Performance 5D2 and 24-105mm/4.5 L

Started May 21, 2013 | Discussions
papillon_65
papillon_65 Forum Pro • Posts: 27,030
Re: Performance 5D2 and 24-105mm/4.5 L

HarryLally wrote:

I only recently bought the 24-105 to go to Oz/ NZ for a month. Wished I'd bought it years ago - it's such a versatile lens with wonderful colour and contrast. WA barrel distortion can be corrected easily  in PP and the IS is a real boon. It's a permanent fixture on my 5DII now for general photography. Not quite in the same class optically as the 24-70 II but much lighter and the longer reach makes it an ideal one-stop travel lens IMO.

I agree on the colour and contrast, it's almost too contrasty on the 5D2 at times but very nice nonetheless, I have been very pleased with mine as well.

-- hide signature --

667....neighbour of the beast.
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/

 papillon_65's gear list:papillon_65's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Sigma DP1 Merrill Sigma DP2 Merrill Sigma DP3 Merrill Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX50V +7 more
papillon_65
papillon_65 Forum Pro • Posts: 27,030
Re: Performance 5D2 and 24-105mm/4.5 L

billythek wrote:

A few random comments.

- Yes, the 24-105 is a nice lens, and it can do a good job at times, but it really is sharper stopped down than at f/4.  There are many sites that show this.

- Technique matters.  The IS of the 24-105 helps, but you will get sharper shots using a tripod.  Don't expect too much from handheld shots.

Probably one of the most ridiculous comments I've ever read on here, seriously? mine is very sharp handheld and the IS is very effective. To suggest that this L class lens needs to be used on a tripod is, quite frankly, nonsense.

- The 24-105 is convenient for travel, but it's not in the same class as the 24-70II, or 70-200 f/2.8 IS II.  I sold my 24-105 within days of getting my 24-70II.

-- hide signature --

- Bill

-- hide signature --

667....neighbour of the beast.
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/

 papillon_65's gear list:papillon_65's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Sigma DP1 Merrill Sigma DP2 Merrill Sigma DP3 Merrill Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX50V +7 more
HarryLally Senior Member • Posts: 2,487
Re: Performance 5D2 and 24-105mm/4.5 L

Yes, I was surprised how contrasty it was on the 5DII. I'd previously been using the 17-40 f4L with the camera and the combination worked well. I think the sensor in the 5DII is very contrasty and when used with a really contrasty lens like the 35 f1.4L, the shots turn out rather biting and 'gritty' which is great for PJ work but not for portraits or groups. especially of older people!

Michael

PS. Like the shots of Oradour-sur-Glane on your Flickr site. B&W suits the situation well. I've taken quite a few of my family and friends there over the years. Surprising how few people seem to know about it.

qianp2k Forum Pro • Posts: 10,350
Re: Performance 5D2 and 24-105mm/4.5 L
2

HarryLally wrote:

Yes, I was surprised how contrasty it was on the 5DII. I'd previously been using the 17-40 f4L with the camera and the combination worked well. I think the sensor in the 5DII is very contrasty and when used with a really contrasty lens like the 35 f1.4L, the shots turn out rather biting and 'gritty' which is great for PJ work but not for portraits or groups. especially of older people!

Michael

PS. Like the shots of Oradour-sur-Glane on your Flickr site. B&W suits the situation well. I've taken quite a few of my family and friends there over the years. Surprising how few people seem to know about it.

+1

17-40L on 5D2 at 17mm side

17-40L on 5D2 at 40mm side

24mm TS-E II on 5D2

And #1 and #3 were taken hand-held.  Oh, added another two from 24-105L that all taken hand-held

-- hide signature --
HarryLally Senior Member • Posts: 2,487
Re: Performance 5D2 and 24-105mm/4.5 L

Lovely shots qianp2k. You seem to have mastered the art of post-processing too.

billythek Veteran Member • Posts: 5,260
Re: Performance 5D2 and 24-105mm/4.5 L

billythek wrote:

A few random comments.

- Yes, the 24-105 is a nice lens, and it can do a good job at times, but it really is sharper stopped down than at f/4.  There are many sites that show this.

- Technique matters.  The IS of the 24-105 helps, but you will get sharper shots using a tripod.  Don't expect too much from handheld shots.

Probably one of the most ridiculous comments I've ever read on here, seriously? mine is very sharp handheld and the IS is very effective. To suggest that this L class lens needs to be used on a tripod is, quite frankly, nonsense.

- The 24-105 is convenient for travel, but it's not in the same class as the 24-70II, or 70-200 f/2.8 IS II.  I sold my 24-105 within days of getting my 24-70II.

-- hide signature --

- Bill

-- hide signature --

667....neighbour of the beast.
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/

Your misunderstanding of what I wrote is pretty ridiculous, too. I didn't say it Required a tripod. I only said IS is no substitute for tripod if ultimate sharpness is the goal. And technique matters. The OP was concerned that his shots taken with the 24-105 didn't appear sharp. Then he revealed that some were shot from the waist and appeared to have motion blur. My point is that if you want sharper shots, you need to pay attention to technique. Brace yourself, even if using IS. Use higher shutter speeds to eliminate motion blur. And use a tripod for the ultimate sharpness, if conditions permit. If not, then don't sweat the loss in sharpness, and be sure your subject matter is interesting enough to make up the difference.

Sure, handheld shots may be fine, and many people won't notice the difference. But my impression was the OP wasn't that happy with the results he was getting that way. So he may want to try to do some nit picking and see where it leads.
--
- Bill

 billythek's gear list:billythek's gear list
DxO One Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM
papillon_65
papillon_65 Forum Pro • Posts: 27,030
Re: Performance 5D2 and 24-105mm/4.5 L

HarryLally wrote:

Yes, I was surprised how contrasty it was on the 5DII. I'd previously been using the 17-40 f4L with the camera and the combination worked well. I think the sensor in the 5DII is very contrasty and when used with a really contrasty lens like the 35 f1.4L, the shots turn out rather biting and 'gritty' which is great for PJ work but not for portraits or groups. especially of older people!

Michael

Yes, I think you may be right, I've only had the 5D2 for a short while and it does seem to have quite a fierce tone curve, it's taking a bit of getting used to but I like the results.

PS. Like the shots of Oradour-sur-Glane on your Flickr site. B&W suits the situation well. I've taken quite a few of my family and friends there over the years. Surprising how few people seem to know about it.

Thanks Michael, it was pretty busy when I was there and it was a struggle to get the shots I wanted, I had to be quick. A very sad and sombre place but well worth a visit.

-- hide signature --

667....neighbour of the beast.
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/

 papillon_65's gear list:papillon_65's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Sigma DP1 Merrill Sigma DP2 Merrill Sigma DP3 Merrill Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX50V +7 more
papillon_65
papillon_65 Forum Pro • Posts: 27,030
Re: Performance 5D2 and 24-105mm/4.5 L

billythek wrote:

billythek wrote:

A few random comments.

- Yes, the 24-105 is a nice lens, and it can do a good job at times, but it really is sharper stopped down than at f/4.  There are many sites that show this.

- Technique matters.  The IS of the 24-105 helps, but you will get sharper shots using a tripod.  Don't expect too much from handheld shots.

Probably one of the most ridiculous comments I've ever read on here, seriously? mine is very sharp handheld and the IS is very effective. To suggest that this L class lens needs to be used on a tripod is, quite frankly, nonsense.

- The 24-105 is convenient for travel, but it's not in the same class as the 24-70II, or 70-200 f/2.8 IS II.  I sold my 24-105 within days of getting my 24-70II.

-- hide signature --

- Bill

-- hide signature --

667....neighbour of the beast.
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/

Your misunderstanding of what I wrote is pretty ridiculous, too. I didn't say it Required a tripod. I only said IS is no substitute for tripod if ultimate sharpness is the goal. And technique matters. The OP was concerned that his shots taken with the 24-105 didn't appear sharp. Then he revealed that some were shot from the waist and appeared to have motion blur. My point is that if you want sharper shots, you need to pay attention to technique. Brace yourself, even if using IS. Use higher shutter speeds to eliminate motion blur. And use a tripod for the ultimate sharpness, if conditions permit. If not, then don't sweat the loss in sharpness, and be sure your subject matter is interesting enough to make up the difference.

Sure, handheld shots may be fine, and many people won't notice the difference. But my impression was the OP wasn't that happy with the results he was getting that way. So he may want to try to do some nit picking and see where it leads.
--
- Bill

"Dont expect much from handheld shots" kind of implies that it's not very good handheld, no?

-- hide signature --

667....neighbour of the beast.
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/

 papillon_65's gear list:papillon_65's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Sigma DP1 Merrill Sigma DP2 Merrill Sigma DP3 Merrill Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX50V +7 more
qianp2k Forum Pro • Posts: 10,350
Re: Performance 5D2 and 24-105mm/4.5 L

HarryLally wrote:

Lovely shots qianp2k. You seem to have mastered the art of post-processing too.

Thanks for your kind words.

To OPer: shoot in RAW and process in LR4 (or DPP initially). If you don't see sharpness from this combo, either your combo is something wrong or you don't do correctly. Strongly suggest LR4 and spend the first $25 to take Lynda LR4 course that you should be able to learn how to use LR4 well enough in one month after just taking one course - LR4 Basic. That's how I learned LR3 two years' ago after using DPP several years and strongly "believe" it's the best until I knew how LR works   Absolutely worth. You can buy LR4 below $100 now. You still can upload into CS5 for retouching but LR4 has better and easier interface and you will benefit significantly thru LR4 powerful database over years.

-- hide signature --
billythek Veteran Member • Posts: 5,260
Re: Performance 5D2 and 24-105mm/4.5 L

papillon_65 wrote:

billythek wrote:

billythek wrote:

A few random comments.

- Yes, the 24-105 is a nice lens, and it can do a good job at times, but it really is sharper stopped down than at f/4.  There are many sites that show this.

- Technique matters.  The IS of the 24-105 helps, but you will get sharper shots using a tripod.  Don't expect too much from handheld shots.

Probably one of the most ridiculous comments I've ever read on here, seriously? mine is very sharp handheld and the IS is very effective. To suggest that this L class lens needs to be used on a tripod is, quite frankly, nonsense.

- The 24-105 is convenient for travel, but it's not in the same class as the 24-70II, or 70-200 f/2.8 IS II.  I sold my 24-105 within days of getting my 24-70II.

-- hide signature --

- Bill

-- hide signature --

667....neighbour of the beast.
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/

Your misunderstanding of what I wrote is pretty ridiculous, too. I didn't say it Required a tripod. I only said IS is no substitute for tripod if ultimate sharpness is the goal. And technique matters. The OP was concerned that his shots taken with the 24-105 didn't appear sharp. Then he revealed that some were shot from the waist and appeared to have motion blur. My point is that if you want sharper shots, you need to pay attention to technique. Brace yourself, even if using IS. Use higher shutter speeds to eliminate motion blur. And use a tripod for the ultimate sharpness, if conditions permit. If not, then don't sweat the loss in sharpness, and be sure your subject matter is interesting enough to make up the difference.

Sure, handheld shots may be fine, and many people won't notice the difference. But my impression was the OP wasn't that happy with the results he was getting that way. So he may want to try to do some nit picking and see where it leads.
--
- Bill

"Dont expect much from handheld shots" kind of implies that it's not very good handheld, no?

No, it implies exactly what it says.  That your expectations shouldn't be too high.  It is possible to do better, but don't expect tripod like quality.  If you are happy with what you get handheld, then that's fine.  The OP wasn't, and was questioning why the lens combo wasn't doing better for him.

-- hide signature --

- Bill

 billythek's gear list:billythek's gear list
DxO One Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM
billythek Veteran Member • Posts: 5,260
Re: Performance 5D2 and 24-105mm/4.5 L

qianp2k wrote:

billythek wrote:

A few random comments.

- Yes, the 24-105 is a nice lens, and it can do a good job at times, but it really is sharper stopped down than at f/4.  There are many sites that show this.

Actually it's not bad at F4.0 wide open at least in center.  I have many photos can prove that.

- Technique matters.  The IS of the 24-105 helps, but you will get sharper shots using a tripod.  Don't expect too much from handheld shots.

All those photos (including that 5000-pixel wide) I demo above were taken hand-held and they are sharp

- The 24-105 is convenient for travel, but it's not in the same class as the 24-70II, or 70-200 f/2.8 IS II.  I sold my 24-105 within days of getting my 24-70II.

Sure these two F2.8 zoom that I also own are noticeably better. 24-105L is not bad at all and actually pretty good. To be honest, if I stop down, I don't see a big difference especially in center between 24-105L and 24-70L II unless I view in big size or pixel peeping. I keep my 24-105L nevertheless as I spent another $200 last year to repair Err01 (Canon replaced the front part) so not worth to sell a 5.5 yrs old lens (since I purchased from 5D combo deal).

-- hide signature --

- Bill

-- hide signature --

Well, I guess it depends on your definition of sharp.  I like your other shots better than the ones taken with the 24-105.  If you are so satisfied with the 24-105, then why don't you sell your 24-70II, since it has less range and no IS?

You probably used better technique with the 24-105 than the OP, which was my other, main, point.

-- hide signature --

- Bill

 billythek's gear list:billythek's gear list
DxO One Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM
qianp2k Forum Pro • Posts: 10,350
Re: Performance 5D2 and 24-105mm/4.5 L
2

billythek wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

billythek wrote:

A few random comments.

- Yes, the 24-105 is a nice lens, and it can do a good job at times, but it really is sharper stopped down than at f/4.  There are many sites that show this.

Actually it's not bad at F4.0 wide open at least in center.  I have many photos can prove that.

- Technique matters.  The IS of the 24-105 helps, but you will get sharper shots using a tripod.  Don't expect too much from handheld shots.

All those photos (including that 5000-pixel wide) I demo above were taken hand-held and they are sharp

- The 24-105 is convenient for travel, but it's not in the same class as the 24-70II, or 70-200 f/2.8 IS II.  I sold my 24-105 within days of getting my 24-70II.

Sure these two F2.8 zoom that I also own are noticeably better. 24-105L is not bad at all and actually pretty good. To be honest, if I stop down, I don't see a big difference especially in center between 24-105L and 24-70L II unless I view in big size or pixel peeping. I keep my 24-105L nevertheless as I spent another $200 last year to repair Err01 (Canon replaced the front part) so not worth to sell a 5.5 yrs old lens (since I purchased from 5D combo deal).

-- hide signature --

- Bill

-- hide signature --

Well, I guess it depends on your definition of sharp.

Reasonable sharpness for most people.

I like your other shots better than the ones taken with the 24-105.

In those photos I posted in this forum with all lenses involved, 17-40L performs similarly between 24-40mm but only slightly better in edges/corners.  24mm TS-E II of course is better in edges/corners and only slightly better in center.  BTW, all these can be verified by some creditable lab tests.

If you are so satisfied with the 24-105, then why don't you sell your 24-70II, since it has less range and no IS?

Yes I am satisfied with 24-105L, one of reasons I still keep it for extra 35mm and 'IS'.  But I am willing to spend more on a better lens.  24-70L II certainly is better in every aspect.  It can shoot at F2.8 that still very sharp.  At f4.0, it's noticeably better especially at edges/corners and less distortion at 24mm.  But after stop down, it's not vastly better to be honest. Anyway I don't believe most shooters can justify on 3X cost of 24-70L II over 24-105L as IQ certainly is not 3X better.  The bottom line is that 24-105L is still a very good versatile zoom that capable to deliver sharp photos with nice contrast and colors.

The logic is like difference between 5D3 and 1DX.  1DX can shoot 12fps and noticeably faster in every aspect that doesn't prevent 5D3 owners from capturing many action shots at 6fps and a bit slower in other responses.  So for most shooters they will pickup 5D3 instead of 1DX on their needs.  Similarly many shooters found 24-105L is good enough to meet their expectation.

I think this review summarized this lens well.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-105mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

You probably used better technique with the 24-105 than the OP, which was my other, main, point.

No special technique.  OPer can do as well provided he has a properly functional copy.  I suggest him to shoot in RAW and process with LR4 for example.  He should see noticeable difference.

-- hide signature --

- Bill

-- hide signature --
Great Bustard Forum Pro • Posts: 39,716
Re: Performance 5D2 and 24-105mm/4.5 L
2

billythek wrote:

papillon_65 wrote:

billythek wrote:

billythek wrote:

A few random comments.

- Yes, the 24-105 is a nice lens, and it can do a good job at times, but it really is sharper stopped down than at f/4.  There are many sites that show this.

- Technique matters.  The IS of the 24-105 helps, but you will get sharper shots using a tripod.  Don't expect too much from handheld shots.

Probably one of the most ridiculous comments I've ever read on here, seriously? mine is very sharp handheld and the IS is very effective. To suggest that this L class lens needs to be used on a tripod is, quite frankly, nonsense.

- The 24-105 is convenient for travel, but it's not in the same class as the 24-70II, or 70-200 f/2.8 IS II.  I sold my 24-105 within days of getting my 24-70II.

Your misunderstanding of what I wrote is pretty ridiculous, too. I didn't say it Required a tripod. I only said IS is no substitute for tripod if ultimate sharpness is the goal.

Fair enough to say in poor light, but not so in good light.  I'd love to see, for example, a handheld photo at 24mm 1/200 that was visibly better on a tripod than it was handheld.

And technique matters. The OP was concerned that his shots taken with the 24-105 didn't appear sharp. Then he revealed that some were shot from the waist and appeared to have motion blur.

Neither a tripod nor IS will help motion blur.

My point is that if you want sharper shots, you need to pay attention to technique.

Is there anyone who believes otherwise?

Brace yourself, even if using IS. Use higher shutter speeds to eliminate motion blur. And use a tripod for the ultimate sharpness, if conditions permit.

Again, a tripod is not going to produce better photos if the shutter speed is "high enough".

If not, then don't sweat the loss in sharpness, and be sure your subject matter is interesting enough to make up the difference.

Sure, handheld shots may be fine, and many people won't notice the difference. But my impression was the OP wasn't that happy with the results he was getting that way. So he may want to try to do some nit picking and see where it leads.

Sure.

"Dont expect much from handheld shots" kind of implies that it's not very good handheld, no?

No, it implies exactly what it says.

No, it implies what Tony said it implies.  That you meant something different is another matter entirely.

That your expectations shouldn't be too high.  It is possible to do better, but don't expect tripod like quality.

Like I said, I'd love to see an example where a tripod produced better quality at 24mm 1/200 than handheld.

If you are happy with what you get handheld, then that's fine.  The OP wasn't, and was questioning why the lens combo wasn't doing better for him.

Unless the OP's issues came from handheld shots with low shutter speeds, then a tripod isn't the right answer.  But, for sure, if that's where the problems lie, then a tripod is most certainly something to consider.

qianp2k Forum Pro • Posts: 10,350
Re: Performance 5D2 and 24-105mm/4.5 L
2

Great Bustard wrote:

Fair enough to say in poor light, but not so in good light.  I'd love to see, for example, a handheld photo at 24mm 1/200 that was visibly better on a tripod than it was handheld.

Or even at 1/6 sec, F18 (a bit of diffraction) from 24-105 hand-held.

Alaska Glacier safari under light rain, hand-held

-- hide signature --
papillon_65
papillon_65 Forum Pro • Posts: 27,030
Re: Performance 5D2 and 24-105mm/4.5 L
1

billythek wrote:

papillon_65 wrote:

billythek wrote:

billythek wrote:

A few random comments.

- Yes, the 24-105 is a nice lens, and it can do a good job at times, but it really is sharper stopped down than at f/4.  There are many sites that show this.

- Technique matters.  The IS of the 24-105 helps, but you will get sharper shots using a tripod.  Don't expect too much from handheld shots.

Probably one of the most ridiculous comments I've ever read on here, seriously? mine is very sharp handheld and the IS is very effective. To suggest that this L class lens needs to be used on a tripod is, quite frankly, nonsense.

- The 24-105 is convenient for travel, but it's not in the same class as the 24-70II, or 70-200 f/2.8 IS II.  I sold my 24-105 within days of getting my 24-70II.

-- hide signature --

- Bill

-- hide signature --

667....neighbour of the beast.
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/

Your misunderstanding of what I wrote is pretty ridiculous, too. I didn't say it Required a tripod. I only said IS is no substitute for tripod if ultimate sharpness is the goal. And technique matters. The OP was concerned that his shots taken with the 24-105 didn't appear sharp. Then he revealed that some were shot from the waist and appeared to have motion blur. My point is that if you want sharper shots, you need to pay attention to technique. Brace yourself, even if using IS. Use higher shutter speeds to eliminate motion blur. And use a tripod for the ultimate sharpness, if conditions permit. If not, then don't sweat the loss in sharpness, and be sure your subject matter is interesting enough to make up the difference.

Sure, handheld shots may be fine, and many people won't notice the difference. But my impression was the OP wasn't that happy with the results he was getting that way. So he may want to try to do some nit picking and see where it leads.
--
- Bill

"Dont expect much from handheld shots" kind of implies that it's not very good handheld, no?

No, it implies exactly what it says.  That your expectations shouldn't be too high.  It is possible to do better, but don't expect tripod like quality.  If you are happy with what you get handheld, then that's fine.  The OP wasn't, and was questioning why the lens combo wasn't doing better for him.

-- hide signature --

- Bill

I don't know about yourself but when I pay £500+ for an L class lens my expectations are pretty high. Fortunately my copy of the 24-105mm meets those expectations as a high quality versatile all round performer and I've never need to shoot it on a tripod yet. I undoubtedly will when the need arises (low-light landscape stuff) but I've been more than happy with its sharpness overall. To be honest, the biggest weakness is not sharpness but barrel distortion and vignetting at the wide end. Fortunately Lightroom makes it pretty easy to negate those effects. I certainly don't worry about getting high quality shots handheld, maybe you bought a less than stellar copy?

-- hide signature --

667....neighbour of the beast.
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/

 papillon_65's gear list:papillon_65's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Sigma DP1 Merrill Sigma DP2 Merrill Sigma DP3 Merrill Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX50V +7 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads