I've read quite a few reviews on this lens and the consensus on a lot of Pro discussion sites is that this lens is less than stellar especially on a 1Ds2.
Anybody who can confirm or deny --especially on a FF camera or even a 1.3X like 1D2.
I haven't seen any pics yet so I can't comment --but the Lens does seem to have had a lot of "negative vibes" unlike the excellent 5D reviews we've had.
I have no doubt that the lens would be OK on a 1.6X camera.
Other than that one small early batch, I don't think many have received the lens yet. I was told yesterday that they are held up in customs by a reputable source. I haven't seen all the negativity you have, in fact I've seen more positive than negative, and by most accounts its about as good +/- as the 24-70. YMMV depending on where you're reading, so that's just MO.
I have used the lens myself and have nothing but good things to say about it. It is unbelievably sharp and the IS is the best I have used. I haven't seen any bad reviews from anyone who actually has the lens. A lot of the bad reviews I have seen are from people who read the spec sheet and formed an opinion but not actually used the lens.
I love mine on the 1DsMkII. I wouldn't hesitate to use it for anything. My advice: if you have Zeiss lenses in your sig, avoid this lens - there's no chance you'll be happy with it. If your sig is all Canon glass, buy it and enjoy.
These are some 100% crops at various apertures compared to my Zeiss 21 and my old "silver" EF 24-85/3.5-4.5.
I simply took screen shots to keep it simple.
It compares very well IMO once stopped down a bit.
The Zeiss has less (almost no) CA and as my other (Canon) primes it has better shadows detail, but this zoom seems in a different (better) league than the 17-40L I used last year.
I like the lens as a "walk-around" lens. I mainly use it on my 20D for casual shooting, and I think it would be excellent on the 1DII.
However, on my 1DsII, I don't use it for any critical work. The vignetting is the main issue for me. I find f4 @ 24mm on a FF (1DsII) to be nearly unusable due to heavy vignetting. Stopped down to f8, it's a decent lens.
To put this in perspective, I think the lens is approximately as sharp as the 24-70L, but with much worse vignetting. It's clearly a better lens than the 17-85IS or 28-135IS, etc.
It's a good lens, but any zoom will have it's weaknesses exposed by the 1DsII sensor.
I would love to see side by side photo's against the 24-105L IS and the 28-135 IS. I have two of the 28-135 lenses and both perform very well, especially for the price. ( I have never tried them on a FF though.)
spartan
Edited by spartan123 on Sep 28, 2005 at 05:04 PM GMT
I can't show you comparisons.In fact I would say tehre is no comparison. The 24-105 is way superior. I would happily sell the 28-135 now I have this lens but I can't decide whether to get rid of the 17-40 too . BTW I got it in rural Norfolk (UK) a couple of weeks ago for £699 comapred to the big sellers who don't yet have it in stock and seem to be charging at least £40 more.
The lens is quite sharp and contrasty till the edges.
The full resized image is sharpened as usual but I sharpen the crops only slightly with PhotoKit Sharpener (only Capture Sharpen).
Now I need to stop shooting boring subjects for pxlpeeping and go out...
In my experience the lens is not stellar on the 1Dsmk2 but great on the cropped sensor cameras. As Mike says there is vignetting, also some distortion, and not tack sharp in the corners. i posted a review some weeks ago. mark
I would think most people buys this lens for its 4.4X zoom, light weight & IS. I just got mine yesterday and it felt very good. No, if you are expecting a 135f2L from this lens, but it is a wonderful lens for its purpose. Although I haven't done (will not do one either) a side-by-side test with my 28-135IS, it is a much better lens in all aspects. Can't understand why people complaining the lens is too expensive because it is only a "f4" lens. If it is a f2.8 lens, it will be much bigger and heavier than the 24-70f2.8, and be a lot more expensive. I will really wonder who would buy this lens if it were f2.8 .
Marco - have your images been corrected for vignetting? I'm interested to see this on a 1Ds II vs. the 28-135 actually, considering that I'm investigating this lens to replace a 28-135 to be used on a 1DsII. The main issue is vignetting I find.
Mike - are there any lenses that cause little to no vignetting on the 1DsII when shot wide open? There are some days when I just want to pick up the camera and shoot jpeg out of it (because I don't want to sit in front of a PC for hours doing post) and if it wasn't for the vignetting, I could probvably do this.
My concern is that I remove the lens from the 1Ds II and fire off a shot with no lens on the body and I get vignetting.... something's funny about that.
With wide aperture, usually the subject is in the middle and the corners are unfocussed out. At least, that is my taste. So, I would care less about the wide-open corners.
The shots that may require corner sharpness are "group photos", "Interior", "building landscape" etc. For those shots you would close down anyway.
I am not saying that the Wide-open Corner sharpess is unnecessary. I am saying that this is one compromise that I am willing to take.
EvilZardoz wrote:
Mike - are there any lenses that cause little to no vignetting on the 1DsII when shot wide open? There are some days when I just want to pick up the camera and shoot jpeg out of it (because I don't want to sit in front of a PC for hours doing post) and if it wasn't for the vignetting, I could probvably do this.
My concern is that I remove the lens from the 1Ds II and fire off a shot with no lens on the body and I get vignetting.... something's funny about that.
I think every lens will get at least a small amount of vignetting when shot wide-open on FF.
But many of my lenses are fine - the vignetting is hardly noticable, and the sharpness is good in the corners. Some that come to mind are the 50/1.4, 85/1.2, 135/2, 200/1.8, and 400DO. There is some vignetting, but not enough to ruin the image.
The 24-70 has less vignetting at 2.8 than the 24-105 has at f4. I won't shoot my 24-105 at f4 on FF just because of the vignetting. With the 24-70, the image was not tack sharp when wide open, but it was at least usable.
EvilZardoz wrote:
Marco - have your images been corrected for vignetting? I'm interested to see this on a 1Ds II vs. the 28-135 actually, considering that I'm investigating this lens to replace a 28-135 to be used on a 1DsII. The main issue is vignetting I find.
I didn't correct the lens for vignetting.
Indeed I don't see the high vignetting Mike is referring to, maybe the 1DsII is more sensible to vignetting than the mkI, or maybe there's the usual samples' variation...
Not that my copy doesn't vignette at all, but it is slightly visible.
In the 24mm crops I posted the upper right corner at f/4 is almost equal to the f/5.6 or f/8 crops, while the bottom right corner shows indeed a slight underexposure (vignetting), but maybe less than 1/3 stop, nothing to worry about.
Pondria wrote:
Thank, Marco !
Looks pretty good to me.
You're welcome, Pondria
Indeed the lens seems more than fine.
Agreed about the corner sharpness at wider apertures. What drove me crazy with the 16-35, 17-40 and 24-70 zooms I tested was the corner softness no matter how much I stopped down.
Admittedly the 24-70 wasn't so bad from f/4-f/5.6, but it was too heavy, no IS and only reaches 70mm.
When I leave home my beloved primes (and tripod) I need an adequate range from wide to tele, plus IS when I stop down handheld.
For portraits or alike when you want shallow DOF I guess that 105mm f/4 would do the same as 70mm f/2.8.
The lens focusses down to 45 cm and it has also a 77mm filter thread so I can put my 500D close-up lens on it, just in case.
IMO it is the perfect outdoor/travel/hiking lens. Hate the f/4 aperture in the viewfinder though, love focussing with bright lenses...
I got it at Norfolk Camera Centre in Dereham. They had three in stock. But I see that Warehouse Express have now reduced their price to £695. They're in Norwich but mail order only and delivery is an extra £7.95
Thanks for the tests, Marco! Like some others, I'm thinking about replacing my 28-135 with the 24-105 as a walk-around lens.
I like that constant f/4 aperture very much. Just figuring out for myself if I find the price-difference (with the 28-135) worth the upgrade. I think I do
