24-105L not as good on 5d3??

So I was doing a function on the weekend and this guy comes up to me and started saying how the 24-105 isn't as sharp and can be "blurry" on the 5d3 due to its extra megapixel(s)?

It's not really a concern for me as I'm not planning on getting a 5d3 anytime soon but has anyone ever heard of this?

Haven't heard a thing and don't believe it. I went from the 5Dc to 5D3 and couldn't be happier with the combo. Was this based on his direct experience or was he just trying to initiate some debate?

Actually, the 24-105L is better on the 5D3.

It could be it needs to be adjusted to the camera or he just doesn't know what he is saying.
I am sure if you ask the pros here they will say something different.

Some people think that way because they are pixel peepers and judge things at 100% on a monitor. A larger resolution gives a larger image, naturally, but viewed at 100% you are still looking at the same area (pixel wise) on the monitor. so therefore a smaller section of the whole image. In other words it is enlarged more.

So, if you take the same image on a low res body and a high res body, an edge that covers 3 pixels on the low res image may now spread over 4 or possibly 5 pixels (depending on the difference in resolution). Naturally, that would then look a little softer. However, view (or print) both images at the same physical size, and that difference goes away completely.

So, no, there is no real difference in sharpness, but it can look that way to a pixel peeper as they are looking at a much bigger enlargement. It's like looking at a TV screen up close, where you start to see the dots and text looks fuzzy, but sit back on the other side of the room and it all smooths out and sharpens up.

Mine works just fine on both...
There is actually only a small difference in MPs between the 5D2 and 5D3, so MPs alone should not make a big difference.

What extra pixel? Compared to what

5D2 and 5D3 have virtually the same among of MP, there's really no difference.

But yes 24-105 is a mediocre lens in general and there are many sharper and better lens than it.

kin2son wrote in post #15878343
What extra pixel? Compared to what

5D2 and 5D3 have virtually the same among of MP, there's really no difference.

But yes 24-105 is a mediocre lens in general and there are many sharper and better lens than it.

Absolutely agree, I had this as a kit with my 5D3 and the iq of the images from it are very average. A bland and boring lens, even if it does have useful if somewhat lazy range.

kin2son wrote in post #15878343
.....But yes 24-105 is a mediocre lens in general and there are many sharper and better lens than it.

Really - and exactly why do you consider it mediocre?

Sure, you will always be able to find sharper lenses in the Canon line but the 24-105 is far above mediocrity. I've used mine now for nearly 7 years, shooting weddings as well as work for juried competitions and museum exhibitions. The results are not the result of a "mediocre" lens. Perhaps yours is out of spec or needs some maintenance but my own experience does not show it as a medocre lens.

kin2son wrote in post #15878343
But yes 24-105 is a mediocre lens in general and there are many sharper and better lens than it.

No, it is definitely not a mediocre lens. Few other zooms in existence offer the IQ, build and versatility that this one does in such a conveniently sized and priced, package. Calling it mediocre just makes one sound elitist.

I have been using this combo for a few weeks and I have not been disappointed so far.

sapearl wrote in post #15878496
Really - and exactly why do you consider it mediocre?

Sure, you will always be able to find sharper lenses in the Canon line but the 24-105 is far above mediocrity. I've used mine now for nearly 7 years, shooting weddings as well as work for juried competitions and museum exhibitions. The results are not the result of a "mediocre" lens. Perhaps yours is out of spec or needs some maintenance but my own experience does not show it as a medocre lens.

I think it's mostly considered slow due the ubiquity (how long has it been standard ff kit lens?) and the fact that it's relatively slow (f/4) over it's (standard) 24-105 range. Not f/1.2? Not Macro? Not sure wide? Not tele? Not white? Boring (s/mediocre).

Currently using a 24-105L on my 6D and it's as sharp as I like a lens to be. I had the same lens years ago on a Rebel and it was also a very sharp copy.

Sirrith wrote in post #15878698
No, it is definitely not a mediocre lens. Few other zooms in existence offer the IQ, build and versatility that this one does in such a conveniently sized and priced, package. Calling it mediocre just makes one sound elitist.

w0m wrote in post #15879331
I think it's mostly considered slow due the ubiquity (how long has it been standard ff kit lens?) and the fact that it's relatively slow (f/4) over it's (standard) 24-105 range. Not f/1.2? Not Macro? Not sure wide? Not tele? Not white? Boring (s/mediocre).

I can certainly see that. It's a better range than the 24-70 in my opinion, but the IS is what makes it not boring. Having that range with good build, good overall performance, IS and it's not a huge and heavy or extremely expensive lens makes it a great all around buy if it meets your needs. If you need a faster lens f/2.8 zooms are a small improvement but I'd really rather have properly fast primes.

The 24-70 4L IS, now that to me is a boring lens. It loses the extra versatility of the 24-105 but it is certainly even more compact and supposed to be a better performer. No complaints from me about the 24-105 I've used on a 5D3 though.

sapearl wrote in post #15878496
Really - and exactly why do you consider it mediocre?

Sure, you will always be able to find sharper lenses in the Canon line but the 24-105 is far above mediocrity. I've used mine now for nearly 7 years, shooting weddings as well as work for juried competitions and museum exhibitions. The results are not the result of a "mediocre" lens. Perhaps yours is out of spec or needs some maintenance but my own experience does not show it as a medocre lens.

we gotta get you a 24-70L II .

Sirrith wrote in post #15878698
No, it is definitely not a mediocre lens. Few other zooms in existence offer the IQ, build and versatility that this one does in such a conveniently sized and priced, package. Calling it mediocre just makes one sound elitist.

I also think it's a mediocre lens but that was the intent: it is an early FF kit lens with plenty of warts at either end because of its aggressive range.

can you get great images with it? sure. I've seen images made with the 18-55 non-IS that I couldn't come close to touching, and I've made a few myself that I think are among my best.