Increditably sharp 24-85 (goldfinger)!

[johnd1]

..........is what it's all about in my experience..

I had a good 24-85 silver copy and found it no better optically than my black one.

A good copy of either is nice to have in the bag. I kept the black one as it looked better on the 10D. The silver might look more suited to the Drebel though.
John

 

[Adam-T]

I had a good 24-85 silver copy and found it no better optically
than my black one.

Good for you! but I've yet to hear about a soft Champagne one, I don't think it's "Old wives tales", I think it's down to the age of the lenses, there are a lot more badly calibrated 24-70Ls than there are poor 28-70s about too and think it's Canon's ever slipping QC (or lack thereof), I guess that if you could still buy a new "Goldfinger" manufactured now, it'd be as bad or good as any other 24-85.

--
Hug a 35-80 Today

Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

 

[drip]

Brian,

Where did you get your new 24-85 in Silver?

KEH.
Dirt cheap, less than $200.

--
Brian
Dallas, TX
300D owner
http://www.pbase.com/drip

 

[drip]

I've seen images from the black ones but mostly barely usable wide
open. Will be interested in your comparison.

it WILL be interesting because I've only ever used ONE sharp 24-85
and it was that Goldfinger, it got scarily close to a good 28-135IS

• the black ones I've used (Admittedly all modern ones) have all

been the same or worse than a 28-105

I'm surprised that you keep comparing the 24-85 with 28-135, which is not in the same class as my late 28-70EX. My copy of 24-85 appears to be no less than the 28-70EX and as good as an L. Just look at its ability to resolve the fine prints that are one to two pixels wide.
--
Brian
Dallas, TX
300D owner
http://www.pbase.com/drip

 

[Franklin]

Good for you. I have tried both silver and black 24-85USM. They are optically identical. I can't tell any difference between images taken with them. However, I found tamron 24-135 is sharper than them and has better color. Eventhough, I like their compactness and USM focus. But I just like everything else about Tamron better.

I thought my late Sigma 28-70EX was close to an L, until I see this
on my new 24-85 (silver):
http://www.pbase.com/image/30903036
Even sharper than the stopped down 50/1.8:
http://www.pbase.com/image/30903047

The 24-85 looks a little under-exposured because it's done months
later.
--
Brian
Dallas, TX
300D owner
http://www.pbase.com/drip

--
http://www.pbase.com/franklin

 

[Adam-T]

I'm surprised that you keep comparing the 24-85 with 28-135,

Because they're both midrange Ring USM Zooms Brian, and ones which people usually choose between. A good 28-135IS is a very sharp lens but like 24-85s, there are duds about

--
Hug a 35-80 Today

Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

 

[Adam-T]

taken with them. However, I found tamron 24-135 is sharper than
them and has better color

Whaaaat ? - I tried two of the Tamrons and they were awful wide open, colour is one thing which the 24-85 is really good for. Strange indeed!.

--
Hug a 35-80 Today

Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

 

[Franklin]

Well, it is my experience. Here are some of my tamron shots with D Rebel.
http://www.pbase.com/franklin/tamron

I can try to find some full resolution ones if it is necessary. In my D Rebel gallery, there are some shots taken with a silver 24-85usm. Here are couple of them.

http://www.pbase.com/image/26642347

http://www.pbase.com/image/26642349

Anyway, I was not too impressed with 24-85USM.

taken with them. However, I found tamron 24-135 is sharper than
them and has better color

Whaaaat ? - I tried two of the Tamrons and they were awful wide
open, colour is one thing which the 24-85 is really good for.
Strange indeed!.

--
Hug a 35-80 Today

Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

--
http://www.pbase.com/franklin

 

[MAC]

to match all lenses with all bodies takes good spc control at the mfg.

IMO, this showed up with canon's 10d. I like the 10d, but it threw many copies of lenses out of spot on focus. I had a 50 1.4 work perfectly with the d30 --that I sold john the d30. On a 10d it front focused. I sold the 50 to an eos 3 owner who did not have issues with it. I bought another 50 that is spot on.

So before folks show their "this is sharper than that" experiments, I'd like to see their Pekka AF test. If both show that the sweet focus range is spot on, then I'll believe the sharpness results with the caveat that it is just one sampling, more sampling needs to occur before it becomes more than a tale.

Didn't you have one of these before Adam and why did you sell it if it was so good? Once a lens becomes a legend in one's own mind, why sell it?

Well, consider this, here is a good one for you...buy up all the goldfingers you can under $200 and start a wives tale on the forums and then hehe sell them for $300 each on ebay! )

In any case, I do know the lens is noted for its L like color and contrast. Sharpness isn't everything.

MAC

I had a good 24-85 silver copy and found it no better optically
than my black one.

Good for you! but I've yet to hear about a soft Champagne one, I
don't think it's "Old wives tales", I think it's down to the age of
the lenses, there are a lot more badly calibrated 24-70Ls than
there are poor 28-70s about too and think it's Canon's ever
slipping QC (or lack thereof), I guess that if you could still buy
a new "Goldfinger" manufactured now, it'd be as bad or good as any
other 24-85.

--
Hug a 35-80 Today

Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

--
MAC
http://www.digi-pictures.com

 

[Adam-T]

Anyway, I was not too impressed with 24-85USM.

I wasn't either until that old champagne one I got stuck to the front of an IX APS camera, I'd tried a few before then..

I can't tell much without 100% crops Frankin, those small pics could have been taken with a G3 for all I know

For example





--
Hug a 35-80 Today

Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

 

[Adam-T]

So before folks show their "this is sharper than that" experiments,
I'd like to see their Pekka AF test.

Good point ! - it's easy to declare a lens a coke bottle if it's not focussing correct though I'm sure that if they had one which front focussed etc, they'd see it in SOME shots unless it was very far out

Didn't you have one of these before Adam and why did you sell it if
it was so good? Once a lens becomes a legend in one's own mind,
why sell it?

Because I had the 28-135IS which was more than wide enough as a carryabout once I got the 1D with the 1.3X crop - now I have another 1.6X camera as a compact walkabout, i'd like another especially as it's more compact and lighter than the 28-135IS

In any case, I do know the lens is noted for its L like color and
contrast. Sharpness isn't everything.

Correct!. It's nice to get one which is as good as they get though

--
Hug a 35-80 Today

Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

 

[johnd1]

Thats exactly what I found and why IMO it's become somewhat of an old wives tale perpetuated by a few who have owned a good champagne colored one.

There are probably more good black ones out there than silver ones and that could very well account for a higher probablility of duds . And as Adam says the QC from Canon as of late could be a factor.
John

I thought my late Sigma 28-70EX was close to an L, until I see this
on my new 24-85 (silver):
http://www.pbase.com/image/30903036
Even sharper than the stopped down 50/1.8:
http://www.pbase.com/image/30903047

The 24-85 looks a little under-exposured because it's done months
later.
--
Brian
Dallas, TX
300D owner
http://www.pbase.com/drip

--
http://www.pbase.com/franklin

 

[Franklin]

The silver might look more
suited to the Drebel though.
John

I agree with you on this one



--
http://www.pbase.com/franklin

 

[Bruce Erickson]

Here is a shot of a Passion Flower in my back yard taken with a Black 24-85.
http://brucee.smugmug.com/gallery/21144/7/5729836/Large

I thought my late Sigma 28-70EX was close to an L, until I see this
on my new 24-85 (silver):
http://www.pbase.com/image/30903036
Even sharper than the stopped down 50/1.8:
http://www.pbase.com/image/30903047

The 24-85 looks a little under-exposured because it's done months
later.
--
Brian
Dallas, TX
300D owner
http://www.pbase.com/drip

--
http://www.pbase.com/franklin

 

[riokid]

post-precessing (if any) info?

Thanks,

dan

I thought my late Sigma 28-70EX was close to an L, until I see this
on my new 24-85 (silver):
http://www.pbase.com/image/30903036
Even sharper than the stopped down 50/1.8:
http://www.pbase.com/image/30903047

The 24-85 looks a little under-exposured because it's done months
later.
--
Brian
Dallas, TX
300D owner
http://www.pbase.com/drip

--
http://www.pbase.com/franklin

 

[Bruce Erickson]

Yes, I did a little contrast and saturation in PS6, probably about 10 and then a little USM, maybe radius-1, amount-50%. I can't remember for sure but I typically always do a little contrast, saturation and USM. I use curves if I need to darken or lighten the shot.
Hope this helps,
Bruce

Thanks,

dan

I thought my late Sigma 28-70EX was close to an L, until I see this
on my new 24-85 (silver):
http://www.pbase.com/image/30903036
Even sharper than the stopped down 50/1.8:
http://www.pbase.com/image/30903047

The 24-85 looks a little under-exposured because it's done months
later.
--
Brian
Dallas, TX
300D owner
http://www.pbase.com/drip

--
http://www.pbase.com/franklin

 

[riokid]

Thanks,

dan

I thought my late Sigma 28-70EX was close to an L, until I see this
on my new 24-85 (silver):
http://www.pbase.com/image/30903036
Even sharper than the stopped down 50/1.8:
http://www.pbase.com/image/30903047

The 24-85 looks a little under-exposured because it's done months
later.
--
Brian
Dallas, TX
300D owner
http://www.pbase.com/drip

--
http://www.pbase.com/franklin

 

[johnd1]

See what I mean? I'm not parting with my black one either.
John

I thought my late Sigma 28-70EX was close to an L, until I see this
on my new 24-85 (silver):
http://www.pbase.com/image/30903036
Even sharper than the stopped down 50/1.8:
http://www.pbase.com/image/30903047

The 24-85 looks a little under-exposured because it's done months
later.
--
Brian
Dallas, TX
300D owner
http://www.pbase.com/drip

--
http://www.pbase.com/franklin

 

[riokid]

Looks like a G3 shot to me.

It makes my champagne shot like cr@p:



I would appreciate seeing a 100% crop, unprocessed from the camera. Also, please identify the taking camera setting, as the DRebel is already set at +1,+1,+2.

Thanks,

dan

I thought my late Sigma 28-70EX was close to an L, until I see this
on my new 24-85 (silver):
http://www.pbase.com/image/30903036
Even sharper than the stopped down 50/1.8:
http://www.pbase.com/image/30903047

The 24-85 looks a little under-exposured because it's done months
later.
--
Brian
Dallas, TX
300D owner
http://www.pbase.com/drip

--
http://www.pbase.com/franklin

 

[Bruce Erickson]

This is the original photo. No crop or PS.
http://brucee.smugmug.com/gallery/21144/8/5784115/Large

It makes my champagne shot like cr@p:



I would appreciate seeing a 100% crop, unprocessed from the camera.
Also, please identify the taking camera setting, as the DRebel is
already set at +1,+1,+2.

Thanks,

dan

I thought my late Sigma 28-70EX was close to an L, until I see this
on my new 24-85 (silver):
http://www.pbase.com/image/30903036
Even sharper than the stopped down 50/1.8:
http://www.pbase.com/image/30903047

The 24-85 looks a little under-exposured because it's done months
later.
--
Brian
Dallas, TX
300D owner
http://www.pbase.com/drip

--
http://www.pbase.com/franklin