24-105 mm f/4 IS USM II Sharpness comparison to 100-400 mm f/4.5-5.6 IS USM II @ 100mm

This is for all you pixel peepers, a direct comparison @ ~100 mm.

The 100 to 400 shows slightly better contrast, but who would print something out at this level of magnification?

24-105 II @ 105mm

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/Pcyi​Xy

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/PfG9​88

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/AMZP​XL

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/AMZr​DC

are those 100% or 400%? They look big but clearly the 100-400 is the winner from those samples.

400% I agree it's better but clearly - wow. I have to disagree that they are so clearly different.

hqqns wrote in post #18185686
400% I agree it's better but clearly - wow. I have to disagree that they are so clearly different.

Can you redo it at 100% and yes I can clearly see... I mean I picked it out immediately without looking. I already know the 100-400II is amazing and will beat the short zoom easily.

Talley wrote in post #18185705
Can you redo it at 100% and yes I can clearly see... I mean I picked it out immediately without looking. I already know the 100-400II is amazing and will beat the short zoom easily.

Go to my flicker and you can download the 'original' size of the two lower images in my first post.

Take a look at this... This is off your web uploaded JPG and not even full size. Since the photo is in portrait mode this is the top center of the image when viewed in landscape. The performance of the 100-400 will be even better as it moves towards it's sides edges and then corners.

Most people don't restrict their photos to the center part of the image.... there is no way a short zoom can compete against a GOOD tele like the 100-400II in areas outside the immediate center.

Is it easy to see now?

Talley wrote in post #18185705
Can you redo it at 100% and yes I can clearly see... I mean I picked it out immediately without looking. I already know the 100-400II is amazing and will beat the short zoom easily.

I have to agree, 100-400 seems considerably better.

dochollidayda wrote in post #18185725
I have to agree, 100-400 seems considerably better.

We always knew that the 100 is better, by point is that the 24-105 is not as bad as you guys make out, the edges don't really matter for a lot of shots where they will be out of D.O.F. anyway.

What you have to ask your self is, if I'm out and about, would I replace the 24-105 with the 100-400 if I happen to need to shoot at that focal length, the answer is a clear no.

P.S. The 100-400 is also a hell of a lot more expensive too.

hqqns wrote in post #18185739
We always knew that the 100 is better, by point is that the 24-105 is not as bad as you guys make out, the edges don't really matter for most shots where they will be out of D.O.F. anyway.

What you have to ask your self is, if I'm out and about, would I replace the 24-105 with the 100-400 if I happen to need to shoot at that focal length, the answer is a clear no.

Your right. But edges do matter. Full length portraits framing close to the sides means fuzzier face than waist. It does matter.

And we never said the 24-105II was bad... we just saying there is marginal if any improvements in sharpness from the V1. Thats all.

Talley wrote in post #18185745
Your right. But edges do matter. Full length portraits framing close to the sides means fuzzier face than waist. It does matter.

I never compared it to the old one - I can't I don't have it.

I'd have to agree on that, why would you want to use a zoom for portraits? Surely that's why we have fixed length, with lower f number in case we want to blow out the background etc?

Mid teles are very useful for portraits as well as landscapes where corner sharpness is nice.

Having said all that, my expectations from this lens were never astronomical, a 4x general purpose zoom is just that, jack of all.

Its usefulness to many supercede its obvious flaws. Great range, reasonably sharp and has IS.

Agreed. But the point here is that some reviews floating around seems to show that this ii is behind the good copies of the i which sucks

hqqns wrote in post #18185753
I never compared it to the old one - I can't I don't have it.

I'd have to agree on that, why would you want to use a zoom for portraits? Surely that's why we have fixed length, with lower f number in case we want to blow out the background etc?

Zooms are great for portraits, I always use a 70-200 for example during portraiture. You don't need a prime fast lens to blow out backgrounds. Remember that aperture isn't the only factor in blurring out the surroundings. Edges do matter unless you shoot very loose and crop later.

I never was enamored with the original 24-105, copy variation was off the charts, and many of my copies simply weren't great. There is a reason that lens was priced below many 3rd party lenses, and came in kits. I am sure the MKII is better though.

400mm at f5.6

fplstudio wrote in post #18185774
Agreed. But the point here is that some reviews floating around seems to show that this ii is behind the good copies of the i which sucks

This is true for use on a full frame.

However, on a crop, (7D2), the 24-105L II is clearly superior, corner-to-corner, when compared to the 24-105L I, at least according to the digital picture.com site.

This will be a very popular lens for crop owners. They/we just have to wait for the price of this lens to come down. It wont be long before a more reasonable price for this lens starts to appear on eBay sometime this spring.