Ok now first of all I didn't really think that the 24-105 would be a good performer.
But to some I have to say, that have two excellent zooms. The 24-70 and the 70-200. Both are nearly as good as primes. It took me quite some time to get them there. (The 24-70 is the third copy and was twice by Canon and the 70-200 is the second one and was once by Canon) Now I can say they are really good and from f5.6 I can't see much diffrent to a 85/f1.2 and the 135/f2. I own both but after I got the zooms like I wanted them I'm not using them any more.
rjk55425 wrote:
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.
Yes, exactly my point a few pages before.
I think Canon wanted to please more people (marketing) and therefore decided to let this lens have a wider range.
I would be completely happy with a 35-105/4 that performed well in the whole range.
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.
MTF charts are indicators of contrast and resolution, but not vignetting... so we can't criticize those charts just yet. =)
I think the broad appeal of this lens is it's 24mm wide angle with 3-stops of IS. 24mm opens up 10deg of horizontal fov over the 28-135, while only losing 4deg horizontal fov at the long end - making this a worthwhile upgrade. That it's less sharp than the 24-70 from 24mm-35mm only and better from 35mm-70mm, while incorporating IS, is quite impressive.
Take a look at the Leica charts some day - they have graph after graph --- including light fall off. I wish Canon would step up their efforts. Lens Works III has a nice collection of MTF's, but nothing regarding light fall off.
I've read that the !DsII has some sensor vignetting because of the depth of the pixel wells. Because the 5D has larger pixels, does it make sense that the vignetting will be less severe?
Would it be possible for someone to display some sample photos of the 24-105L on the 20D? Some F4 - F8 portrait work or head shots would be especially nice if possible.
Still, I think this lens will probably perform just fine in real life situation,for those times when you can carry only one lens.
For example, this week-end I was doing a Canoe trip on a river. I needed alternatively wide shots since the landscape was amazing, and medium tele since wildlife was everywhere. Swapping lenses in a canoe is not an option. I thought that he 24-105 would have been perfect for that situation.
Maybe this lens doesn't perform as well as a combination of 24, 35, 50, 85, and 100 primes, but it offers you all those focal lengths in one lens.
I understand the point is to assess the optical quality of this lens, but eventually I think the only fair comparison would be one with the 28-135.
Agreed. There are times i am too lazy to switch lenses or i dont have the right focal length lens with me and dont take a shot i should have. mark
christo wrote:
Thank you for the detailed report.
Still, I think this lens will probably perform just fine in real life situation,for those times when you can carry only one lens.
For example, this week-end I was doing a Canoe trip on a river. I needed alternatively wide shots since the landscape was amazing, and medium tele since wildlife was everywhere. Swapping lenses in a canoe is not an option. I thought that he 24-105 would have been perfect for that situation.
Maybe this lens doesn't perform as well as a combination of 24, 35, 50, 85, and 100 primes, but it offers you all those focal lengths in one lens.
I understand the point is to assess the optical quality of this lens, but eventually I think the only fair comparison would be one with the 28-135.
I just wonder how many people read and absorb those? Mark
John Black wrote:
Take a look at the Leica charts some day - they have graph after graph --- including light fall off. I wish Canon would step up their efforts. Lens Works III has a nice collection of MTF's, but nothing regarding light fall off.
Thanks for the excellent info. Have you tested your 16-35 at 24mm against either the 24-105 or 24-70? I am still looking for the best possible 24mm lens before I consider returning to the world of Canon FF.
Tj
I just looked at the MTF charts for the 10-22. It's a lens I love and found to be quite a nice sharp image maker... then, I just found the MTF's and was blown away! It's 22, not 24, but I think it's the best MTF for approx. 24mm that I have seen for a canon lens! (I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong ;-)
My canon 16-35 is pretty good at 16-24mm. My 24-70 was alittle better in past tests. But based on the variations between lenses I think depending on the lens pair you have you could go either way. mark
For those of you put off by the vignetting, don't forget that vignetting is probably the easiest aberration to correct. There are free utilities that will do it as part of your Photoshop workflow (look at PTLens by ePaperPress, for example).
If you're picky about your lenses, look for chromatic aberration (also somewhat fixable), coma and astigmatism (neither are fixable). These can often be seen in the image at 100%. (MTF curves also readily provide information on astigmatism).
In the end, the lens may be good for you depending on your needs. Do you need the reach more than the image quality, or vice versa? Of course everyone will have a different balance point to that equation, so there's no 'right' answer.
I got one of these lenses from Pro Photo last week and I'm loving it. I use it on my 20D. Here's a photo I posted on photo.net (there are a couple more there as well):
Does anyone know which shop will have this lens next? I am debating between 24-70 and 24-105 (plus 70-200 IS). I think the official release date is September. But there are 30 days in September, you know...
