Taking the 5D3 plunge

Started Aug 25, 2012 | Discussions thread
Press Correspondent
Press Correspondent Veteran Member • Posts: 3,345
Re: Here is a different perspective..........

DFPanno wrote:

Oh, no, please do not get me wrong! It is indeed worthy of consideration for the purposes where convenience is a priority. It beats 24-70 in range, weight, and IS, but not in speed, DOF, or IQ. Both have a purpose. I have been vocal against the kit lens, because I believe it is not the lens for making memories, unless a better lens cannot be used under the circumstances.

In my view the 24-105 is the best "memory maker" in the EF line-up.

Its size, weight, focal range, and IS, make it an ideal all-in-one, hi-light-low light lens.

Many togs give up on FF because they have been lugging a beast like the 24-70.
The 24-105 is less likely to push you off FF.

It is perfect for someone needing a single-lens solution to a photographic endeavor.

It will have certain limitations (DOF) but any optical deficiency can be virtually eliminated in post.

Just a thought.......

What I mean is that after years of using 24-105, I finally noticed that I do not enjoy photos taken with it compared to other lenses, even 17-40. In comparison, images from 24-105 look emotionally uninvolving due to flat colors and poor microcontrast. (It is hard to notice at first until your eye gets trained, but then it is already too late.) Thus I have wasted years of memories to enjoy, because I trusted this lens, and I do not trust it anymore, unless I must resort to it under the circumstances. (The latest example was a fast paced official wedding ceremony in Siberia that I would largely miss with any other lens. Then for the reception I switched to better lenses.)

24-105 is not always bad, only in about a half of all cases. (This is why I call it "the evil lens": it seems fine at first, makes you rely on it, and then it lets you down.) It works fine for the subjects with low contrast (e.g. portraits), because the subject contrast is much lover than the lens contrast, and it works fine for the subjects with high contrast (e.g. direct sunlight), because the subject contrast is much higher than the lens contrast. In either case the lens contrast makes little difference. It also works great in combination of both (e.g. portraits with a fill-in flash against the sun), but it does not work well for subjects with moderate contrast, because of the low microcontrast of this lens.

To use this lens successfully one must know very well it's limitations and know how to avoid or mitigate them. People who unconditionally like this lens and are not aware of its shortcomings will have random success that they cannot skillfully control or reproduce.

Correcting microcontrast in PP is similar to sharpening a soft image: if the image is indeed out of focus, nothing can be done. The same is true for microcontrast: you cannot take a cheap consumer lens an convert it to Zeiss or Leica in PP.

I provide my opinion not to argue, but just as a warning for others to consider or ignore at their discretion. Silly people like me learn on their own mistakes, sometimes painful and lasting for years. Smart people learn on mistakes of others to avoid their own. But, as some like saying on this forum, YMMV, especially considering that your mind seems to be set hard on this lens.

 Press Correspondent's gear list:Press Correspondent's gear list
Olympus XZ-1 Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM Canon EF 70-200mm F4L USM +11 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow