I just purchased the 24-105L, and have been testing it out on my 30D and Rebel XT (both 1.6 cropped 8MP sensors). The camera bodies are most likely not at fault (being that I used 2 different bodies with same results), as these bodies seem to work fine with other lenses.
I've done some shots at F/4 for portraits, and it seems tack sharp... but at a distance it's just a little less sharp, even at smaller apertures. Some of the portraits I've taken seem a little bit out of focus, but others are tack sharp.
These are all 100% crops... all strait out of the camera (JPG, not RAW) with no post-processing sharpening and shot at a distance.
Below picture settings: 1/320, F/8, ISO 200, 55mm
http://i35./33bjqf5.jpg
Below picture settings: 1/640, F/8, ISO 200, 67mm
http://i34./2hxxfr7.jpg
Below picture settings: 1/400, F/8, ISO 200, 24mm
http://i38./24lkcwx.jpg
Below picture settings: 1/250, F/10, ISO 200, 35mm
http://i36./mu9b47.jpg
Do those seem sharp for an L zoom lens? I thought it should be just a tad bit sharper, but I don't want to send it back if it's just the lens snob in me... after all, I am spoiled from my primes...
Agreed, looks sharp. You won't really be able to tell if your lens is "sharp" or not shooting at those small apertures anyway. The DoF will probably mask any focusing or lens issues. To really test, get a tripod, and shoot wide open. Then post again with crops. That said, pixel peeping 100% crops is never that satisfying, rarely do things look good that big on the monitor; just a fact of life. That is compounded by using a zoom. FWIW, I have found my 24-105 to be quite a bit sharper on the 105 end than the 24 end.
I've never found this lens to be exceptionally sharp (perhaps I have never used a good copy) but that looks about on par with what i've seen in the past.
I have found my 24-105L IS to be marginal, at best. Is there a such thing as a really sharp copy of this lens? To compare, both of my 70-200's are MUCH sharper in the range that matchs (70-105).
Sorry, I have to disagree. I think this is as sharp as this lens gets. I think you'll waste your money sending it in for calibration, but I suppose if you're lucky, it can't hurt either.
jmvdigital wrote:
Sorry, I have to disagree. I think this is as sharp as this lens gets. I think you'll waste your money sending it in for calibration, but I suppose if you're lucky, it can't hurt either.
jmvdigital, I think the 24-105 is capable of more than what you see in the crops you posted, unless the lens just hates the 1DsIII (I use it on a 5D). I didn't have especially high expectation of the lens when I bought it as part of the 5D kit, but it has proven to be sharp enough that I would never hesitate to use it. My only real complaint about the lens is the distortion at the wide end.
I'm at work so don't have any photos on hand, but I will try to come up with some shots to post later.
I don't want to hijack the OP with this stuff. I only meant to post some other examples. The 1DsIII in general I have found produces images that are not what you expect at 100% on a monitor. The files are rather soft in general, regardless of lens. My 24-70 wasn't really up to the task, sold it. Same for the 70-200 2.8 IS (not so great at long and close focus). I'm hoping primes will help solve this. The 24-70 looked fantastic on my 5D.
jmvdigital wrote:
I don't want to hijack the OP with this stuff. I only meant to post some other examples. The 1DsIII in general I have found produces images that are not what you expect at 100% on a monitor. The files are rather soft in general, regardless of lens. My 24-70 wasn't really up to the task, sold it. Same for the 70-200 2.8 IS (not so great at long and close focus). I'm hoping primes will help solve this. The 24-70 looked fantastic on my 5D.
21MP's at 100% on a monitor is a very large magnification. When you downsize a 24-105L 21MP image, is it as sharp as when shot with the 5D (12MP's)? Or maybe sharper?
I am a bit disappointed with the 24-70L on my 1Ds3 as well, when viewing at 100% on my monitor or printing large. Mainly wide open, in the corners and at the longer end of the zoom. Center performance when stopped down is quite good, but not excellent. However, when I downsize the 24-70L images to let's say 10-12MP, they are very sharp. Also, in small to medium sized prints I don't see any sharpness problems as well.
I think maybe I'll try another copy and see if it's much better. I know I tested it side-by-side to my razor sharp 85/1.8 and it wasn't quite as sharp (but not bad either). Then again, is it fair to demand prime lens quality out of a zoom lens of any kind?
Here's some more samples, which are at/near the long end:
Below picture settings: 1/200, F/5.6, ISO 400, 105mm
Below picture settings: 1/640, F/9, ISO 400, 105mm
Below picture settings: 1/60, F/4, ISO 200, 96mm
The last one is stunning... shot wide open at F4, and at a slower shutter speed... very impressive! Which makes me think that the lens itself is sharp, but maybe it's not focusing perfect all the time? Is that possible? I thought either it focused right on or it didn't focus right on...
