John_T wrote:
Yeah, I've got the lens here in my hands. I haven't had the opportunity yet to give it a thorough range of applications, but I'd say my experience so far is a bit better than is laid out in this review:
A lot of folks might be interested in seeing a 100% magnification crop from the middle of that nice photograph of yours — perhaps something showing the buildings and some of the foliage?
gdanmitchell wrote:
A lot of folks might be interested in seeing a 100% magnification crop from the middle of that nice photograph of yours — perhaps something showing the buildings and some of the foliage?
Dan
...mind you, it was a misty morning, but how is this? (hand-held, BTW)
John_T wrote:
This roof, @100% +, with the streaked, mossy clay tiles, snow catchers and knobby clay ridge tiles?
This crop shows way more real detail than the previous one, that could not have been a 100% crop then. Did you post a 100% crop at a too large size, so it got downscaled by the forum?
I disagree. The above crop shows lots of detail for sure. But the v1 copy I sold was equally good on the long end. This was shot at 105mm. I can show you similar detail from my late v1.
I expected nothing less than to be blown away completely. The photographyblog article in my mind was done with a bad copy or a bad test procedure. I'm glad John's crop above is good. That looks promising. But at least we have to look out for sample variation.
alundeb wrote:
This crop shows way more real detail than the previous one, that could not have been a 100% crop then. Did you post a 100% crop at a too large size, so it got downscaled by the forum?
I'm not such a measurbator, but the last crop is over 100% of the lower center of the frame @ 105mm.
This is the whole perspective from where I was standing @55mm, then the whole scene @24mm.
John_T wrote:
This roof, @100% +, with the streaked, mossy clay tiles, snow catchers and knobby clay ridge tiles?
John thanks for posting. Highly appreciated. Yet I am confused. I took your first crop (post p.2 #2) as 100%, is that correct? Your second crop (p.2 #6) is 100% +. How much + is it and how did you enlarge?
...think you got me wrong. I was apologizing for not being so exact. I don't know how much the web resizes, but when the image starts to pixelate, I figure I'm over 100%. I'm also considering the composition, IQ and croppability over just sharpness.
Look, folks, whatever sort of magnification we are seeing, the detail in these samples is very, very good — there is no indication of any resolution issues at all in them.
That is not to say that the tests at the other link are invalid or flawed — perhaps there is some factor that can produce less resolution. But what we see in the photographic samples on this page points in the direction of a lens that can produce quite a bit of detail.
Regarding the aliasing that someone saw in the first 100% (we think) crop, two points. First, at high magnifications (and even not at such high magnifications) cameras (with and with our anti-aliasing filtering) can produce aliasing with such subject as that finely detailed room with the diagonal patterns — to the extent that it might show up it is, if anything, an indication in most cases of a sharp lens. Second, in this case I suspect that it is the unusually varied patterns on the roof that led the first poster to think, and I can see why, that the effect was due to aliasing and not to the pattern of the subject itself.
Anyway, these samples should reduce the anxiety that the other report caused, and we can at least wait for more reports before panicking! ;-)
gdanmitchell wrote:
Regarding the aliasing that someone saw in the first 100% (we think) crop, two points. First, at high magnifications (and even not at such high magnifications) cameras (with and with our anti-aliasing filtering) can produce aliasing with such subject as that finely detailed room with the diagonal patterns — to the extent that it might show up it is, if anything, an indication in most cases of a sharp lens. Second, in this case I suspect that it is the unusually varied patterns on the roof that led the first poster to think, and I can see why, that the effect was due to aliasing and not to the pattern of the subject itself.
Aliasing is a sign of a sharp lens, wasn't that exactly what I said?
I disagree that in this case it was varying patterns, and there is proof in the higher magnification crop showing the actual roof pattern, and in the lower magnification crops the aliasing pattern is fundamentally different and clearly aliasing.
Knowing the magnification is crucial for evaluating lens sharpness. Just look at the tests at TDP and select a camera (1DSIII) with lower resolution, and hence lower magnification at 100% crops, and the 24-105 II suddenly looks sharper than the other lenses we compare it to on the 5DS R.
The last crop shows what to expect from an average lens. I don't think we can say much about the lens quality in relation to the version 1. What we can say, and this is generally true, is that an average quality lens can sometimes be used to make photographs with high resolution.
John, to make a true 100% crop first decide what size you will export as. Then crop to those same pixel dimensions. That will be a 100% crop. So if you export at 1200 wide then crop to 1200 wide.
If Lightroom is your preferred tool, simply uncheck the resize option in the export dialog and any export you do will be a 100% "crop" version, or more generally put, an export in which every pixel of the camera sensor is individually visible.
I agree with Dan here. This looks like a good lens. I am not panicking until I see Bryan's written review and probably not even after that
@ JohnT: if you have any energy left after all of your image posting, it would be great if you could post a 24mm and a 35mm shot, including non-resized (i.e. 100%) crops. That was the weak spot of the 24-105 v1.
I don't really care if the lens detail on the long end is not improved as my v1 was already way good enough even on my 5DsR. It's the short end I'm particularly interested in.
