I've seen a few tests around the web with the 24-105 showing mixed results. I'm wondering if people think this lens has enough resolution to take full advantage of the 21mp of the new 5D, or even the 15mp of the 50D?
I actually hope the 5DII beta-testers (uh, early purchasers ) will perform some experiments to answer that kind of questions. The 24-105 is not the only lens at stake. I like my 17-40L a lot, but often feel it is close to its limits when used with my 5D, and that the corners do not look so nice at 17mm, f/8. While there are always some 1Ds3 users out there to say "it does the job", there are quite a few others who switched to alternatives too.
The comparisons I would like to see: 5D2 at full res vs 5D2 sRAW (10MP) vs 5D.
And I would also like to hear about commnts about prints. On my 5D, I know I need to be very careful with corner issues when I do 13"x19" prints for instance.
For almost every subject and viewing distance: YES! Maybe some nearsighted brickwall engineers who print extremely large might not find it's enough of EOSfun
dhphoto wrote:
Mine is generally stopped well down, but then it works really well on the 1Ds3
24-70L is better though
David
Actually, I compared my own 24-70L to that of a 24-105L I borrowed from a friend (on my 1Ds3). In terms of resolution both lenses are about equally sharp from f/4 and smaller in the 24mm to 70mm zoom range.
Xavier Rival wrote:
I actually hope the 5DII beta-testers (uh, early purchasers ) will perform some experiments to answer that kind of questions. The 24-105 is not the only lens at stake. I like my 17-40L a lot, but often feel it is close to its limits when used with my 5D, and that the corners do not look so nice at 17mm, f/8. While there are always some 1Ds3 users out there to say "it does the job", there are quite a few others who switched to alternatives too.
The comparisons I would like to see: 5D2 at full res vs 5D2 sRAW (10MP) vs 5D.
And I would also like to hear about commnts about prints. On my 5D, I know I need to be very careful with corner issues when I do 13"x19" prints for instance....Show more →
21MP will magnify lens imperfections for sure. Especially when viewing 100% on your monitor or when printing large. For example, when I printed some 24-70L + 5D landscape shots at 30cm x 40cm I could clearly see the corners were already suffering. This got only worse after printing 24-70L + 1Ds3 landscape shots at 50cm x 70 cm and bigger. But I am very picky and want my prints to look good even at closer viewing distances
eosfun wrote:
For almost every subject and viewing distance: YES! Maybe some nearsighted brickwall engineers who print extremely large might not find it's enough of EOSfun
That's not the question. The question was whether it's sharp enough to take full advantage of the 21 megapixels. My answer would be no. Depending on the aperture, some significant part of the frame will be resolved at less than 21 megapixel resolution. How much that matters to you depends on what kind of photography you want to do.
I have been using the 1Ds3 since December, and although I no longer own a 24-105, I use a Zeiss 24-85 N which is quite similar, and with quite a few other lenses also I have noticed that they limit sharpness, and require more sharpening in post. Some lenses really milk the sensor though, so it's definitely not the AA filter.
It is VERY IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT WHEN YOU EXAMINE 100% CROPS FROM A 21 MEGAPIXEL CAMERA YOU ARE VIEWING THE IMAGE AT SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER MAGNIFICATION THAN YOU ARE USED TO. This means that although the lens defects and noise are more visible in 100% crops, the print is still better than you were getting from your 12 megapixel camera. A 100% crop of a 21 megapixel file is a much higher level of scrutiny. The per pixel noise doesn't need to be as good as that in a 12 megapixel file in order for the file to equal or surpass the lesser file's noise footprint.
Experiment with your lenses, learn the limitations, choose apertures more carefully, and shoot more carefully, and many lenses can fill at least the majority of the pixels with detail. Avoid zooms and lenses with a less than stellar reputation for sharpness.
BTW, be warned, there is certainly going to be a lot of gnashing of teeth and wailing about how noisy and unsharp the 5D2 is after it ships, and people start comparing 100% crops with their old 5D's. Ignore it. This will only happen because people will fail to uprez their 5D files to 21 megapixel before comparing 100% crops. Even reviewers like DPReview and Luminous Landscape routinely make this methodological error when comparing cameras. There is a simple way to see what your new files are really like: uprez the 5D file to 21 megapixels, and then compare 100% crops. That way the images are magnified to the same size, and the comparison is fair. Contrary to popular belief, uprezzing does not turn a unicorn into a pantomime dromedary.
One more point: it is also very important to understand that while the 24-105 might resolve fully on the 5D in some situation, while not resolving fully on the 5D2, THE 5D2 FILE WILL STILL BE SHARPER. For instance, the lens might limit sharpness so that the 5D2 is resolving the equivalent of 16 megapixels. IN THIS CASE, WHILE THE 5D 100% CROPS WILL LOOK SHARPER THAN THE 5D2 100% CROPS, A 5D2 PRINT WILL LOOK SHARPER THAN THE 5D PRINT.
I am going to be pre-ordering the 5D II this weekend and was thinking of getting the package with the 24-105L as it is about $800 more than body only. Needing a good walk around lens with plenty of wide angle and a mid zoom.. that looked like a good match but is there a better Canon IS lens in the $1000 range that is worth using instead. (currently using my 20D with the 17-86 )
) will perform some experiments to answer that kind of questions. The 24-105 is not the only lens at stake. I like my 17-40L a lot, but often feel it is close to its limits when used with my 5D, and that the corners do not look so nice at 17mm, f/8. While there are always some 1Ds3 users out there to say "it does the job", there are quite a few others who switched to alternatives too.