24-105 L compared to the 70-200 L F2.8

Just purchased a Canon 5DS-R and what they say about the extra resolution is true - it points out minor issues with gear. I took some images with the 24-105L and at 1:1 in LR they are OK. To be honest I was a bit let down. Then I took some images with the 70-200 L F2.8 and I love them! I am wondering if I need to adjust the focus of the 24-105 or is it just not as good a lens and I am really seeing it from the extra resolution of the 5DS-R

Up until know I have been shooting with a 5DIII so still a high res camera.

I know that I will likely be happy with the 24-105 at a standard crop but I am not that kind of person (as evidenced by the 5DS-R. I want it to look incredible at the pixel level to.

I should add that I can see a difference between the two lens even when viewing on the camera LCD if I am zoomed all the way in.


FOLKS: Please ignore this post, the forum won't let me delete it. I am going to do a few more tests later today and will post back with the results in a new thread.

Did you take two exact same shots with the same f-stop and focal length? Can you share these to show us?

I have not. I tried to delete the thread after posting it but you can't delete the first post in a thread. I am going to go back and try both lens as you recommend. More results later today or tomorrow.

If you have the 5DS-R and the 70-200 L F2.8, and are as you say the kind of person who buys an S-R, then you need to sell the 24-105 and get the 24-70 2.8 II.

Do the comparison using Live View, 10x magnification and manual focus; that'll eliminate any need for MFA of the 24-105. But, it's likely you'll find that the 24-105 isn't on par with the 70-200 at similar focal lengths

Using the comparison tool on TDP (24-105mm @ 105mm f/4 and 70-200mm @ 100mm f/4), they both show issues. The telephoto beats the standard zoom though:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=2​&APIComp=2

But we are comparing apples to oranges here.

The 24-105 is a lens that most report as being less sharp in the longer FL - and the 70-200 is usually very good in the shorter FL - so it is almost an unfair test to begin with.

Snydremark wrote in post #18062950
Do the comparison using Live View, 10x magnification and manual focus; that'll eliminate any need for MFA of the 24-105. But, it's likely you'll find that the 24-105 isn't on par with the 70-200 at similar focal lengths

This.

Also, the 24-105 tends to be soft F4 to F8.

windpig wrote in post #18063274
This.

Also, the 24-105 tends to be soft F4 to F8.

This isn't true in my experience or from tests that I have read. (slrgear.com and others) would show the 24-105 F4 at 24mm, 35mm to 50mm to be very good wide open at F4. Many have often questioned the longer FL (70mm - 105mm) as not being sharp wide open or even at F5.6. My own version of this lens, since sold for the Sigma version, would agree with this. Moreover, when the 24-70 F4 came out, different testers started comparing these lenses and I remember many reporting the same thing and thus questioning the reason for buying the 24-70 F4. The difference in these two lenses was noted that the 24-70 F4 while poor at 50mm was good at 70mm and that was the opposite of the 24-105 which is excellent all the way until 70mm - the reason the 24-70 F4 started selling better than when initially launched was they eventually dropped the price and it is more useful for macro

Thanks. I rely on TDP when deciding on a purchase but I never realized they had a lens comparison tool that goes into that much depth. I would say the difference I am seeing is easily on par with what I am seeing in the lens review tool. I had never noticed it until getting the new body, in part I think because now I am looking at everything 1:1 to see what the extra camera resolution is doing.

Amazed there is that much of a difference between lenses but I guess the thing to remember is that we are looking at our images at a high resolution, under extreme magnification.

Thanks everyone for your replies - learned something new today.

wallstreetoneil wrote in post #18063284
This isn't true in my experience or from tests that I have read. (slrgear.com and others) would show the 24-105 F4 at 24mm, 35mm to 50mm to be very good wide open at F4. Many have often questioned the longer FL (70mm - 105mm) as not being sharp wide open or even at F5.6. My own version of this lens, since sold for the Sigma version, would agree with this. Moreover, when the 24-70 F4 came out, different testers started comparing these lenses and I remember many reporting the same thing and thus questioning the reason for buying the 24-70 F4. The difference in these two lenses was noted that the 24-70 F4 while poor at 50mm was good at 70mm and that was the opposite of the 24-105 which is excellent all the way until 70mm - the reason the 24-70 F4 started selling better than when initially launched was they eventually dropped the price and it is more useful for macro

I've been shooting a lot in the last week with my 24-105 and completely agree. It is sharp at 35-50 and even 70 at f4. I try and avoid the extremes and I get good results. I think my copy is a UA or UB (picked up after the 5D3 came out) I wish I could limit the focus distance on my 24-105 to 35-70 without looking at it. lol

I'd say the 24-105 is slightly less sharp than a good copy ofthe original 70-200 2.8 IS as well. The 70-200 2.8 II is just crazy sharp no matter what. The 24-105 also can't take advantage of the crazy good cross type focusing on the newer cameras either like a 24-70 II is able to.

<edit> BTW I remember shortly after joining this site that people were questioning why Canon wasn't coming out with a high MP camera like Nikon (36mp IIRC) was at the time. Instead Canon was coming out with Version 2 of many of it's lenses and f4 versions with IS. My thought that I conveyed were that it was pointless to have a crazy high MP camera if the glass can't support those high MP sensors. This is the perfect example and why Canon has upgraded so many of their lenses in the last few years. The 5Ds and the video capabilities of the 1DxII (4K) and even the 80D.

I recently bought the 24-105 and I am quite happy with it, but I am using it with a lowly 40D. At 105 mm f 4.5 I think it is sharp

IMAGE LINK: https://rdsmith3.smugm​ug.com/Maia/i-Rm96SwT/A&lb=1&s=A

Maia

Interesting comments at https://www.dpreview.c​om/reviews/canon-eos-5ds-sr. In summary, you may need to expend a bit of an extra effort to get the best.

Northwoods Bill wrote in post #18062098
Just purchased a Canon 5DS-R and what they say about the extra resolution is true - it points out minor issues with gear. I took some images with the 24-105L and at 1:1 in LR they are OK. To be honest I was a bit let down. Then I took some images with the 70-200 L F2.8 and I love them! I am wondering if I need to adjust the focus of the 24-105 or is it just not as good a lens and I am really seeing it from the extra resolution of the 5DS-R

Up until know I have been shooting with a 5DIII so still a high res camera.

I know that I will likely be happy with the 24-105 at a standard crop but I am not that kind of person (as evidenced by the 5DS-R. I want it to look incredible at the pixel level to.

I should add that I can see a difference between the two lens even when viewing on the camera LCD if I am zoomed all the way in.


FOLKS: Please ignore this post, the forum won't let me delete it. I am going to do a few more tests later today and will post back with the results in a new thread.

Bill.
May I ask which 70-200 f/2.8 L do you have?

70-200 f/2.8 L
70-200 f/2.8 L IS
70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II

Thank you.

I have the EOS 5DS. I also use the Canon 24-105L, amongst others, and I find it to be fine for my purposes - if I do print an image from this combo it's to a maximum size of A3+ and IQ/resolution is excellent. The focal length of the Canon zoom is so handy and I shall definitely keep it until the rumoured new 24-105 appears. It's a very good lens, or at least my copy is, and is often maligned.