RF24-105/4 performance

Started 3 months ago | Discussions thread
OP Peak freak Contributing Member • Posts: 931
Re: RF24-105/4 performance
1

Abbott Schindler wrote:

I'm with MAC, davel33 and Cotswolds. I've got both the EF 24-105L (I) and RF 24-105L and plan to keep both for various reasons. Complaints and praise for Canon's 24-105L lenses are numerous. Every lens has strengths and weaknesses. I, for one, don't expect a lens with that much zoom range to be perfect at all FLs and focus distances. But both of my lenses are much better than "just OK" and none of the 24-105's I've used has ever been "just so-so" or "inadequate" or anything like that. They all work as I expected.

But I'm not a pixel peeper. I got past that with my 1D Mark III or IV. Among other things, what you see when pixel peeping depends on which Raw processor you used (because each applies its own defaults when initially rendering the file), your monitor, and other things in the image rendering/viewing chain. For example, do you wear glasses? If so, progressive lenses? And if you wear glasses, are you paying attention to your head angle when viewing around the image? Nobody talks about that.

DoF: it's not just "the plane of focus". It's also Circle of Confusion and its effect on what we perceive as "sharp". The trees in your image are separated laterally. What's their distance. What's their separation along your line of sight?

The bottom line, though, is whether the image is suitably sharp for your intended use. Frankly, if I plan to do a WA shot, I use my 16-35 f/4L. If ultrawide I use a 11-24L. If I want telephoto it's the 70-200. Each of these performs a bit better in the overlapping FL range than the 24-105L, but then I end up carrying 2-3 lenses and needing to switch among them.

The 24-105L's a great general purpose lens. I've made excellent 17x22" prints from crops (taken from wherever I choose around the frame) from shots with that lens on both 5D Mark IV and 5DsR files. That's fine with me.

Cotswold makes a very good point about working the image (aka "creating an image") vs looking for perfection in the gear that took the image.

Thanks for your reply, I agree with your points.

I have long understood DoF, CoC, field curvature etc, so putting the technical stuff aside, what do you think of the following images? [I think the 50mm is fine, the 35mm a bit disappointing].

It might just be a centering issue. The RHS looks good, its the LHS that bugs me.

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