My 24-70L is outstanding at the wide end so not sure mine is representative but based on the 1.6 vs FF crop studies, I would say a good 24-70L would be better at 24mm. Mark
Thanks very much for one of your customarily valuable reports. The lens will not be distributed over here (France) for some time. I must admit to having been somewhat disappointed that they did not issue a 24-70/2.8 with the IS, as this is what I had been hoping for, given my very positive experience with this lens. You mention that the IS works very well on the new lens. On the 1Ds2, how do you find performance in low-light with the IS, using the wide-angle coverage of the lens? What shutter speeds can you get away with? Can you push beyond the speed you indicated above and still get an acceptable image?
Ralph. All my testing was done on a tripod with IS off. I then placed on 20D at dusk and was getting sharp images at 1/15th at 105mm (about 160mm effective) handheld. not every frame but well over half. I also took some similar shots at 24mm and all were tack sharp. I have not tried this on 1Dsmk2. I assume focal length shutter speed should be similar but i can try it again. THe 1D cameras balance well with this lens and so does the 20D. I tried some with IS off and they were all blurry
Mark: I know this OT for the 24-105L, but I notice that you have the 10-22. Have you done any test with this lens or has anyone found a good review of it? Wondered what your opinion of the 10-22 is?
Charles
Of course the 10-22 is only useable on the 20D and rebel. In my opinion it is decent. The corners are sharp but it does from a fair bit of distortion. I have no hesitation using it and when i travel I usually take my 10-22, tam28-70, and 70-300DO. THat fits in a small bag and I can back it into my carryon suitcase.
Thanks Mark. It is encouraging that you find the IS effective, so that the lens might be used for low-light street shooting. It's a pity that they didn't put the IS on the 24-70/2.8, since this would have been even more effective for the purpose I have in mind, including enhanced use of AF.
Great job Mark - I agree pretty much with everything you've written.
I just spent 2 days using the 24-105L as a "walk-around" lens on my 20D and 1DsII. I also did some carefully controlled tripod tests against the 16-35L and 70-200IS.
Keep in mind, I've only tried this one copy of the 24-105, so I don't want to make any summary conclusions yet (there is likely sample-to-sample variation).
Here's my tentative early impressions...
The 24-105L suffers from quite a bit of vignetting, when shot at f4 on the 1DsII. The vignetting is mostly gone by f8, and doesn't show up at all on the 20D.
The IS is very effective, and very silent. I had to keep checking to make sure it was "on", because I could barely hear it.
The image quality is very nice on the 20D, and I'm very satisfied to use it as a "walk-around" lens on that body. It's better than the 17-85IS that I was using previously, and it's also better than the Tamron 28-75 I was using (focus is more accurate).
On the 1DsII, it's not sufficient for any critical work. The corners get a bit soft, and the vignetting is an issue. There's also significant distortion, especially at the wide end. Stopped down to f8, the lens is pretty sharp - roughly as sharp as the 17-40L. It beat my 16-35L @ 35mm, but lost badly to my 70-200IS at 105mm. I guess no big surprises there.
I'll be keeping this lens, and using it as a walk-around. But I won't be using it for any critical work on the 1DsII. I think the 24-70L is better suited for critical work on the 1DsII.
Mike
Edited by Mike Hatam on Sep 08, 2005 at 08:48 AM GMT
Thanks for your comments and testing--always glad to not be on the bleeding edge. It sounds like this isn't going to be the 24-70 killer for which I was hoping. Too bad. Sounds like a nice alternative to the 24-70 if you don't own it already, or if you use it on a 1.3 or 1.6x body. I'll give this lens a pass for now.
Mike Hatam wrote:
On the 1DsII, it's not sufficient for any critical work. The corners get a bit soft, and the vignetting is an issue. There's also significant distortion, especially at the wide end. Stopped down to f8, the lens is pretty sharp
I guess it depends on how you define critical work. What if all my ciritcal work is from f/8 - f/16?
Kind of disappointing but not totally unexpected results. Was hoping for better and think that Canon will need to do better if their push to FF is to be successful to the rather large market segment that doesn't consider buying a $3000 CZ or Leica lens as all that wonderful an option.
They are probably just going to call the vignetting a feature; perhaps that's why the extra $100 over a 24-70L.
well it is an investment and decided to be a guinea pig on this one. I am sure it will do well as it is really good on the 20D. I am really impressed with the IS. I am getting really sharp shots at 1/20 or 1/15 at focal lengths of 60 to 100 and then multiply that by 1.6 on the 20D>
A question for those who have used both the 1Ds and 1DsMkII: is it true that the 1DsII reveals more of a lens weakness than the 1Ds? And if so, wouldn't that be the same for the 5D? In other words: could it be that the 24-105 would be a better match for the 5D than for the 1DsII?
Except I've found that the 1Ds II sensor is seriously bad with vignetting- I even get vignetting with NO LENS on the body.... the 5D sample images show no vignetting whatsoever but terrible red/blue fringe.
Giving the range of this lens, it was to be expected that it would have some trade-offs, IMHO. For a zoom to perform well, a 3x range is about the maximum and 24-105 is about 4.4x. That's why I was hoping for a 28-105/4 or even a 35-105/4.
But, you can't have it all and I still think Canon did a great thing bringing out this lens. My eagerness to buy it has shrunk a bit though
One has to think hard before dropping $1200 on this lens. It would be even tougher if I had a FF body. Sounds like its a better fit for the 20D. Still, I'm thinking it has be under $1000 to tempt me.
lexvo wrote:
Mark & Mike: thanks for the report.
Giving the range of this lens, it was to be expected that it would have some trade-offs, IMHO. For a zoom to perform well, a 3x range is about the maximum and 24-105 is about 4.4x. That's why I was hoping for a 28-105/4 or even a 35-105/4.
But, you can't have it all and I still think Canon did a great thing bringing out this lens. My eagerness to buy it has shrunk a bit though
