If You Get A Good Copy It's AMAZING Locked

I never thought I'd be saying this about a "superzoom" lens having had my share of them over these last 20+ years. I ordered one for walk around purposes and was rather quickly disappointed. It was pretty sharp in the middle but had odd bokeh and was a tad soft on one side. I sent it back and thought rather then give up on first try check out a 2nd copy. Man oh man this 2nd copy blew me away. I instinctively assumed this would not be much better than the 1st, but it was like an entirely different model. Not only was this copy sharp as a tack across at least 2/3rd of the image side to side at 240mm (quite unusual actually when you are zoomed out all the way on any zoom) but the bokeh isn't shabby in the least. Not the busy rough stuff I saw before.

The CA with in camera processing is quite GONE and it was also the same result processing a RAW file through the new DXO Ver. 4 that just came out. That program has the profiles for the Canon lenses down pat. The color rendition is Canon all the way NO compromises as I'd expected. Contrast is way higher then it has a right to be at this price point Focus is instant and ironically EVEN inside the house with less then decent light, which once again this lens was NOT intended for.

The largest single surprise was at wide 24mm right through at least 100mm when stopped down, this lens can literally pass the grade for landscape. The micro contrast is simply stunning and I'm still shaking my head how the heck they could do this for the price. But once again I can't help but wonder if all copies are or should be this great or if I just was blessed with a perfectly centered copy. Who knows. In the end there is quite frankly NOTHING to criticize on this lens, other than my having to shell out $38 for a freaking lens hood. I find the build quality extremely good with NO play whatsoever and no movement in the extending part of the lens shafts. What else can I say, it's amazing. Here's an landscape shot taken with it that I think speaks for itself.

J A C S wrote:

It looks like there was some serious processing done.

Looks like the kind of artifacts associated with Topaz AI products... Interesting!

ProDude wrote:

I never thought I'd be saying this about a "superzoom" lens having had my share of them over these last 20+ years. I ordered one for walk around purposes and was rather quickly disappointed. It was pretty sharp in the middle but had odd bokeh and was a tad soft on one side. I sent it back and thought rather then give up on first try check out a 2nd copy. Man oh man this 2nd copy blew me away. I instinctively assumed this would not be much better than the 1st, but it was like an entirely different model. Not only was this copy sharp as a tack across at least 2/3rd of the image side to side at 240mm (quite unusual actually when you are zoomed out all the way on any zoom) but the bokeh isn't shabby in the least. Not the busy rough stuff I saw before.

The CA with in camera processing is quite GONE and it was also the same result processing a RAW file through the new DXO Ver. 4 that just came out. That program has the profiles for the Canon lenses down pat. The color rendition is Canon all the way NO compromises as I'd expected. Contrast is way higher then it has a right to be at this price point Focus is instant and ironically EVEN inside the house with less then decent light, which once again this lens was NOT intended for.

The largest single surprise was at wide 24mm right through at least 100mm when stopped down, this lens can literally pass the grade for landscape. The micro contrast is simply stunning and I'm still shaking my head how the heck they could do this for the price. But once again I can't help but wonder if all copies are or should be this great or if I just was blessed with a perfectly centered copy. Who knows. In the end there is quite frankly NOTHING to criticize on this lens, other than my having to shell out $38 for a freaking lens hood. I find the build quality extremely good with NO play whatsoever and no movement in the extending part of the lens shafts. What else can I say, it's amazing. Here's an landscape shot taken with it that I think speaks for itself.

EXIF shows that this photo was taken at 34mm and not 24mm.

Would be interested in seeing a 24mm given the reported distortion issues at 24-26mm.

poppyjk wrote:

EXIF shows that this photo was taken at 34mm and not 24mm.

Would be interested in seeing a 24mm given the reported distortion issues at 24-26mm.

Basically, the 24-240 was designed assuming correction so you will not see distortion unless it is opened in say Adobe RAW with no correction deliberately (as far as I know there is no option to not corrected it with Canon's DPP4).

The digital corrections do a great job of preserving contrast. What you end up losing, unlike a "conventional lens" is resolution. At the outer parts of the image, the elements of the image are crammed together so to speak. As the distortion correction resamples/scales the image, you A) have lost the resolution and B) there are additional losses in the scaling process (good old Nyquist sampling issues). All this said modern software seems to do a good job.

Because there is a resolution loss and not simply due to focusing softness, past a certain point you can't improve the corners with a higher f-number like you would with a "conventional lens. You do gain a little by stopping down but not as much as you would with an old lens. You quickly reach a point where the sharpness is limited by the resampling.

I would be curious to see a study on the effect of using a lower and higher resolution camera with this lens. In theory, with a higher resolution sensor, stopping down would give more of an advantage.

I did a little comparison myself about 1 month back with a Canon RP, I should add that the test pattern was about 2/3rds of a meter wide so at 24mm it was from pretty close range:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64556610?image=1

ProDude wrote:

... let me be absolutely clear (not that you aren't aware of it). If you take a absolutely pristine file, and upload it to this site, one thing is for sure. it will NOT be pristine any longer. The compression or whatever is going on can easily add some artifacts. I've been on this site since 2000 and it's never been any different. I can only tell you if you're seeing artifacts it's NOT the file it's the results of the process uploaded to this site.

I am not surprised to read this; but I do wonder why, when so many members upload files to show their technical quality, the management of the site doesnt provide a more transparent display. Otherwise, making comparisons is a bit of a bad joke!

David

poppyjk wrote:

Would be interested in seeing a 24mm given the reported distortion issues at 24-26mm.

-- hide signature --

"Well done is better than well said" - Benjamin Franklin
You have my express consent to edit any of my images that I post on DPR.

24mm (I believe) through a 10 stop ND, finished in DPP4. Transferred to the phone and uploaded here.  Don’t know how pure that leaves it.

tkbslc wrote:

I think AMAZING is a bit of an exaggeration. If we use AMAZING in all caps for the 24-240, what do we call the 28-70 f2 or 50L?

A couple more A’s, Z’s, and a string of G’s at the end.

1Dx4me wrote:

looks good except for that big log at the bottom, i find it distracting

I’m going to hike 9 miles round trip up 2,200 ft on the way out and drag that log out of the way and try again. 👍

ProDude wrote:

The largest single surprise was at wide 24mm

I'm afraid, there is no 24mm ...
one of the samples from DPR gallery converted with RT

You could have sold a lot of lenses if you said you had handheld it😊. I was wondering but then I check the shutter speed and it was 30 seconds so I guess not.

I have been impressed so far with the IS on the 24-240, but it is not up to 30 seconds at 24mm. It does seem to live up to about 4 to 5 stops (YMMV based on how picky and how good you are).  At least without stacking photos at a higher shutter speed.

Karl_Guttag wrote:

You could have sold a lot of lenses if you said you had handheld it😊. I was wondering but then I check the shutter speed and it was 30 seconds so I guess not.

I have been impressed so far with the IS on the 24-240, but it is not up to 30 seconds at 24mm. It does seem to live up to about 4 to 5 stops (YMMV based on how picky and how good you are). At least without stacking photos at a higher shutter speed.

Bulb mode. 52 seconds I think. Dpreview defaults to 30 when bulb mode is used. IS was off.

I mean, I have a very steady hand.

SonyX wrote:

ProDude wrote:

The largest single surprise was at wide 24mm

I'm afraid, there is no 24mm ...
one of the samples from DPR gallery converted with RT

It’s been well established that the field of view is closer to 22 mm at the wide end with corrections bringing it to an actual 24. And somehow the software engineers do this without losing any pixel count in the exif.  IDK. Outside of my pay grade.