Re: Seems like all I hear is "Full Frame, Full Frame, Full Frame."
RobDickinson wrote:
24-105f4L is in every way a better lens than the 17-55f2.8IS (on ff vs crop).
More range, shallower DOF, sharper, better built.
Its a stop slower but you have a sensor 2.5 times the area...
Well the two 24-105 I tried got a lesser percentage of the best possible out a 5D2 sensor than the 17-55 2.8 or Tamron 17-50 2.8 or even Canon 17-40 or Tamron 28-75 (if you ignore contrast for the latter one) or, as I have heard some say, Canon 15-85, did/do out of 20D-7D aps-c sensors.
And plopping the 24-105s onto APS-C, they no longer had edge problems but all the same, looking at 100% you could see that while sharp enough to not be any worry at all, it simply was not quite as crisp with fine details as my tamrons or 17-40 etc. so with any copies of the various lenses I surely can\'t agree that the 24-105 is a sharper lens.
Perhaps since 5D2 does 21MP with larger photosites than the 7D and it also doesn\'t need green imbalance compensation the total resolved detail from 24-105 on 5D2 might be more than the aps-c lenses could get out of aps-c bodies even if near the edges it might still pull in somewhat less. Not sure. But that is a somewhat different issue than which lens itself is sharper or better.
I should also say that I focused mostly in the 24-28mm or so FF FOV range since that was really key for me. I had FF FOV 50mm and 70mm+ covered more than well even for full on pixel peeping times.
It\'s possible that only a small subset of 24-105L do really well and most of the other copies are much worse.
Re: Seems like all I hear is "Full Frame, Full Frame, Full Frame."
RobDickinson wrote:
24-105f4L is in every way a better lens than the 17-55f2.8IS (on ff vs crop).
More range, shallower DOF, sharper, better built.
Its a stop slower but you have a sensor 2.5 times the area...
Well the two 24-105 I tried got a lesser percentage of the best possible out a 5D2 sensor than the 17-55 2.8 or Tamron 17-50 2.8 or even Canon 17-40 or Tamron 28-75 (if you ignore contrast for the latter one) or, as I have heard some say, Canon 15-85, did/do out of 20D-7D aps-c sensors.
And plopping the 24-105s onto APS-C, they no longer had edge problems but all the same, looking at 100% you could see that while sharp enough to not be any worry at all, it simply was not quite as crisp with fine details as my tamrons or 17-40 etc. so with any copies of the various lenses I surely can\'t agree that the 24-105 is a sharper lens.
Perhaps since 5D2 does 21MP with larger photosites than the 7D and it also doesn\'t need green imbalance compensation the total resolved detail from 24-105 on 5D2 might be more than the aps-c lenses could get out of aps-c bodies even if near the edges it might still pull in somewhat less. Not sure. But that is a somewhat different issue than which lens itself is sharper or better.
I should also say that I focused mostly in the 24-28mm or so FF FOV range since that was really key for me. I had FF FOV 50mm and 70mm+ covered more than well even for full on pixel peeping times.
Re: Seems like all I hear is "Full Frame, Full Frame, Full Frame."
RobDickinson wrote:
24-105f4L is in every way a better lens than the 17-55f2.8IS (on ff vs crop).
More range, shallower DOF, sharper, better built.
Its a stop slower but you have a sensor 2.5 times the area...
Well the two 24-105 I tried got a lesser percentage of the best possible out a 5D2 sensor than the 17-55 2.8 or Tamron 17-50 2.8 or even Canon 17-40 or Tamron 28-75 (if you ignore contrast for the latter one) or, as I have heard some say, Canon 15-85, did/do out of 20D-7D aps-c sensors.
Dec 28, 2011 at 02:45 PM
Previous versions of skibum5's message #10199119 « Seems like all I hear is "Full Frame, Full Frame, Full Frame." »
