Reading mode: Light Dark

Increditably sharp 24-85 (goldfinger)!

Go to last post
..........is what it's all about in my experience..

I had a good 24-85 silver copy and found it no better optically than my black one.

A good copy of either is nice to have in the bag. I kept the black one as it looked better on the 10D. The silver might look more suited to the Drebel though.
John
 
johnd1 said:
I had a good 24-85 silver copy and found it no better optically
than my black one.
Click to expand...
Good for you! but I've yet to hear about a soft Champagne one, I don't think it's "Old wives tales", I think it's down to the age of the lenses, there are a lot more badly calibrated 24-70Ls than there are poor 28-70s about too and think it's Canon's ever slipping QC (or lack thereof), I guess that if you could still buy a new "Goldfinger" manufactured now, it'd be as bad or good as any other 24-85.

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

Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist
 
Adam-T said:
Adam-T 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
Click to expand...
I'm surprised that you keep comparing the 24-85 with 28-135, which is not in the same class as my late 28-70EX. My copy of 24-85 appears to be no less than the 28-70EX and as good as an L. Just look at its ability to resolve the fine prints that are one to two pixels wide.
--
Brian
Dallas, TX
300D owner
http://www.pbase.com/drip
 
Good for you. I have tried both silver and black 24-85USM. They are optically identical. I can't tell any difference between images taken with them. However, I found tamron 24-135 is sharper than them and has better color. Eventhough, I like their compactness and USM focus. But I just like everything else about Tamron better.
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/franklin
 
drip said:
I'm surprised that you keep comparing the 24-85 with 28-135,
Click to expand...
Because they're both midrange Ring USM Zooms Brian, and ones which people usually choose between. A good 28-135IS is a very sharp lens but like 24-85s, there are duds about

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

Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist
 
Franklin said:
taken with them. However, I found tamron 24-135 is sharper than
them and has better color
Click to expand...
Whaaaat ? - I tried two of the Tamrons and they were awful wide open, colour is one thing which the 24-85 is really good for. Strange indeed!.

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

Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist
 
Well, it is my experience. Here are some of my tamron shots with D Rebel.
http://www.pbase.com/franklin/tamron

I can try to find some full resolution ones if it is necessary. In my D Rebel gallery, there are some shots taken with a silver 24-85usm. Here are couple of them.

http://www.pbase.com/image/26642347

http://www.pbase.com/image/26642349

Anyway, I was not too impressed with 24-85USM.
Adam-T said:
Adam-T said:
taken with them. However, I found tamron 24-135 is sharper than
them and has better color
Click to expand...
Whaaaat ? - I tried two of the Tamrons and they were awful wide
open, colour is one thing which the 24-85 is really good for.
Strange indeed!.

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

Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/franklin
 
to match all lenses with all bodies takes good spc control at the mfg.

IMO, this showed up with canon's 10d. I like the 10d, but it threw many copies of lenses out of spot on focus. I had a 50 1.4 work perfectly with the d30 --that I sold john the d30. On a 10d it front focused. I sold the 50 to an eos 3 owner who did not have issues with it. I bought another 50 that is spot on.

So before folks show their "this is sharper than that" experiments, I'd like to see their Pekka AF test. If both show that the sweet focus range is spot on, then I'll believe the sharpness results with the caveat that it is just one sampling, more sampling needs to occur before it becomes more than a tale.

Didn't you have one of these before Adam and why did you sell it if it was so good? Once a lens becomes a legend in one's own mind, why sell it?

Well, consider this, here is a good one for you...buy up all the goldfingers you can under $200 and start a wives tale on the forums and then hehe sell them for $300 each on ebay! :-))

In any case, I do know the lens is noted for its L like color and contrast. Sharpness isn't everything.

MAC
Adam-T said:
Adam-T said:
I had a good 24-85 silver copy and found it no better optically
than my black one.
Click to expand...
Good for you! but I've yet to hear about a soft Champagne one, I
don't think it's "Old wives tales", I think it's down to the age of
the lenses, there are a lot more badly calibrated 24-70Ls than
there are poor 28-70s about too and think it's Canon's ever
slipping QC (or lack thereof), I guess that if you could still buy
a new "Goldfinger" manufactured now, it'd be as bad or good as any
other 24-85.

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

Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist
Click to expand...
--
MAC
http://www.digi-pictures.com
 
Franklin said:
Anyway, I was not too impressed with 24-85USM.
Click to expand...
I wasn't either until that old champagne one I got stuck to the front of an IX APS camera, I'd tried a few before then..

I can't tell much without 100% crops Frankin, those small pics could have been taken with a G3 for all I know

For example





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

Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist
 
MAC said:
So before folks show their "this is sharper than that" experiments,
I'd like to see their Pekka AF test.
Click to expand...
Good point ! - it's easy to declare a lens a coke bottle if it's not focussing correct though I'm sure that if they had one which front focussed etc, they'd see it in SOME shots unless it was very far out
MAC said:
Didn't you have one of these before Adam and why did you sell it if
it was so good? Once a lens becomes a legend in one's own mind,
why sell it?
Click to expand...
Because I had the 28-135IS which was more than wide enough as a carryabout once I got the 1D with the 1.3X crop - now I have another 1.6X camera as a compact walkabout, i'd like another especially as it's more compact and lighter than the 28-135IS
MAC said:
In any case, I do know the lens is noted for its L like color and
contrast. Sharpness isn't everything.
Click to expand...
Correct!. It's nice to get one which is as good as they get though :)

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

Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist
 
Thats exactly what I found and why IMO it's become somewhat of an old wives tale perpetuated by a few who have owned a good champagne colored one.

There are probably more good black ones out there than silver ones and that could very well account for a higher probablility of duds . And as Adam says the QC from Canon as of late could be a factor.
John
Franklin 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.
--
Brian
Dallas, TX
300D owner
http://www.pbase.com/drip
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/franklin
Click to expand...
 
Here is a shot of a Passion Flower in my back yard taken with a Black 24-85.
http://brucee.smugmug.com/gallery/21144/7/5729836/Large
johnd1 said:
Franklin 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.
--
Brian
Dallas, TX
300D owner
http://www.pbase.com/drip
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/franklin
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
post-precessing (if any) info?

Thanks,

dan
Bruce Erickson said:
johnd1 said:
Franklin 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.
--
Brian
Dallas, TX
300D owner
http://www.pbase.com/drip
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/franklin
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Yes, I did a little contrast and saturation in PS6, probably about 10 and then a little USM, maybe radius-1, amount-50%. I can't remember for sure but I typically always do a little contrast, saturation and USM. I use curves if I need to darken or lighten the shot.
Hope this helps,
Bruce
riokid said:
Thanks,

dan
Bruce Erickson said:
johnd1 said:
Franklin 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.
--
Brian
Dallas, TX
300D owner
http://www.pbase.com/drip
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/franklin
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Bruce Erickson said:
riokid said:
Thanks,

dan
Bruce Erickson said:
johnd1 said:
Franklin 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.
--
Brian
Dallas, TX
300D owner
http://www.pbase.com/drip
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/franklin
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
See what I mean? I'm not parting with my black one either.
John
Bruce Erickson said:
johnd1 said:
Franklin 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.
--
Brian
Dallas, TX
300D owner
http://www.pbase.com/drip
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/franklin
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Looks like a G3 shot to me.

It makes my champagne shot like cr@p:



I would appreciate seeing a 100% crop, unprocessed from the camera. Also, please identify the taking camera setting, as the DRebel is already set at +1,+1,+2.

Thanks,

dan
johnd1 said:
Bruce Erickson said:
johnd1 said:
Franklin 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.
--
Brian
Dallas, TX
300D owner
http://www.pbase.com/drip
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/franklin
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
This is the original photo. No crop or PS.
http://brucee.smugmug.com/gallery/21144/8/5784115/Large
riokid said:
It makes my champagne shot like cr@p:



I would appreciate seeing a 100% crop, unprocessed from the camera.
Also, please identify the taking camera setting, as the DRebel is
already set at +1,+1,+2.

Thanks,

dan
johnd1 said:
Bruce Erickson said:
johnd1 said:
Franklin 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.
--
Brian
Dallas, TX
300D owner
http://www.pbase.com/drip
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/franklin
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
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