rebel300 wrote:
Is this a lens you bought used jmvdigital?
I use mine all the time and really like it....I'd send that dog you bought back to it's owner...
Are you kidding? There are so many variables at play here. For 100% crops those are good. That's like a slice of a wall-sized image and there's no way you're going to be enlarging / printing that big in any real circumstances. At 11x14 or 16x20 all of these 100% crops will be tack sharp, or at least as sharp as anything else from micro digital SLR format cameras.
These look sharper because they are higher contrast. They could be marginally better focused or less subject to any subject/camera movement, but the most dramatic difference is the lighting / contrast.
tcrobert wrote:
I think maybe I'll try another copy and see if it's much better. I know I tested it side-by-side to my razor sharp 85/1.8 and it wasn't quite as sharp (but not bad either). Then again, is it fair to demand prime lens quality out of a zoom lens of any kind?
Here's some more samples, which are at/near the long end:
Below picture settings: 1/200, F/5.6, ISO 400, 105mm
http://i37./nbojsm.jpg
Below picture settings: 1/640, F/9, ISO 400, 105mm
http://i37./2962la1.jpg
Below picture settings: 1/60, F/4, ISO 200, 96mm
http://i38./2sai5bc.jpg
The last one is stunning... shot wide open at F4, and at a slower shutter speed... very impressive! Which makes me think that the lens itself is sharp, but maybe it's not focusing perfect all the time? Is that possible? I thought either it focused right on or it didn't focus right on...
24-105 reacts well to sharpening, and yours doesn't look as good as it could. I have seen worse, but I own better. I shoot at f8 and find on the 5d in particular, not on the Ds or the 1dMIII, that it is sharper than 85 or 50 or 35 of either versions. Doesn't compete with the 135L though , and yes, with the shots that you have been getting, I would get it fixed or get another.
Alright, fair enough. Now for the OP and my sake... all of you folks proclaiming you have sharp copies... let's see some 100% crops, no sharpening, retouching, or adjustments made to the original. It's not a dual, but now I'm curious.
It also should be said that my 1DsIII has severe AF issues. I had previously thought it had done ok with this particular lens, but maybe not. Currently, the body is with the engineers at their HQ in NY. I'm awaiting an eval and hopefully a replacement.
jmvdigital wrote:
Alright, fair enough. Now for the OP and my sake... all of you folks proclaiming you have sharp copies... let's see some 100% crops, no sharpening, retouching, or adjustments made to the original. It's not a dual, but now I'm curious.
Yesssss, please do show some samples! You have the rest of us here biting our nails...
I would love to see some 100% crops from the sharp copies here... if I see a big difference, you can bet this baby is going back to where it came from...
One more thing... from what I hear, this lens is good on cropped sensors (Rebel's, 10/20/30/40D's, etc.), but really shines on the FF cameras such as the 5D.
So when posting 100% crops, please indicate which camera body you're using.
Not the world's best photo, but it's sharp. This is the 24-105L on a full-frame 5D. F/4, ISO-320, 1/250th shutter. Shot RAW, developed in DPP with extremely minimal post processing. Click the picture for the full-rez original.
If you're unsure, or less than satisfied, send it in. I've only had mine for a couple weeks, am impressed so far on my 40D. On the other hand, I always apply sharpening in post, and rarely view any completed photos at 100%. I'd hate to see what I look like at 100%!! Just by looking, I'd say that the original samples don't look great, but (again) I'm no expert.
Thanks for the image. Unfortunately, I don't think we can compare close-up subjects to complex scenes at infinity. FWIW, I don't happen to think this particular image exhibits much more/if any sharpness over the other images; it just benefits from strong contrast in the subject and being close. Let's see a landscape or something further away.
IMHO, alot of lenses can look decent with fairly close subjects. My theory is that is because the naked eye can't necessarily see those details, so any increase in closeness over what we normally see (i.e., a goat's head fairly close) looks like it's more detailed. Maybe I'm just full of sh*t.
Ubunoir wrote:
Not the world's best photo, but it's sharp. This is the 24-105L on a full-frame 5D. F/4, ISO-320, 1/250th shutter. Shot RAW, developed in DPP with extremely minimal post processing. Click the picture for the full-rez original.
I don't have a 24-105, but your pix look soft to me.... you should go back to the shop and compare it with another to be sure... sometimes Canon have lemons........
Those are fine for 100% crops. (A print made at that resolution would be more or less four feet wide!)
However, there is a lot we don't know about your photos. Did you shoot jpg or RAW? If the former, was some in-camera sharpening applied or not? If the latter, did you sharpen during RAW conversion and/or post-processing?
There are a lot of misconceptions regarding what a "sharp" lens looks like at 100%, and you must sharpen to get the best image possible from any lens on a DSLR.
That tight crop is so small compared to the entire picture- you're really pushing the lens to the limit on such a tight crop and detailed sensor. The overall picture is fine, but compared to what I've seen on my 24-105 I would say that your pics do look slightly soft though. If anything it may just be a calibration issue? I presume you were focused on the horse?
j***s c**** this place is going down hill with garbage posts like this.
Is my lens sharp? you then post cropped files. Where's the original to compare.
Look at the horse shot. The poster has cropped 97.8675% of the file and enlarge the remaining 2.1325% and then complains about sharpness.
Of course anything severely cropped and enlarged will look like dirt.
Now someones asking for 100% crops of unedited unsharpened files?
I seriously suggest you read some information on digital images and processing. With a statement requesting unedited files to determine sharpness shows you know nothing about digital.
walter23 wrote:
Are you kidding? There are so many variables at play here. For 100% crops those are good. That's like a slice of a wall-sized image and there's no way you're going to be enlarging / printing that big in any real circumstances. At 11x14 or 16x20 all of these 100% crops will be tack sharp, or at least as sharp as anything else from micro digital SLR format cameras.
Why post full images to compare to the OP's 100% crops?
This place is simply absurd these days.
Jo Dilbeck wrote:
OK, raw file in LR, absolutely no processing within LR, exported to jpeg 800 pixels on the short side. Canon 5D, lens @ 65mm, 800 ISO, F7.1, 1/400. This lens stays on my 5D about 95% of the time.
, and yes, with the shots that you have been getting, I would get it fixed or get another.
?