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

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

The exceptions are the 70-200mm f2.8 II and the 24-70mm f2.8 II. These two are as sharp as primes and I shoot almost entirely with primes.

It's hard to comment on the performance of your lenses when you don't provide any sample shots .

I have the 24-70mm f/4 L and 24-105mm f/4 L ( original version ) and I'm happy with the results .

I have several prime lenses that are within or close to those F/Ls (or just over) , and seem every bit as as good and possibly better , but certainly don't put the zooms to shame .

Scott Larson wrote:

The exceptions are the 70-200mm f2.8 II and the 24-70mm f2.8 II. These two are as sharp as primes and I shoot almost entirely with primes.

Cough cough: 100-400 II Stands up in any company.

(And I speak as owner or past owner of 600/4 II, 500/4, 100/2.8L macro, 35/1.4L, Tamron 85/1.8, EF-S 60/2.8 macro, 400/5.6L. The 100-400 II is just an awesome lens.)

I think "obliterate" and "smash" are a bit of poetic hyperbole here. I won't argue that primes offer better image quality than zooms, but for the better zooms out there (like the 70-200L class, or latest 16-35L or 24-70L versions) the differences aren't that dramatic any more. At least in terms of central sharpness wide open. Stop any of them down to f5.6-f8 and you'll have to 'peep hard to spot the differences across the whole frame from the primes listed.

The caveat is that zooms are far more complex and are much more prone to copy variation. Zooms will often have a weak point in the range, and where it occurs can vary between copies of the same lens. Doesn't mean it's bad, that's just reality. Primes are simpler beings and only have one focal length they need to be good at.

Your 24-105 is certainly going to be outclassed by any of the primes when both are shot at f4. But it shouldn't be terrible ("terrible" is subjective, and you appear to like exaggerated adjectives). If it really is that bad, then perhaps you have a faulty copy or your camera is missing focus and the lens needs MFA adjustment.

Center sharpness wide open should be at least close to any of the primes listed here (edges and corners are a different story). If that's not the case, check focus on a tripod with live view. If it's still mush, I'd say a bad copy.

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.

Canon_Guy wrote:

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.

Yes, this is probably "Pixel peeping" from my part..

Have re-engaged with photography for the last few years and yes, while improving my skills and my kits, sometimes I reach what I think is a malfunction but is in reality only a material limit of the kit and need to come back to realistic expectations

And yes, my tests only apply to "my" lenses.. Will have to get a professional to check my EF 24-105 Mk ii..

Thx, Gaul

Tannin wrote:

Scott Larson wrote:

The exceptions are the 70-200mm f2.8 II and the 24-70mm f2.8 II. These two are as sharp as primes and I shoot almost entirely with primes.

Cough cough: 100-400 II Stands up in any company.

(And I speak as owner or past owner of 600/4 II, 500/4, 100/2.8L macro, 35/1.4L, Tamron 85/1.8, EF-S 60/2.8 macro, 400/5.6L. The 100-400 II is just an awesome lens.)

Just got an EF 100-400 Mk ii (not yet opened) so will revise my "tests"

gipper51 wrote:

I think "obliterate" and "smash" are a bit of poetic hyperbole here. I won't argue that primes offer better image quality than zooms, but for the better zooms out there (like the 70-200L class, or latest 16-35L or 24-70L versions) the differences aren't that dramatic any more. At least in terms of central sharpness wide open. Stop any of them down to f5.6-f8 and you'll have to 'peep hard to spot the differences across the whole frame from the primes listed.

The caveat is that zooms are far more complex and are much more prone to copy variation. Zooms will often have a weak point in the range, and where it occurs can vary between copies of the same lens. Doesn't mean it's bad, that's just reality. Primes are simpler beings and only have one focal length they need to be good at.

Your 24-105 is certainly going to be outclassed by any of the primes when both are shot at f4. But it shouldn't be terrible ("terrible" is subjective, and you appear to like exaggerated adjectives). If it really is that bad, then perhaps you have a faulty copy or your camera is missing focus and the lens needs MFA adjustment.

Center sharpness wide open should be at least close to any of the primes listed here (edges and corners are a different story). If that's not the case, check focus on a tripod with live view. If it's still mush, I'd say a bad copy.

Yes, probably a bad copy

Bought this zoom as 2nd hand

Similar experience with a 24-70 f/2.8 Mk ii where the pics were also very disappointing

Maybe best to buy primes as USED and zooms as NEW.. more fragile

Thx for your advice, rgds, Gaul

gaul wrote:

Yes, probably a bad copy

Bought this zoom as 2nd hand

Similar experience with a 24-70 f/2.8 Mk ii where the pics were also very disappointing

Many of us would like to see your "very disappointing" pics because my 24-70mm f2.8 II is having no trouble next to the primes I shoot with in basketball.

Will T wrote:

Try against the EF 200-400mm f/4 L IS USM!

You will think differently.

I wish ...

Congratulations with finding what motivates you.

Good luck and good light.

I made this same discovery in 1988 after 5 years into photography.  I have used some of the extremely good zooms over the years but have settled on 10 primes and one extremely good zoom.

There are more high resolution zooms available today than forty years ago, but there are still many poor ones.

Your L II is a huge step up from the original.  It will have a sweet spot in focal lengths and aperture.  I determined what those are for my EF 70-200/4 L and stay in that range when I can.  Sometimes zooms are just a necessary compromise that cannot be avoided.  Sometimes getting the photo is more important than not getting it at all!

Was true 30 years ago. Zooms have caught up but will always been a compromise, and the reason you use them is for convenience.

I normally have a 24-105 on as well or the 28-75. But I took the 40mm this past weekend. I did it for size and not necessary IQ.

I have a few questions if you dont mind

#1 Do you crop a LOT,  size and how often ?

#2 When you made this comparison how much did you enlarge them, 100% ?

#3 What res is your monitor ?

I use two Asus ProArt 24" at 1920 x 1200 = 2,304,000

My R6 has a 20mpx sensor 5472 x 3648 = 19,961,856

My Canon photo printer will print 13x19 at maybe that res at max dpi, I would have to check but the amount of ink would bankrupt me

BUT  I do sorta agree with you   When I bought my R the first lens's were all primes rf35 rf1.8, rf 50 f1.8 and RF 85 f2.

I like to do my composition in camera as much as I can which can be hard to do with primes.

I am asking because I was an electrical engineer and one thing that I had to learn the hard way is a closed mind never gets better**, so I ask a lot of questions

Thank you

Dave

** Your mind is like a parachute it MUST be open to work

davel33 wrote:

I have a few questions if you dont mind

#1 Do you crop a LOT, size and how often ?

#2 When you made this comparison how much did you enlarge them, 100% ?

#3 What res is your monitor ?

I use two Asus ProArt 24" at 1920 x 1200 = 2,304,000

My R6 has a 20mpx sensor 5472 x 3648 = 19,961,856

My Canon photo printer will print 13x19 at maybe that res at max dpi, I would have to check but the amount of ink would bankrupt me

BUT I do sorta agree with you When I bought my R the first lens's were all primes rf35 rf1.8, rf 50 f1.8 and RF 85 f2.

I like to do my composition in camera as much as I can which can be hard to do with primes.

I am asking because I was an electrical engineer and one thing that I had to learn the hard way is a closed mind never gets better**, so I ask a lot of questions

Thank you

Dave

** Your mind is like a parachute it MUST be open to work

Hi Dave,

Yes, I was doing "pixel peeping"

32inch 4k Monitor and yes at 200%

Yes, yes, I am at fault, I confess...

Still, my PRIMES (all of them) did shine more from F/4 to F/5.6 compared to my EF 24-105 F/4 IS Mk ii

But a 2nd batch of test with these 2 parameters changed are interesting too:

- In order to give an advantage to the zoom and benefit from IS, I did reduce the shutter speed for pics with my EF 24-105 F/4 IS Mk ii

- I also included tests at lower apertures as F/8

Both new parameters made the EF 24-105 F/4 IS Mk ii results look more interesting

For what it is worth, following my own humbles tests, UPDATED RESULT:

• All my primes are much better at normal or high shutter speed than my EF 24-105 F/4 IS Mk ii
• Apart from focal flexibility.. obviously... I will now consider my usage of my zoom EF 24-105 F/4 IS Mk ii for the following scenario: Slow shutter speeds thanks to IS and low apertures F/8 and less

My primes tend to be "old" ones without IS, so yes, this is not a perfect test of a new prime with IS vs a new zoom with IS

Rgds, Gaul

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

BUT ..

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 ...

I'm going to affirm your statement here.  While it is true that primes can win in terms of other areas, even the "basic" L lenses still have something when it comes to color rendering.  Over a decade ago, I had the EF f/4 L trio (17-40/4, 24-105/4 and 70-200/4 non-IS) and there's just something about the colors coming from L lenses.  I remember reading about the 35/2 IS vs the MK1 35L and while the 35/2 comes close in terms of sharpness, the L still wins in bokeh but most especially color and contrast.