Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM

Most lenses wide open produce soft photos. Try 5.6 there is a noticable difference.
Past 70mm lens gets softer also. With a little USM both these photos look fine.

VicSkimmr wrote in post #15886283
Hoping you guys can help me out. I got the 24-105 as part of the kit with my 6D but I keep getting frustratingly soft photos out of it and I'm wondering if I got a soft copy.

Here's an example:

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

Maxx and Ruby's Wedding by jasonwithers, on Flickr

EXIF:
105mm
ISO 100
SS 1/640
f/4.0

I've been noticing it more and more, the photos I get out of this lens aren't nearly as sharp as I expected them to be.

But some shots I've gotten out of it have been sharp as a tack

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/jasonwithers/8​526716168/
March 1st, 2013 by jasonwithers, on Flickr

I was always under the impression that this lens was sharp at the entire focal length no matter what sized aperture you shot it at. The first photo is in no way acceptable to me.

Both photos were shot wide open at 105mm and ISO 100. The first one is soft, the second one is sharp. Granted, the lighting is different between the 2, but the first was shot on an overcast day around 6pm. Hardly poor lighting.

it looks like you may have been sitting behind this lad - is it possible you were too close for the "Minimum Focus Distance"?

VicSkimmr wrote in post #15886283
Hoping you guys can help me out. I got the 24-105 as part of the kit with my 6D but I keep getting frustratingly soft photos out of it and I'm wondering if I got a soft copy.

Here's an example:

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

Maxx and Ruby's Wedding by jasonwithers, on Flickr

EXIF:
105mm
ISO 100
SS 1/640
f/4.0

I've been noticing it more and more, the photos I get out of this lens aren't nearly as sharp as I expected them to be.

But some shots I've gotten out of it have been sharp as a tack

Hmm, I guess its possible, I think my wife technically took the shot. There were others from the wedding that turned out the same way though. A few of the father walking the bride down the aisle were particularly soft, but I don't think I kept any of them.

I'll have to do some testing tonight I guess.

I could always send it to Canon to test but it's my primary lens for wide shots now and I use it a lot for rolling shots.

It looks to me like the boys shirt below the chair back is more in focus. I'm wondering if it's front focusing a bit at short focusing distances? You had to be farther from the car...

Yeah, much further away from the car. I think you might be right though. That's something I can easily test Thanks!

mrmaint wrote in post #15886366
Most lenses wide open produce soft photos. Try 5.6 there is a noticable difference.
Past 70mm lens gets softer also. With a little USM both these photos look fine.

Must resist to reply....

VicSkimmr wrote in post #15886696
Hmm, I guess its possible, I think my wife technically took the shot. There were others from the wedding that turned out the same way though. A few of the father walking the bride down the aisle were particularly soft, but I don't think I kept any of them.

I'll have to do some testing tonight I guess.

I could always send it to Canon to test but it's my primary lens for wide shots now and I use it a lot for rolling shots.

You can check the object distance after that fact from your RAW file. I know LightRoom does not (booh), but there is a freebee called "PhotoME" which does that, if I remember correctly that is....

Cheers.

I 'think' the Canon software (DPP) can tell you where the focus points were and for that matter - if the shutter was pressed prematurely before AF had time to 'fully' do its thing, that would result in slightly soft also... I've had to train all my friends with compact cameras and anyone trying my DSLRs to do the 'half-press' first instead of a quick full press...

VicSkimmr wrote in post #15886696
Hmm, I guess its possible, I think my wife technically took the shot. There were others from the wedding that turned out the same way though. A few of the father walking the bride down the aisle were particularly soft, but I don't think I kept any of them.

I'll have to do some testing tonight I guess.

I could always send it to Canon to test but it's my primary lens for wide shots now and I use it a lot for rolling shots.

Let's see... other shots taken with this lens:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/jasonwithers/8​669687098/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/jasonwithers/8​674260056/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/jasonwithers/8​669690142/

VicSkimmr wrote in post #15886997
Yeah, much further away from the car. I think you might be right though. That's something I can easily test Thanks!

Have you checked whether an AF adjustment is needed?

Quick AF Microadjustment

Don't stare at the moire pattern - you'll fry your brain!

Col

@Vic You mentioned that your wife took that first shot...

that should explain a lot.

Try close shots with your own hands to do a proper comparison,

Who knows? The focusing could have been on multiple points and grabbed one of his flyaways or something, or she could have recomposed weirdly,