Performance 5D2 and 24-105mm/4.5 L

Started May 21, 2013 | Discussions thread
qianp2k Forum Pro • Posts: 10,350
Re: Performance 5D2 and 24-105mm/4.5 L

billythek wrote:

qianp2k 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.

Actually it's not bad at F4.0 wide open at least in center.  I have many photos can prove that.

- 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.

All those photos (including that 5000-pixel wide) I demo above were taken hand-held and they are sharp

- 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.

Sure these two F2.8 zoom that I also own are noticeably better. 24-105L is not bad at all and actually pretty good. To be honest, if I stop down, I don't see a big difference especially in center between 24-105L and 24-70L II unless I view in big size or pixel peeping. I keep my 24-105L nevertheless as I spent another $200 last year to repair Err01 (Canon replaced the front part) so not worth to sell a 5.5 yrs old lens (since I purchased from 5D combo deal).

Well, I guess it depends on your definition of sharp.

Reasonable sharpness for most people.

I like your other shots better than the ones taken with the 24-105.

In those photos I posted in this forum with all lenses involved, 17-40L performs similarly between 24-40mm but only slightly better in edges/corners.  24mm TS-E II of course is better in edges/corners and only slightly better in center.  BTW, all these can be verified by some creditable lab tests.

If you are so satisfied with the 24-105, then why don't you sell your 24-70II, since it has less range and no IS?

Yes I am satisfied with 24-105L, one of reasons I still keep it for extra 35mm and 'IS'.  But I am willing to spend more on a better lens.  24-70L II certainly is better in every aspect.  It can shoot at F2.8 that still very sharp.  At f4.0, it's noticeably better especially at edges/corners and less distortion at 24mm.  But after stop down, it's not vastly better to be honest. Anyway I don't believe most shooters can justify on 3X cost of 24-70L II over 24-105L as IQ certainly is not 3X better.  The bottom line is that 24-105L is still a very good versatile zoom that capable to deliver sharp photos with nice contrast and colors.

The logic is like difference between 5D3 and 1DX.  1DX can shoot 12fps and noticeably faster in every aspect that doesn't prevent 5D3 owners from capturing many action shots at 6fps and a bit slower in other responses.  So for most shooters they will pickup 5D3 instead of 1DX on their needs.  Similarly many shooters found 24-105L is good enough to meet their expectation.

I think this review summarized this lens well.

You probably used better technique with the 24-105 than the OP, which was my other, main, point.

No special technique.  OPer can do as well provided he has a properly functional copy.  I suggest him to shoot in RAW and process with LR4 for example.  He should see noticeable difference.

-- hide signature --

- Bill

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