Reading mode: Light Dark

24-105 Light falloff question......

Go to last post
D

Doug Morgan

Senior Member
Messages
4,435
Reaction score
1
Location
British Columbia, CA
Hello all:

So I was down testing out the 24-105 taking a dozen frames at all focal lengths but neglecting to determine at what fstop the light fall off at 24mm disappears. It's still present at f5.6 (though reduced) -- is it gone by F8? Also has anyone determined what the optimum fstop is at the wide or tele ends?

Thanks
Doug

Is this vignetting? ;-)

 
This is too:



As to the first question:



--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
 
Thanks Lee Jay:

For the light fall off it looks like another click or two past f5.6 and it's gone (don't know why I didn't do this myself). Excellent layout for this.

Your first example though seems to have some light fall-in at the top and bottom. Of course I was using the Sigma 8mm which doesn't even fill the frame top to bottom -- it's pretty cool though to take pictures of your shoes with the camera level.

As regards the sweet spot for the 24-105 what's your experience -- is it F8ish or more like F11ish?

Thanks
Doug
 
Doug Morgan said:
Thanks Lee Jay:

For the light fall off it looks like another click or two past f5.6
and it's gone (don't know why I didn't do this myself). Excellent
layout for this.
Click to expand...
Thanks. Here's a more detailed one for you:


Doug Morgan said:
Your first example though seems to have some light fall-in at the
top and bottom. Of course I was using the Sigma 8mm which doesn't
even fill the frame top to bottom -- it's pretty cool though to
take pictures of your shoes with the camera level.
Click to expand...
Mine was from a Nikon CP950 with the Nikon 2x converter but with the camera zoomed all the way out.
Doug Morgan said:
As regards the sweet spot for the 24-105 what's your experience --
is it F8ish or more like F11ish?
Click to expand...
It's a very sharp lens. At the center, I can't really tell f4.5 from f8, though I can tell f4.5 from f4.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
 
If I had a FF, it would be this or the 24-70. I guess the trade off is f2.8 (possible better focus) versus IS. I have no idea why I need IS on a lens that would always be tripod mounted and shooting at f8 or higher. Of course I have no idea why I need f2.8 unless it does improve focus.

So in the final analysis, it is sharpness, light fall off and destortion that would matter.

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

Ben
 
Hey Ben!

I seem to change my mind between the two hourly. They have a 24-105 in stock at the local store which I used for some comparison pics yesterday. Very sharp and though it was a dull day the colours look good, at least as good as the 17-40. The owner of the shop will lend me his personal 24-70L overnight tonight.

I've agreed to take some pictures of square dancers this evening and the Tamron 28-75 just isn't working very well. It will be with flash, indoors, probably horrid ambient lighting. This would be the xmas, birthday, grandkid type application.

On the otherhand I need something to go with the 100-400 for panoramas. I'm going through the pictures from the last trip and find that the 17-40 isn't the greatest for this (it was ok leaning toward good on the 20D). I have very few panoramas under 24mm so either lens would work on the wide end. On the long end having the ability to go to 100mm would be handy. With the full frame I'm finding that 100mm works very well for single row panoramas and a four or five frame pano has a very natural perspective. So I'm leaning toward the 24-105 for this application.

Here's a 100mm Lighthouse for you (cropped to 8x10):



I've got a pano of the same subject stitching now.

Take care
Doug
 
I used to have a 28-135IS and found that I really have no need for ISO3200 1/4s pictures at 75mm. I like IS on a long lens (and sometimes wish the 400 f5.6 had it) but really wish the 24-105 was F2.8 instead of IS or the same price as the 17-40 and F4.

Doug
 
Doug Morgan said:
Hey Ben!

I seem to change my mind between the two hourly. They have a
24-105 in stock at the local store which I used for some comparison
pics yesterday. Very sharp and though it was a dull day the
colours look good, at least as good as the 17-40. The owner of the
shop will lend me his personal 24-70L overnight tonight.
Click to expand...
Waiting to hear your impression
Doug Morgan said:
I've agreed to take some pictures of square dancers this evening
and the Tamron 28-75 just isn't working very well. It will be
with flash, indoors, probably horrid ambient lighting. This would
be the xmas, birthday, grandkid type application.

On the otherhand I need something to go with the 100-400 for
panoramas. I'm going through the pictures from the last trip and
find that the 17-40 isn't the greatest for this (it was ok leaning
toward good on the 20D).
Click to expand...
Hmm, bad news, as I have the 17-40 already.

I have very few panoramas under 24mm so
Doug Morgan said:
either lens would work on the wide end. On the long end having the
ability to go to 100mm would be handy. With the full frame I'm
finding that 100mm works very well for single row panoramas and a
four or five frame pano has a very natural perspective. So I'm
leaning toward the 24-105 for this application.
Click to expand...
I don't have the middle covered at all, jump from my 50 prime to the 400. I am thinking 70-200 for the mid range, so the 24-70 would be a nice fit.
Doug Morgan said:
Here's a 100mm Lighthouse for you (cropped to 8x10):
Click to expand...
Very nice. When you get the pano up, let us know.
Doug Morgan said:


I've got a pano of the same subject stitching now.

Take care
Doug
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/roserus

Ben
 
Doug Morgan said:
I used to have a 28-135IS and found that I really have no need for
ISO3200 1/4s pictures at 75mm. I like IS on a long lens (and
sometimes wish the 400 f5.6 had it) but really wish the 24-105 was
F2.8 instead of IS or the same price as the 17-40 and F4.
Click to expand...
Yep, I also have the 28-135, and never use it, but my wife does. I prefer the 500f4is to the 400 f5.6, but mostly because of the reach and speed. I never missed IS on the 400 either.
Doug Morgan said:
Doug
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/roserus

Ben
 
Don't sell your 17-40 yet Ben!

It still produces some great images, it's just not as much of a general purpose lens as it is on a 1.6x body. It's really wide and tends to have too much distortion in the corners for a good panorama, at least the type that I do. I've got some regular shots with it that I'll post in the next couple days (panoramas are a priority for now) that I'm pretty happy with but haven't converted yet.

Here's the lighthouse downsized from 4660 x 10,000 pixels (4 frames):



Take care
Doug
 
Doug Morgan said:
Don't sell your 17-40 yet Ben!

It still produces some great images, it's just not as much of a
general purpose lens as it is on a 1.6x body. It's really wide
and tends to have too much distortion in the corners for a good
panorama, at least the type that I do. I've got some regular
shots with it that I'll post in the next couple days (panoramas are
a priority for now) that I'm pretty happy with but haven't
converted yet.

Here's the lighthouse downsized from 4660 x 10,000 pixels (4 frames):

Click to expand...
Beautiful Doug.
Doug Morgan said:
Take care
Doug
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/roserus

Ben
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top