40 Pancake | Rokinon Cine 14 T3.1 | Blackrapid RS-Sport | Manfrotto 701HDV | and a cheap A$$ MonopoD ..

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

14,789 views & 0 likes for this thread
24-105 slightly soft?
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 paneerIegend
1183 guests, 292 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.