Planning to switch from D800 to 5DIII Locked

Started Aug 2, 2013 | Discussions thread
This thread is locked.
bronxbombers4 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,387
Re: 24-105L is the way to go for OP; maybe add 50 1.8

chironNYC wrote:

bronxbombers4 wrote:

I'd wait on the 24-70 f/4 IS kits coming soon. Or get a tamron 24-70 VC or splurge and get 24-70 II anything but the 24-105.

I think you are way overstating the case against the 24-105L lens. When mounted on the 5d3 (as opposed to the 1dsmk3, for example) the 24-105 performs extremely well coming in with about the same DXOmark score as the new Canon 24-70L f/4 or the venerated Canon 35L 1.4. So what's not to like?

First, yeah the OP may be perfectly fine with it. Certainly you don't need a fancy lens to take awesome photos. It's just that he is going through huge expense to swap systems and if you are willing to spend to swap I figure he wants something amazing on the other end to make it feel worth the bother.

As for what is not to like.... Mushy edges near 24mm even at f/8 or f/10? Smeared corners 24mm even f10? Ugly purple fringing longitudinal CA all over in the corners when you shoot branches against clouds? Not as sharp center, mid or edge on the wide end than the much less expensive (well formerly, not it's not so different and since Canon has IS and better range....) Tamron 28-75.

I don't care what DxO says about them, they also say that center frame 200mm f/2.8 the 70-200 2.8 IS is sharper than the 2.8 non-IS than the 2.8 IS II. That the 70-300 non-L is better than 70-300L and I think even 300L f/4 at 300mm. That the 16-35 2.8 has the sharpest edges near wide open, etc. Maybe they have update things but they used to say all sorts of crazy stuff.

Look at photozone numbers for 24-105 vs 24-70 f/4 IS and 24-70 II.

And I've compared them all myself and believe me the 24-105 at 24mm even f/8 was easily very noticeably worse looking than the other two, even center frame the 2.8 II even at f/8 looked richer and crisper. And edge to edge at f/4 it's not even close (other than getting near 70mm where the 2.8 II struggles a little at the edges and the 24-105 reaches it's prime).

I've looked at three 24-105 and quickly disliked each at 24mm. I looked at 24-70 f/4 IS at 24mm and was quickly pretty pleased.

If you mainly shoot subjects that are not edge to edge or are simply not that picky or your eyes/brain just don't notice sharpness and blur and CA all that easily then maybe they are not as radically different.

Of course it is true that the 24-105 is $600-650 these days and not $850-1150. At the current price it is a really good lens for the price.

Given that the OP is stretching his funds, I think the 24-105 is an outstanding choice.

Given the money it is a very good lens. I still wonder though given money constraints if it makes sense to bother switching, since if you spend $$ to switch I'd think you'd hope to blown away by the switch, but I guess there are other ways he could be blown away.

It is very unlikely that he will ever be able to see a noticeable difference in image quality in pictures that he is actually looking at as pictures (instead of test shots of fabric swatches), but he will have a versatile and moderately fast constant aperture zoom lens that will help him to capture a lot of real images that he wants to get and that he otherwise might miss.

If he wanted to add low light capability that would be nice for portraits and available light, he could do it very cheaply with a Canon 50 1.8.

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