Canon 24-105L F/4 distortion

VirtualRain wrote in post #16777681
I don't think the distortion is bad at all... And it can easily be fixed in software. Here's a recent comparison I did between the 24-105 (top) and 24-70II (bottom) showing original image (left) and corrected image (right). Note the roof line of the building...

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Pretty much no shot you take with the 24-105mm at 24mm is immune from needing correction IMHO. I find the 24-70mm II to need distortion correction far less frequently. And this is a good example, you could probably get away with leaving the 24-70mm II uncorrected here, but the 24-105mm has a quite obvious curve on the building lines and on the bus shelter.

If you shoot a lot at 24mm then the 24-105 is probably not for you. But I don't think you can beat it for an all around lens, especially at the price. It certainly is a nice in studio portrait lens, especially on a crop body.

I use it all the time to shoot through the whole focal length, and while the distortion and whatnot is certainly there, it's a one-click fix in LR and I've never had a problem with the correction causing a problem on the edges.

DC Fan wrote in post #16777722
How about looking at pictures from a Canon 24-105mm L lens that was set at 24mm?

HTTP response: 504 | MIME changed to 'text/html'

All of the images came from a Canon 5D, which of course is a full frame camera just like a 6D.

There's a now-obsolete idea that the best way to judge a lens' performance is by viewing actual pictures created with that lens. Maybe these images will show whether the lens has "bad distortion."

These are good images. Do you have lens distortion correction turned on in camera?
And by the way, I always judge real work shooting versus lab tested reviews, that's why I started this thread. I can live with the few bad shots, as long as most of the shots are good.

DPP does a very good job of correcting the distortion of the 24-105.

Granted, it doesn't correct the "I'm too close to the person and their head looks huge" sort of distortion but that is just the nature of a 24mm lens.

Copidosoma wrote in post #16778185
DPP does a very good job of correcting the distortion of the 24-105.

Granted, it doesn't correct the "I'm too close to the person and their head looks huge" sort of distortion but that is just the nature of a 24mm lens.

They weren't too close.

marcheseg wrote in post #16778169
These are good images. Do you have lens distortion correction turned on in camera?
And by the way, I always judge real work shooting versus lab tested reviews, that's why I started this thread. I can live with the few bad shots, as long as most of the shots are good.

Sure it takes great shots. Mine did. It just was awful in the corners as you can see how it performed with my crop camera. As long as a buyer in informed and has no surprises then any purchase is a good one. Only reason I'm posting.

digital paradise wrote in post #16778230
Sure it takes great shots. Mine did. It just was awful in the corners as you can see how it performed with my crop camera. As long as a buyer in informed and has no surprises then any purchase is a good one. Only reason I'm posting.

It's like this for me. I love my 24-105L. It is a great lens for vacations etc where I want to take a large variety of shots and where I want to travel light. In general it is a good performer. And overall it is just an awesome focal length range on a 35mm camera when you want a one lens solution, because 24mm is really something (compared to 'meh' zooms that start at 28mm) while also offering a reasonably fast f/4 and IS.

That said, when I know I am going to shoot at 24mm and when I'm not travelling and I have all of my lenses available, then I use one of my other two options in this range. Because my 24L II and my 16-35/2.8 II are both better performers around 24mm.

You'll only notice it if you shoot brick walls or architecture. Anything else and it shouldn't be a problem. The 24-70 II and wide zooms handle distortion at 24mm much better but they don't have the range of price point the 24-105 does. Pros and cons to everything!

digital paradise wrote in post #16778230
Sure it takes great shots. Mine did. It just was awful in the corners as you can see how it performed with my crop camera. As long as a buyer in informed and has no surprises then any purchase is a good one. Only reason I'm posting.

Yea, that's not great for a crop at f11. I must admit I often stop mine down to f14-f16 on FF, allowing a bit of diffraction to soften the center to get the corners OK. However, I'd say my FF corners look similar, maybe just a tad worse that that. The lens does go mushy in the extreme corners on FF but you seem to be getting that on a crop.

More open than f11 and I risk mushy corners for sure, especially at 24mm.

The famed 'mushy corner lens' the 17-40 is definitely better at 24mm.

This is why you have to be careful when you read people saying this lens is 'tack sharp'. I have a hard time believing any copy is 'tack sharp' in the corners at either end of the zoom range. But at f5.6-f8 it is pretty darn sharp in the center - the variation across the frame is OK for most general shooting, but not so good for landscapes.

Having said all that, I have printed landscapes (13x19) using this lens at 24mm. I stop down to where diffraction is certainly impacting the center, but it does help the corners considerably. And not all scenes need tack sharp corners, even some landscapes....and it is still one of my most used lenses. Nothing else out there with the center sharpness, range and IS.

marcheseg wrote in post #16778169
These are good images. Do you have lens distortion correction turned on in camera?
And by the way, I always judge real work shooting versus lab tested reviews, that's why I started this thread. I can live with the few bad shots, as long as most of the shots are good.

No lens distortion correction used. I just put the lens on the 5D and took pictures. No problems.

In any case, isn't there supposed to be a standard technique with wide angle lenses that images are framed so the corners are deemphasized?

This is with lens correction, full shot and center (f16) with sharpening (but looks softer on the POTN upload)

DC Fan wrote in post #16777722
How about looking at pictures from a Canon 24-105mm L lens that was set at 24mm?

All of the images came from a Canon 5D, which of course is a full frame camera just like a 6D.

There's a now-obsolete idea that the best way to judge a lens' performance is by viewing actual pictures created with that lens. Maybe these images will show whether the lens has "bad distortion."

certain subjects will accentuate the distortion. the distortion is there but for the price the 24-105L is a great kit lens. I would recommend getting it and deciding for yourself.

Extreme corner at 100% with and without sharpening. This looks better than some I've taken because the foreground isn't very close, It seems to be that being close to the edge of the DOF makes the corners suffer more.

You can see this is really not bad, especially once sharpened which is why I do stop down - sacrifice some sharpness in the center for more even sharpness overall.

VirtualRain wrote in post #16777869
Not sure if I'm lucky or you're not . But either way, one thing I've come to realize lately is that the variation in sharpness between different samples of the same lens can be fairly substantial. It's worrying with the increase in buying lenses sight unseen online. It's just not economically smart to buy every lens at your local brick and mortar camera shop when you can get it online for hundreds less... But then you're at the mercy of the copy lottery.

if you subject your equipment to extensive rectal exams you will always find fault. variation exists but the vast majority is within spec and will be more than acceptable to the non-proctologist. i.e., just go out and shoot .