I am not sure about the 1Ds vs 1Dsmk2 comparison. Until the 5D is out and compared not sure how to tell.
Willem W wrote:
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?
It is already advertised some places for 1089 so it will drop to under 1K at some point. I will use it mostly on my 20D and 1dmk2. I sold my 24-70 as i used that infrequently because of the weight and size.
rjk55425 wrote:
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.
I would have gladly paid a few hundred more if they made a lens that was optically better in the same focal range but you are right about the large range
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
I think a lot of folks overlook the excellent 28-135IS...I have a good copy and it is extremely sharp. I also have a 24-70...which is really my wide angle zoom, it does not do as well at 70mm. It seems mid range zooms are always problematic.
mark1958 wrote:
Here is an example of vignetting 24mm f4
Mark,
Is this shot with or without the lens hood? Does the lens come with a hood (I hope so)? The hood is important to me as I use all my lenses with hoods. Thank you.
I hoped for a range 28/35 - 105/135 f4 zoom of at least similar quality to 24-70, which is big & heavy monster, but v. good including macro - a big disappointment.
With this amount of vinetting it is suitable for smaller sensor cameras at premium price.
If these samples represent a typical performance, then once again, it shows that MTF charts and practical performance are two different stories.
Maybe its too much to expect a fully usable 24-105. Since I have the wide end covered, a better performing lens that didn't go as wide (35-105?) would have been preferable.
eq977 wrote:
I hoped for a range 28/35 - 105/135 f4 zoom of at least similar quality to 24-70, which is big & heavy monster, but v. good including macro - a big disappointment.
With this amount of vinetting it is suitable for smaller sensor cameras at premium price.
If these samples represent a typical performance, then once again, it shows that MTF charts and practical performance are two different stories.
The lowly -- yet remarkably good -- 24-85/3.5-4.5 looks like it out performs this puppy. Weird. What was Canon thinking? Slap a red ring around it and nutjobs will buy it??
Tom - What's really ashame is that Canon finally releases an affordable FF body (relatively speaking) and then they cripple it with the 24-105L. I'm not disputing that WA is a challenge with FF dSLRs, but this lens isn't doing anything help to reverse or improve the situation. I had hoped Canon would improve upon the 24-70L's WA performance and have a reasonable solution.
What I learned on the 1Ds: stick to primes. Full frame 11mp is brutal on any zoom unless it's use is a casual day trip snap-shoot. My 85/1.2L and optically great 50/1.8mkI are the two most common mounts on my 1Ds. Like many, I haven't found anything I like in Canon wider than the 35/1.4L.
But for a casual, day trip snap-shoot, honestly, the waaaay less expensive 24-85/3.5-4.5 is a good lens. No IS, sure. With the high ISO of the 5D, I'll cope.
TOm i am begining to have a similar philosphy. Primes for the 1Dsmk2 with the possible exception of the 16-35 at the wide end. I would still like to re-evaluate the 24/1.4 again on this camera but so far, the canon 35mm is the widest canon prime that is decent on these cameras and still to get corner to corner sharpness f4 or 5.6 and above
I've found the 24-70L to be a very competent performer on the 1Ds2. The 24-35mm range isn't great, but its light years ahead of the 28-135 IS. I never tried the 24-85. I was interested in the 24-105L for its weight and extra range, but that level of vignetting is too much of a compromise.
Dr. Ray wrote:
Why not just fix the vignetting in ACR? Sure, it's not an ideal solution but it works good enough doesn't it, or am I missing something?
You're missing about $850 in the cost difference between an L lens that needs a photoshopped fix-er-up and a high-end consumer lens that might require the same, and perform the same.
I'm with you Tom and a little dissatisfied with the performance of this new lens. Luckily I have been relying on primes in that range so it definitely won't change anything.
I will probably try one to see how it performs on my 20D and 1DMKII but it doesn't seem like it will work on the 1DsMKII.
I really wasn't that happy with the 24-70 on the 1DsMKII either so I guess I will also have to look at the 24 f/1.4L too because 35mm is as wide as I have. I could get by with 24mm on the wide side.
I'm missing something here. We have a new $3,000+ camera that (in all likelihood) vignettes with a new $1,000+ lens that also does the same thing on a $7,000+ body and I should be saving my dollars to buy the latest and greatest FF why? So I can see better what my camera can't take a decent picture of? So I can spend $3000 for a CZ prime? I am being a little facetious, but the situation is not good except that it probably will extend the life of 1.3x bodies which will make Les very happy.
Looking forward to see how the 70-105 performs on the 20D because I think I am going to have it for awhile.
