Am I 'hurting' my 5D3 with the 24-105L

Try doing MFA with your 24-105 on your 5D3.

My first MFA efforts were done at 30 feet for my 4 L lenses. Unfortunately, much of my photography is at 50 to 100 feet, sometimes greater. So, using a 'ruler' type MFA target at 75 feet or so, my images went from 'just a tad soft' to noticably sharp. Even wide open, ISO 10,000 at 1/200th at night gives stunning results. It's right up there with the 24-70 f2.8L mark i I used to own as far as IQ in my opinion. Don't forget that the 5D3 has separate MFA settings for wide and telephoto for zoom lenses.

^Sounds like you have a problem with your lens/body combo or need AFMA as mentioned above. The 24-105 on a 5D III should certainly be better than a 7D 17-55 combo. I prefer primes when I can use them, but the 24-105 has its place, especially for group shots and studio work.

lapino wrote in post #17134883
It's just that I'm missing the pop/clarity I used to get from my 7D+17-55/F2.8 combo. Maybe I should just get the 50/1.8. Still, the 70-200/F2.8 stays 99% of the time in my bag, can't clarify why I keep it...

With your zooms, check which focal lengths are the more useful for you and take primes at these FLs...

Titi

lapino wrote in post #17134883
It's just that I'm missing the pop/clarity I used to get from my 7D+17-55/F2.8 combo. Maybe I should just get the 50/1.8. Still, the 70-200/F2.8 stays 99% of the time in my bag, can't clarify why I keep it...

I just took a look at your FlifkR, ... yep you like wide angle and short range portrait lenses, i understand why the 70-200 stay in your bag and it seems you prefer also light camera like your mirrorless
Don't force yourself with heavy DSLR and big lenses, you might reconsider what's your real need, and which material you enjoy more and a decision should be taken ... why spend more money on DSLR if mirrorless is better for your need and pleasure

lapino wrote in post #17134883
It's just that I'm missing the pop/clarity I used to get from my 7D+17-55/F2.8 combo. Maybe I should just get the 50/1.8. Still, the 70-200/F2.8 stays 99% of the time in my bag, can't clarify why I keep it...

Trade in all your lenses and get the 35/85/135 combo.

You'll never want to pick up anything else again.

Talley wrote in post #17134922
Trade in all your lenses and get the 35/85/135 combo.

You'll never want to pick up anything else again.

and the 135 will stay in his bag
If he want to stay with DSLR it seems he is more like 24/35/85

Most of the 24-105's focal range doesn't give the nice tele-photo compression of the 70-200, which is why it may come off as boring to people. Nor does it have the wide aperture of primes in it's range, so you won't get the blurry, OOF goodness.

Where it excels at is being a stout, versatile walk-around, 1-lens solution. It has a constant f/4 aperture, it has IS, a focal length range that does well for wide landscape shots and closer up detail work. It definitely isn't the most artistic or unique lens, but it kicks ass at getting the shot. When you don't want to juggle a bunch of primes, lug a fat f/2.8 lens on a vacation, and want a 1 lens solution, what other options are there?

I too find the 24-xxx zoom range boring, and I no longer own a zoom in this range, but I most certainly can see the usefulness of a versatile zoom. When I did shoot with the 24-105, it proved itself super capable. Nothing wrong with it at all.

I am getting by just fine w/o a midrange zoom on my 6D. Current primes are 35 IS, 50 1.4, and 100 f/2. I'd add a 24L II, if money weren't an option. I don't find the 24 IS too exciting.

...

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17134960
I am getting by just fine w/o a midrange zoom on my 6D. Current primes are 35 IS, 50 1.4, and 100 f/2. I'd add a 24L II, if money weren't an option. I don't find the 24 IS too exciting.

Same boat here… 35mm, 50mm, and I'd love for that rumored Sigma 24mm to come out soon (if the price is right!).

lapino wrote in post #17134883
It's just that I'm missing the pop/clarity I used to get from my 7D+17-55/F2.8 combo. Maybe I should just get the 50/1.8. Still, the 70-200/F2.8 stays 99% of the time in my bag, can't clarify why I keep it...

You are probably liking a high degree of micro-contrast. the 24-70ii is much better than the 24-105. And the sigma 35 and 50Art has that look as well. But still my favorite lens that gives pop is the 85L. However, for your standards, nothing will be sharp with the 5diii unless you micro-adjust your lens to it.

madhatter04 wrote in post #17135190
Same boat here… 35mm, 50mm, and I'd love for that rumored Sigma 24mm to come out soon (if the price is right!).

Sigma 24mm? Not the old f/1.8, I hope. Got a link?

Wow... u find your mirrorless better than 5DIII? Not so much with my nex6....

Reservoir Dog wrote in post #17134794
I have the 5D2 and the 5D3, the 24-105 is better on the 5D2, sounds crazy no ?
But in all case i was not very happy with the 24-105, i kept it because my wife love the range very useful for her, but me ... hum ... i'm a prime guy with very wide aperture )

I'm a prime wide aperture guy too! If you can't get the IQ that you want with zooms, upgrade to primes is what I say!!

The 24-105L is so amazing at everything that its boring. Never had a single issue with it other than the fact that it makes you lazy. Ive since switched to more primes and love my work even more as a result.