Very disappointed with IQ from 24-105L

Here is my slant on this good copy/bad copy subject..

The last 17 years of my 28 years in pro photography I worked for a newspaper where gear was issued and we used the gear issued.. Two camera bodies, four lenses, two TCs plus two Speedlites each.. We had 11 photographers plus two casuals.. Multilpy all the gear by 13 and you can get an idea how much gear we had,, 52 everyday lenses.. The gear issued was ours to do with what we had to do.. Plus there was a locker of specialist gear that would make any fanboy cream his pants.. I don't know exactly how many specialist lenses we had to our diposal,, I'm talking maybe 25 or 30.. If my maths serves me right, that's about 80 lenses in service.. Not including lenses that were not being used because they had been replaced for whatever reason.. The average life span of a lens was around four years or it was passed down to a casual for further use..

When new gear was issued we never tested but went about and shot the gigs assigned,, 4 to 8 per day.. In the last four years working there, it was my job to package the gear up that was damaged and send it to Canon for repair.. In those four years I never sent stuff back because of a bad copy,, damaged yes, but never because of a bad copy.. Think about it,, 12 photographers working 8-10 hours a day, seven days a week on different shifts using 80 lenses (not all at once though)..

If for any reason we didn't bring back the goods and blamed gear, the boss would throw the nearest, heaviest object at us.. It just didn't happen..

I'm sure bad copies exist, but in my opinion far and few between.. If the number of bad copies exist as reported in these forums and other forums we would have had our fair share..

sapearl wrote in post #10926556
... Also, what many don't understand is that there is no such thing as free service. ...

Stu is right here. "Free" service is always hidden in someway or another. The Service Center rates are probably calculated with an expectation that some percentage of items returned for calibration are going to be "free." So, the rest of us who send in an item not under warranty will pay a little extra to account for the "free" service.

OP...BTW I have had no issues with my 24-105MM f/4 L since I got it as the "kit lens" with my 5D. If there is a complaint with the 24-105MM f/4 L it is the disappointing bokah when shooting against a very busy background. And, you can usually work around that issue by carefully positioning your subjects. I really enjoy my 5D and 24-105MM f/4 L as an all around combo for general photography.

lankforddl wrote in post #10897152
Jesus H. people. I swear 75% of this forum is filled with communication that veers off course and loses the focus. Someone please invent a digital Attention Deficit medication for the forums.

The OP has a crop body(s). When you talk about how amazing your 24-105 is on your FF body it's like comparing apple to oranges.

How do you figure? The lens ought to be better on a crop than full frame because he's shooting in the sweet spot.

yogestee wrote in post #10926919
Here is my slant on this good copy/bad copy subject..

The last 17 years of my 28 years in pro photography I worked for a newspaper where gear was issued and we used the gear issued.. Two camera bodies, four lenses, two TCs plus two Speedlites each.. We had 11 photographers plus two casuals.. Multilpy all the gear by 13 and you can get an idea how much gear we had,, 52 everyday lenses.. The gear issued was ours to do with what we had to do.. Plus there was a locker of specialist gear that would make any fanboy cream his pants.. I don't know exactly how many specialist lenses we had to our diposal,, I'm talking maybe 25 or 30.. If my maths serves me right, that's about 80 lenses in service.. Not including lenses that were not being used because they had been replaced for whatever reason.. The average life span of a lens was around four years or it was passed down to a casual for further use..

When new gear was issued we never tested but went about and shot the gigs assigned,, 4 to 8 per day.. In the last four years working there, it was my job to package the gear up that was damaged and send it to Canon for repair.. In those four years I never sent stuff back because of a bad copy,, damaged yes, but never because of a bad copy.. Think about it,, 12 photographers working 8-10 hours a day, seven days a week on different shifts using 80 lenses (not all at once though)..

If for any reason we didn't bring back the goods and blamed gear, the boss would throw the nearest, heaviest object at us.. It just didn't happen..

I'm sure bad copies exist, but in my opinion far and few between.. If the number of bad copies exist as reported in these forums and other forums we would have had our fair share..

Bad customers is far more likely than bad product. I've not had nearly as much gear as you mention, but I've never had a "bad copy". I'm just not that lucky if it was something pervasive.

Far too many pixel peeping obsessive compulsives who buy cameras and lenses only to post about them on DPR and this site to complain about how dis-satisfied they are with their purchase.

Well regardless of how you all feel about me as a photographer, and whether or not you think this is all in my head, or I am Pixel peeping, or just a plain crap photographer many of you continue to express your opinions. The tech rep I spoke to at Canon TOLD me to send it in. He said things like what I experienced happen all the time. He did however shed light to the fact that 50% of the lenses sent back in have nothing wrong with them and are simply cleaned and returned to the customer. So which bracket will I fit in to? Who knows. Is this all in my head? Perhaps. But at least this way after sending it in, I will know that if it continues to perform in a fashion I don't like it is either A.) user error B.) not the right lens for me or C.) just something I have to get used to as far as sharpness, focusing, and IQ. What really gets me is that many of you continue to point your fingers at me as if I am some nut case who has no clue how to use a camera. And while I am NOT a professional with 30 years of experience, I DO know my way around a camera and I do know what looks good and what doesn't. I don't know what makes people feel they need to say that it must be that "the lens is fine and this kid just isn't focusing right or doesn't know how to use his camera".

If I can take fine pictures with my 18-55 IS with relative good IQ (relative being to the lens's assumed quality as a kit lens) and then take the 24-105L and take a picture with a relatively average IQ (based on its assumed quality) there is something wrong in my opinion. I'm not saying for sure that I have a bad copy, and I am definitely saying that the 24-105L is a poor lens as a rule, but I am saying that it should definitely produce better than average results. If it didn't, no one would spend the $1000 on it. You buy L lenses for a reason, and it is not just the pretty red ring and the weather proofing. They are supposed to bring to the table the best in optics canon has to offer and MY copy of that lens DID NOT.... IN MY OPINION.

FrostbytePhoto wrote in post #10928467
Well regardless of how you all feel about me as a photographer, and whether or not you think this is all in my head, or I am Pixel peeping, or just a plain crap photographer many of you continue to express your opinions. The tech rep I spoke to at Canon TOLD me to send it in. He said things like what I experienced happen all the time. He did however shed light to the fact that 50% of the lenses sent back in have nothing wrong with them and are simply cleaned and returned to the customer. So which bracket will I fit in to? Who knows. Is this all in my head? Perhaps. But at least this way after sending it in, I will know that if it continues to perform in a fashion I don't like it is either A.) user error B.) not the right lens for me or C.) just something I have to get used to as far as sharpness, focusing, and IQ. What really gets me is that many of you continue to point your fingers at me as if I am some nut case who has no clue how to use a camera. And while I am NOT a professional with 30 years of experience, I DO know my way around a camera and I do know what looks good and what doesn't. I don't know what makes people feel they need to say that it must be that "the lens is fine and this kid just isn't focusing right or doesn't know how to use his camera".

If I can take fine pictures with my 18-55 IS with relative good IQ (relative being to the lens's assumed quality as a kit lens) and then take the 24-105L and take a picture with a relatively average IQ (based on its assumed quality) there is something wrong in my opinion. I'm not saying for sure that I have a bad copy, and I am definitely saying that the 24-105L is a poor lens as a rule, but I am saying that it should definitely produce better than average results. If it didn't, no one would spend the $1000 on it. You buy L lenses for a reason, and it is not just the pretty red ring and the weather proofing. They are supposed to bring to the table the best in optics canon has to offer and MY copy of that lens DID NOT.... IN MY OPINION.

Take a breath and don't take it so personally, man; it really isn't worth feeling hurt over it. We're on the web, people don't actually know each other and all we have to go on are the words on the screen in those cases.
A lot of folks here have various levels of experience with things and that includes various experiencES. Stick around here long enough and you'll see that, probably, 90% of the time the issues where folks post *are* genuinely caused by the shooter and not the equipment. I was certainly in that 90% for the a LONG time and most likely still am from time to time. It's a great opportunity to learn something.

And then there are a few times where something is off with the gear; I've exchanged 1 copy of the 100-400 for a 'malfunction' of the AF system on it which I'm still not 100% convinced was the lens, but swapping for a new copy got rid of the issue; 1 copy of the 24-105 which wouldn't focus quite properly out past 10ft or so and which, again, wasn't a problem with the second copy. This one I'm more convinced was actually the lens since 2 different guys at the shop tested that one out before they made the swap <shrug>, and sent in my 7D because I wasn't getting as consistent results with AF on it as I was on my 40D. 7D is back and working as phenomenally as I was originally expecting, now.

Whether any/all/none of that is placebo effect or not, I don't much care. I now have gear that is working to my expectations, regardless of how others here may feel about it. Most folks here are just trying to be helpful or get us to think about our problems a bit differently, even if they come off as rough sometimes.

You've got your lens off to Canon, so why worry about it. Either it will come back as fixed and you'll be blown away or it still won't meet your expectations and you can sell/exchange it and use that money for something that does something useful for you. <shrug>

Good luck with it, though.

FrostbytePhoto wrote in post #10901865
See? Those pictures show a quality I have YET to see with my 24-105. Those look sharp, crisp, well saturated, good definition etc. Mine just seems blah. I think I got a bad copy of the lens.

less likely yours is a bad copy, there are more elements invole if you want a good picture.

Lighting plays an important part.

get/borrow another copy of the same lens and try ISO 12233 chart, see if there is any difference, before you draw the conclusion that yours is a bad copy.

yogestee wrote in post #10926919
Here is my slant on this good copy/bad copy subject..

The last 17 years of my 28 years in pro photography I worked for a newspaper where gear was issued and we used the gear issued.. Two camera bodies, four lenses, two TCs plus two Speedlites each.. We had 11 photographers plus two casuals.. Multilpy all the gear by 13 and you can get an idea how much gear we had,, 52 everyday lenses.. The gear issued was ours to do with what we had to do.. Plus there was a locker of specialist gear that would make any fanboy cream his pants.. I don't know exactly how many specialist lenses we had to our diposal,, I'm talking maybe 25 or 30.. If my maths serves me right, that's about 80 lenses in service.. Not including lenses that were not being used because they had been replaced for whatever reason.. The average life span of a lens was around four years or it was passed down to a casual for further use..

When new gear was issued we never tested but went about and shot the gigs assigned,, 4 to 8 per day.. In the last four years working there, it was my job to package the gear up that was damaged and send it to Canon for repair.. In those four years I never sent stuff back because of a bad copy,, damaged yes, but never because of a bad copy.. Think about it,, 12 photographers working 8-10 hours a day, seven days a week on different shifts using 80 lenses (not all at once though)..

If for any reason we didn't bring back the goods and blamed gear, the boss would throw the nearest, heaviest object at us.. It just didn't happen..

I'm sure bad copies exist, but in my opinion far and few between.. If the number of bad copies exist as reported in these forums and other forums we would have had our fair share..

if that's typical then some forum members here either have extraordinary bad luck with lens or just love complaining about their focusing problems -
or it may have something to do with the ability of the photographer!

FrostbytePhoto wrote in post #10929484
Moderators, please lock this thread. This is just getting stupid.

Frostbyte - I hope it works out for you and I'd like to hear what Canon says about it if you choose to share that info with us. In spite of what opinions I may have, I hope you didn't feel any were targetted in your direction - I like to paint with a broad brush .

As for locking the thread.... well, I have seen far far worse here and would hope it would remain open. But that is obviously not up to me to decide. Typically, mutinous threads get a few warning shots across the bow before a full boarding party is mounted and the ship is scuttled.

Moral of this story? Don't ever ask a question as you might not receive the answer that you're looking for! I can always ask enough people about anything, and sooner or later someone will agree with me even if I'm totally wrong about something! This has indeed been an interesting thread!

FrostbytePhoto wrote in post #10896751
Ok, so its not an amazing lens. But it should still out perform a lens that was built 23 years ago that was made for Film bodies right?

Tell that to my 1960's Pentax Super Takumars. I have to wear shark weave gloves when handling those shots. But seriously old glass is just as good.

I have a 24-105 that did have a problem, It was not sharp at 20 feet and beyond, up close it was great. I call canon (I bought it used , didn't have the warrantee ) They said send it in they would fix it, if it didn't look like it had been abused. Now I have a great lens at NO cost!!!!!!

Thats all I have to say about that.

See what happens when the lens comes back from Canon.

I was underwhelmed by the performance of 24-105 when I initially received it with 5DII as its 'kit' lens. In fact, the only reason I bought it as part of 5DII kit was I was planning to sell it later for perhaps a small margin of profit (bought as a kit, the lens costs $800).
I was comparing the first shots with the 70-200 f/4L IS which is an amazing lens in every way (note also the similar focal range to your 70-210). Also, one of my first outing with the 24-105 was out in the blazing noontime sun in July - not many lenses can impress a photographer in that kind of light, especially when chasing children and people around.

Granted, 24-105 is not a sexy lens -- often compared to and relegated to the supporting role of 24-70, and on a crop frame, the fov covers not so enticing range. Distortion is large at 24mm.

That being said, 24-105 is now the default lens on my 5DII and I will sometimes take it attached to 40D to complement 10-22EF-S. I can't explain why but once I got over the initial IQ disappointment, I started seeing good aspects including its IQ. The fact I compared it to a telephoto zoom, which tend to deliver better IQ than wide to tele zoom that 24-105 is and also, the fact that I've read so many threads putting down 24-105 and favoring 24-70 'persuaded' me to see it with some unfair prejudice.

Let's just say it grew on me over time. Within the L family, there is some hierarchy - this is no 200mm/f2; but overall it is a worthy addition to the L lineup of Canon lenses.

I'll let you in on a little secret: I have a Zeiss Distagon T*2.8/21mm and I was disappointed with some of the first shots I've taken to the point I felt severe buyer's remorse. But in due course, I came to understand (more like intuitively 'feel') what kind of light the lens performs best in and how to use it. It's safe to say that with the 24-105, that point has been reached and I'm still working on that with the Zeiss.

See what happens when it comes back, give it a few more tries during various times of the day and with different subject matters. If you still aren't impressed, do some research on a lens you want to replace it with, then put it on F/S or trade.

Good luck - and do please follow through with this thread and let us know the outcome.

FrostbytePhoto wrote in post #10928467
Well regardless of how you all feel about me as a photographer, and whether or not you think this is all in my head, or I am Pixel peeping, or just a plain crap photographer many of you continue to express your opinions. The tech rep I spoke to at Canon TOLD me to send it in. He said things like what I experienced happen all the time. He did however shed light to the fact that 50% of the lenses sent back in have nothing wrong with them and are simply cleaned and returned to the customer. So which bracket will I fit in to? Who knows. Is this all in my head? Perhaps. But at least this way after sending it in, I will know that if it continues to perform in a fashion I don't like it is either A.) user error B.) not the right lens for me or C.) just something I have to get used to as far as sharpness, focusing, and IQ. What really gets me is that many of you continue to point your fingers at me as if I am some nut case who has no clue how to use a camera. And while I am NOT a professional with 30 years of experience, I DO know my way around a camera and I do know what looks good and what doesn't. I don't know what makes people feel they need to say that it must be that "the lens is fine and this kid just isn't focusing right or doesn't know how to use his camera".

If I can take fine pictures with my 18-55 IS with relative good IQ (relative being to the lens's assumed quality as a kit lens) and then take the 24-105L and take a picture with a relatively average IQ (based on its assumed quality) there is something wrong in my opinion. I'm not saying for sure that I have a bad copy, and I am definitely saying that the 24-105L is a poor lens as a rule, but I am saying that it should definitely produce better than average results. If it didn't, no one would spend the $1000 on it. You buy L lenses for a reason, and it is not just the pretty red ring and the weather proofing. They are supposed to bring to the table the best in optics canon has to offer and MY copy of that lens DID NOT.... IN MY OPINION.

Off topic a bit, but I have to say, you have written a very well worded response here. I wish I was so adept at the keyboard. Here's hoping the lens comes back to you sharp as a tack and you become a raving fan of the 24-105.