mark1958 wrote:
Mike i agree with most of this but my 24-105 is sharper in the corners at f4, 50mm and 70mm, then my 24-70
Mark - I agree, when it's stopped down to f8. But the 24-70L was sharper wide open, or even at f4, and I found them to be roughly equal at f5.6 or f8. I just haven't found my copy of the 24-105L to be sharp at f4.
Also, the 24-105L reminds me a bit of the look of the 17-40L. The image is sharp when stopped down, but also has significant distortion, especially at 24mm.
As my professor of Methods of Advanced Numerical Analysis once said, "If it work, it good."
As I use a 20D, a superior version of the ES-S 17-85 sounds good to me - IF that is what the 24-105 turns out to be when there are more than 5 or 6 of 'em out here in the real world...
The Photo with the extended 24-105 without the hood was
there before - thatīs what I was really talking about.
Didnīt mean to confuse you or be sarcastic
we can get together and compare but perhaps some variation in the lenses.. we have seen that before
Mike Hatam wrote:
Mark - I agree, when it's stopped down to f8. But the 24-70L was sharper wide open, or even at f4, and I found them to be roughly equal at f5.6 or f8. I just haven't found my copy of the 24-105L to be sharp at f4.
Also, the 24-105L reminds me a bit of the look of the 17-40L. The image is sharp when stopped down, but also has significant distortion, especially at 24mm.
I read both MTF charts not only wide end.
The 24-105/4 is longer than 24-70/2.8, so wide end usually gets the performance hit, but since it is much slower it should perform equally well, if not better.
The contrast/resolution mix suggests that at 105mm (the reason for my interest in this lens) it is comparable/better to 70mm of the shorter zoom, but the field results don't corroborate this.
Taking into account a considerable sample variations of complex zooms, wider tolerance of AF lenses and real life conditions like flare, the charts are of limited help to me. They're most useful to a designer.
However, if your experience is different then mine, then I'm happy for you.
BTW, a question to 50/2.5 macro owners.
Canon states that it is also good as a general application lens. My sample had better definition then 24-70 in macro mode and worked well at short distances when stopped to f8-11. At longer distances and infinity it was useless, as opposed to Nikkor 55/2.8 macro, which is excellent from the 1/2 life size to infinity.
Is this typical?
Mark, thanks for the great review...I saw all the bad wrap you were getting over on DPReview (evil people over there...don't like the format of the forum threads either).
Anyhoo, one thing which hasn't come up (that I've noticed) is how about bokeh when compared with similar f/stops on the lenses you tested (lets say in the 35-70mm range)
Your review has definitely made it difficult...I plan to sell my 17-85 and and get either the 24-70 or 24-105 and perhaps later down the road the 70-200 or 100-400. I guess ultimately which lens I buy now will influence which tele-zoom I will buy in the future (based on focal ranges and resolution)...
With a constant F4 lens you'll have a wider DOF than it's big brother (24-70L) with F2.8, thus acheiving a nice blurred for the de-focused areas will be difficult. Compared to a 17-85 IS, the 24-105 IS should be an improvement since it is faster on the tele end.
Rob.. I have not had too much time to do more testing since the original and get a feel for that. I hope to do some this weekend ZooStation wrote:
Mark, thanks for the great review...I saw all the bad wrap you were getting over on DPReview (evil people over there...don't like the format of the forum threads either).
Anyhoo, one thing which hasn't come up (that I've noticed) is how about bokeh when compared with similar f/stops on the lenses you tested (lets say in the 35-70mm range)
Your review has definitely made it difficult...I plan to sell my 17-85 and and get either the 24-70 or 24-105 and perhaps later down the road the 70-200 or 100-400. I guess ultimately which lens I buy now will influence which tele-zoom I will buy in the future (based on focal ranges and resolution)...
Looks like my 'cheapo' Canon 24-85mm will be staying on my camera for a little while longer then. Superb quality and great shots (and no vignetting) for a lot less than the new kid on the block!
I'm not into shooting brick walls, I don't do copy work, and I don't sell my images to editors. However, I think it will be the perfect wedding lens! Can't wait to receive mine.
Steve
I don't know if this has been covered yet, but how are the corners on a 1DmkII camera with shots from this lens. i.e. is it only FF that loses the contrast and blurs?
Thanks to all, fun reading truly, and love it when it gets really arcane, and.... confusing, then time to go back to the OP, and start again!
It seems this lens, if not performing at its best in wide aperture, will be well complemented with a 17-40L. I was just perplexed about spending another 650$, for the extra 7mm only (100$/mm, I guess ) .
Or, IYO, should the 10-22 be the perfect lens to add, even though some day, I may not be able to use it on a full frame purchase?
the 24-105 is for on the go (outside), travel, candid shots. After that, I wish to consider the optics as paramount, and the 17-40 has such great feedback from so many.
what's your take? Consider I am a people and street scene photographer.
I think people should reserve judgement for a while until more copies hit the stores and are reviewed, since there may be variation among copies. I was one of the people who bought one from Pro Photo in Portland to use with my 20D, and I am very happy with it - the IS works great and is silent, my pics are sharp and the color and contrast is very good on my 20D. I posted some samples last week and so many people looked at them that it exceeded my alloted bandwith on smugmug, so I am not doing that again (but if you want me to email some jpegs contact me). My copy may be better or worse than most copies of this lens will turn out to be, but I don't care - it's meeting my expectations. I shot pics at ISO800 at f/4 in fading light tonight and they looked good.
For people and street photography is has great range, but if the light is not good you will need to bump up the ISO significantly to get a fast enough shutter speed to freeze action. I am going to Belgium later this month and will probably take only my 20D and 24-105L, since it gives me enough range to cover my needs for a quick trip. I had the 17-40L and really liked it, but the focal range was too limited for me.
I have no idea how this lens would perform on a full frame camera, and one of the reasons I hesitate regarding the 5D is that I am really happy with the quality of my lenses right now on my 20D and don't want to spend a ton of money only to find those same lenses don't perform as well as they did. At the same time, I would prefer the 24-105mm range on a FF camera over the range I am getting now on the 1.6x crop 20D.
I am happy with the lens on my 20D too. I am just not pleased with it on the 1Dsmk2. mark
petermendelson wrote:
I think people should reserve judgement for a while until more copies hit the stores and are reviewed, since there may be variation among copies. I was one of the people who bought one from Pro Photo in Portland to use with my 20D, and I am very happy with it - the IS works great and is silent, my pics are sharp and the color and contrast is very good on my 20D. I posted some samples last week and so many people looked at them that it exceeded my alloted bandwith on smugmug, so I am not doing that again (but if you want me to email some jpegs contact me). My copy may be better or worse than most copies of this lens will turn out to be, but I don't care - it's meeting my expectations. I shot pics at ISO800 at f/4 in fading light tonight and they looked good.
For people and street photography is has great range, but if the light is not good you will need to bump up the ISO significantly to get a fast enough shutter speed to freeze action. I am going to Belgium later this month and will probably take only my 20D and 24-105L, since it gives me enough range to cover my needs for a quick trip. I had the 17-40L and really liked it, but the focal range was too limited for me.
I have no idea how this lens would perform on a full frame camera, and one of the reasons I hesitate regarding the 5D is that I am really happy with the quality of my lenses right now on my 20D and don't want to spend a ton of money only to find those same lenses don't perform as well as they did. At the same time, I would prefer the 24-105mm range on a FF camera over the range I am getting now on the 1.6x crop 20D.
) .