Upload & Sell: Off
| p.3 #16 · Seems like all I hear is "Full Frame, Full Frame, Full Frame." |
Ralph Conway wrote:
It's possible that only a small subset of 24-105L do really well and most of the other copies are much worse. Never seen another lens so often trashed to bits by some and praised by others.
Obviously you haven't spent much time over at DPReview.
I sold mine because my friends one is much more crisp then mine was. I will buy a new one and hope it is like his (at my body). Anyway I was happy with the results, before I could compare to his lens. I guess itīs like with the 50mm 1.4. I tested 7 from one charge (at my dealers place). Two where worthless, two where nice, but hit AF in 50-60%, One was (nearly) without cf, accurte and fastest AF (70%-80). That one I bought. And I used it one year. MF was a pain. I tested 5 Sigmas and (we) purchased two under the permition to give it back, if Sigma would not be able to correct the 20mm fromt focus.
I guess, that pros and contras do not mean anything. One has to find out him/herselve with any lens at any body.
Sometimes I wonder if maybe I really did have the bad luck to get two nearly identically poor 24-105 copies.
Yeah 50mm 1.4 AF is all over the place, no copies are great, some are beyond awful and the MF ring is very poor, yeah.