Never ever try a PRIME lens.. Going back to a ZOOM, you get too obsessed w. IQ

gaul wrote:

Hello,

My ZOOM on a Full-Frame, Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM is certainly no match for a F/2.8 zoom, but it's supposedly a very popular lens, used by pros and amateurs to great results..

This EF 24-105 Mk ii .. as a reminder.. is an "L" lens after all..

BUT ..

As soon as I compare with ANY of my PRIMES, "L" or "non-L" lens, even these cases tech USM lenses... well, the IQ from ALL of my PRIMES will obliterate what I get from the ZOOM..

• EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM

VS

• EF 28 f/2.8 IS USM
• EF 35 f/2 IS
• EF 40mm f/2.8 STM
• EF 50 f/1.4 USM
• EF 100mm f/2.0 USM
• EF 135 f/2 L

All of these PRIMES will absolutely smash the ZOOM at DETAIL level at least

To be clear, I have thought I would be harsh and compare the PRIME at 200% rendering vs the ZOOM at 100% rendering..

Well, in every case, it's about what I get in terms of DETAILS..

i.e. my EF 135 F2 on the same scene at 200% on my screen shows even more detail than than EF 24-105 at 100%

Is this my copy of this Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM?? or is this expected?

Only good result from my ZOOM, the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM outputs a very good colour rendition.. And yes, if you keep the image small, it does look pleasant enough.. Still, now I have done these comparisons, cannot force myself to come back to my ZOOM ...

Really going to turn into a "Prime snob" I think
Thanks for your feedback, rgds, Gaul

First question: are we photographing or pixel peeping ? These are two different worlds. Since I assume the first is the theme here, the first question should be what print sizes are you speaking about?

24-105/4 II is a great lens although is has some flaws. But its price/performance/versatility ratio is just great. I did use that lens for years, I was very satisfied with it and have lot of beautiful shots with it. Now I have its RF sibling which is a bit sharper in general.

I also have top notch primes 40/1.4 and 105/1.4 but in 99% of cases I use them in situations I want to have a shallow DoF and effects resulting from it, or when there is not enough light. My casual max print size is A3, majority I print on A4s. From the sharpness and details point of view there is literally zero difference on A4 and may be a very small difference on A3 but only when comparing side by side - speaking about the golden ration area of the frame. Corners might be the differentiator. If I was given a random A3 print, I would hardly be able to tell if the picture was taken by RF 24-105, EF 70-200/2.8 II or 104/1.4 if I should only judge by sharpness and detail in the golden ratio frame area.