Reading mode: Light Dark

Increditably sharp 24-85 (goldfinger)!

Go to last post
drip said:
I thought my late Sigma 28-70EX was close to an L, until I see this
on my new 24-85 (silver):
http://www.pbase.com/image/30903036
Even sharper than the stopped down 50/1.8:
http://www.pbase.com/image/30903047

The 24-85 looks a little under-exposured because it's done months
later.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't you worry that the test conditions are not fair in that case?
drip said:
--
Brian
Dallas, TX
300D owner
http://www.pbase.com/drip
Click to expand...
--
http://public.fotki.com/wibble/public_display/
 
is that a new lens? Canon sigma? What does it look like,..any info pages on it? Whats its widest aperture... 3.5 right?
drip said:
I thought my late Sigma 28-70EX was close to an L, until I see this
on my new 24-85 (silver):
http://www.pbase.com/image/30903036
Even sharper than the stopped down 50/1.8:
http://www.pbase.com/image/30903047

The 24-85 looks a little under-exposured because it's done months
later.
--
Brian
Dallas, TX
300D owner
http://www.pbase.com/drip
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/dom277
 
for a sharpness test, I wouldnt think it made much difference?
peteb said:
drip said:
I thought my late Sigma 28-70EX was close to an L, until I see this
on my new 24-85 (silver):
http://www.pbase.com/image/30903036
Even sharper than the stopped down 50/1.8:
http://www.pbase.com/image/30903047

The 24-85 looks a little under-exposured because it's done months
later.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't you worry that the test conditions are not fair in that case?
peteb said:
--
Brian
Dallas, TX
300D owner
http://www.pbase.com/drip
Click to expand...
--
http://public.fotki.com/wibble/public_display/
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/dom277
 
Mine was a stunner too - I have a mint used BLACK one arriving tuesday and I have a LOT of standard Goldfinger test shots to compare to, it'll be interesting if Bond can play Goldfinger at his own game ;-)

--
(: Hug a 35-80 Today :)

Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist
 
Dom167916 said:
is that a new lens? Canon sigma? What does it look like,..any info
pages on it? Whats its widest aperture... 3.5 right?
Click to expand...
It's an OLD lens actually - the Champagne coloured 24-85 which was shipped as the kit lens for the expensive IX APS SLR (an overpriced miniaturised Elan-II) back in the mid-late 90s . Made back in the days when Canon had QC ;-) .

--
(: Hug a 35-80 Today :)

Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist
 
That might affect it?

Light/contrast/shutter speed
Focus?
Sensor 'hygiene'
air quality/humidy/temperature/haze etc.
Operator experience/technique
tripod equipment
different firmware
different image processing software/versions

I'm not saying any of these are a factor, the shots are seriosly sharp and the lens has a good reputation - just if I were doing real side-by-sides, I want repeatable conditions...
Dom said:
peteb said:
drip said:
I thought my late Sigma 28-70EX was close to an L, until I see this
on my new 24-85 (silver):
http://www.pbase.com/image/30903036
Even sharper than the stopped down 50/1.8:
http://www.pbase.com/image/30903047

The 24-85 looks a little under-exposured because it's done months
later.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't you worry that the test conditions are not fair in that case?
Dom167916 said:
--
Brian
Dallas, TX
300D owner
http://www.pbase.com/drip
Click to expand...
--
http://public.fotki.com/wibble/public_display/
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/dom277
Click to expand...
--
http://public.fotki.com/wibble/public_display/
 
Adam-T said:
Mine was a stunner too - I have a mint used BLACK one arriving
tuesday and I have a LOT of standard Goldfinger test shots to
compare to, it'll be interesting if Bond can play Goldfinger at his
own game ;-)
Click to expand...
The bonuses of it are that it's light, cheap and go 24mm wide. It's not f/2.8 but f/3.5 at wide is useful enough especially when I can shoot it wide open.

I've seen images from the black ones but mostly barely usable wide open. Will be interested in your comparison.
--
Brian
Dallas, TX
300D owner
http://www.pbase.com/drip
 
i agree...

actually i think a lens' widest aperture should only be said to be it's widest 'usable' aperture!

drip wrote:
f/3.5 at wide is useful enough especially when I can
drip said:
shoot it wide open.
Click to expand...
 
Dom167916 said:
actually i think a lens' widest aperture should only be said to be
it's widest 'usable' aperture!
Click to expand...
this is why a lot of old Leica and CZ lenses appeared to be slow - they were sharp wide open

Sigma and Tamron are the worst for egging fast apertures on with their F2.8-4 junkola glass which in Leica terms would be classed as F8-11 - "Conned" fast glass has one big advantage though, it may not be much good for image quality wide open but they sure do get light to the AF sensors (or split prism focus screens) - of course, old Rangefinders didn't need this

--
(: Hug a 35-80 Today :)

Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist
 
drip said:
I've seen images from the black ones but mostly barely usable wide
open. Will be interested in your comparison.
Click to expand...
it WILL be interesting because I've only ever used ONE sharp 24-85 and it was that Goldfinger, it got scarily close to a good 28-135IS - the black ones I've used (Admittedly all modern ones) have all been the same or worse than a 28-105

--
(: Hug a 35-80 Today :)

Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist
 
compared to yours?

Here is a 100% crop from the DRebel (at the standard +1 setting):

http://www.pbase.com/image/30907112

I also have the full images at all apertures (if you have the bandwidth) at:

http://www.pbase.com/riokid/24_85

Your valued opinion is always appreciated.

dan
Adam-T said:
Mine was a stunner too - I have a mint used BLACK one arriving
tuesday and I have a LOT of standard Goldfinger test shots to
compare to, it'll be interesting if Bond can play Goldfinger at his
own game ;-)

--
(: Hug a 35-80 Today :)

Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist
Click to expand...
 
and light and exposure are different drip.

A good 28 -135 IS, is sharp.

Here is one at 135 f6.3,

and one at 28,

I'd like to try a 24 -85




drip said:
I thought my late Sigma 28-70EX was close to an L, until I see this
on my new 24-85 (silver):
http://www.pbase.com/image/30903036
Even sharper than the stopped down 50/1.8:
http://www.pbase.com/image/30903047

The 24-85 looks a little under-exposured because it's done months
later.
--
Brian
Dallas, TX
300D owner
http://www.pbase.com/drip
Click to expand...
--
MAC
http://www.digi-pictures.com
 
MAC said:
A good 28 -135 IS, is sharp.
Click to expand...
The best 24-85 I've seen (the champagne one) isn't quite as sharp as a good 28-135IS and the soft ones are way behind (more like a 28-105 or worse) but has better contrast and colour, you can't tell it from an L or a good prime at F8 - bokeh doesn't seem as good (from memory) as the 28-135IS but there isn't a lot in it.

It'll be interesting to see how this used black 24-85 fares, if its as good as the old champagne one I had, it'll be a very good versatile compact fast focussing light lens for carryabout.

--
(: Hug a 35-80 Today :)

Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist
 
riokid said:
Here is a 100% crop from the DRebel (at the standard +1 setting):
Click to expand...
I haven't got the bandwidth for the full images but it looks right on the money from the crops compared to my 10D shots with standard settings - you're getting a bit of the traditional 24-85 Purple fringe at the right there (not seen anywhere near as bad on a 1D or at all on a D30) which I think is more Lens to sensor Microlens reaction than usual CA or blooming , it's really the lens's only weakness when used with these 6Mp cameras - the 28-135IS does it too but less so.

--
(: Hug a 35-80 Today :)

Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist
 
I really appreciate and value your opinion.

I have been on the verge or selling my 24-85 as a down-payment for a 17-40L, but held off because I do not shoot at the 17/18mm that much anymore. I instead got an elcheapo Sigma DC 18-50 for the occasional wide shots on the 10D.

I find the purple fringing (CA/bloomig) on higher than average contrast images. I therefore did my test with high contrast/backlighted scenes to see the limits of the fringing. They do not seem to be very offensvie on evenly lit scenes though.

Again, thank you for your help!

dan
Adam-T said:
Adam-T said:
Here is a 100% crop from the DRebel (at the standard +1 setting):
Click to expand...
I haven't got the bandwidth for the full images but it looks right
on the money from the crops compared to my 10D shots with standard
settings - you're getting a bit of the traditional 24-85 Purple
fringe at the right there (not seen anywhere near as bad on a 1D or
at all on a D30) which I think is more Lens to sensor Microlens
reaction than usual CA or blooming , it's really the lens's only
weakness when used with these 6Mp cameras - the 28-135IS does it
too but less so.

--
(: Hug a 35-80 Today :)

Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist
Click to expand...
 
Adam-T said:
Adam-T said:
A good 28 -135 IS, is sharp.
Click to expand...
The best 24-85 I've seen (the champagne one) isn't quite as sharp
as a good 28-135IS and the soft ones are way behind (more like a
28-105 or worse) but has better contrast and colour, you can't tell
it from an L or a good prime at F8 - bokeh doesn't seem as good
(from memory) as the 28-135IS but there isn't a lot in it.
Click to expand...
I can say with certainty that the worst 24-85's are worse than the 28-105, as I had one (for about 2 days). I kept the 28-105 and passed the 24-85 on to a broker. Shame, because it is a more useful range on the 10D.

I'm pretty sure that I just had a bad copy of the 24-85 (and/or a very good copy of the 28-105), so I wouldn't take my experience as typical.
Adam-T said:
It'll be interesting to see how this used black 24-85 fares, if its
as good as the old champagne one I had, it'll be a very good
versatile compact fast focussing light lens for carryabout.

--
(: Hug a 35-80 Today :)

Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist
Click to expand...
--
Tom
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top