Performance 5D2 and 24-105mm/4.5 L

Started May 21, 2013 | Discussions thread
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 23,179
Like?
Re: Performance 5D2 and 24-105mm/4.5 L
In reply to billythek, May 24, 2013

billythek wrote:

papillon_65 wrote:

billythek wrote:

billythek wrote:

A few random comments.

- Yes, the 24-105 is a nice lens, and it can do a good job at times, but it really is sharper stopped down than at f/4.  There are many sites that show this.

- Technique matters.  The IS of the 24-105 helps, but you will get sharper shots using a tripod.  Don't expect too much from handheld shots.

Probably one of the most ridiculous comments I've ever read on here, seriously? mine is very sharp handheld and the IS is very effective. To suggest that this L class lens needs to be used on a tripod is, quite frankly, nonsense.

- The 24-105 is convenient for travel, but it's not in the same class as the 24-70II, or 70-200 f/2.8 IS II.  I sold my 24-105 within days of getting my 24-70II.

Your misunderstanding of what I wrote is pretty ridiculous, too. I didn't say it Required a tripod. I only said IS is no substitute for tripod if ultimate sharpness is the goal.

Fair enough to say in poor light, but not so in good light.  I'd love to see, for example, a handheld photo at 24mm 1/200 that was visibly better on a tripod than it was handheld.

And technique matters. The OP was concerned that his shots taken with the 24-105 didn't appear sharp. Then he revealed that some were shot from the waist and appeared to have motion blur.

Neither a tripod nor IS will help motion blur.

My point is that if you want sharper shots, you need to pay attention to technique.

Is there anyone who believes otherwise?

Brace yourself, even if using IS. Use higher shutter speeds to eliminate motion blur. And use a tripod for the ultimate sharpness, if conditions permit.

Again, a tripod is not going to produce better photos if the shutter speed is "high enough".

If not, then don't sweat the loss in sharpness, and be sure your subject matter is interesting enough to make up the difference.

Sure, handheld shots may be fine, and many people won't notice the difference. But my impression was the OP wasn't that happy with the results he was getting that way. So he may want to try to do some nit picking and see where it leads.

Sure.

"Dont expect much from handheld shots" kind of implies that it's not very good handheld, no?

No, it implies exactly what it says.

No, it implies what Tony said it implies.  That you meant something different is another matter entirely.

That your expectations shouldn't be too high.  It is possible to do better, but don't expect tripod like quality.

Like I said, I'd love to see an example where a tripod produced better quality at 24mm 1/200 than handheld.

If you are happy with what you get handheld, then that's fine.  The OP wasn't, and was questioning why the lens combo wasn't doing better for him.

Unless the OP's issues came from handheld shots with low shutter speeds, then a tripod isn't the right answer.  But, for sure, if that's where the problems lie, then a tripod is most certainly something to consider.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow