Comparing the L lens to the Kit lens

TGAllen

I've been a Sony/Minolta user and finally decided to switch over to Canon. I recently purchased a 50D which came with a 28-135mm. I went and bought the 24-105 F4L lens the other day thinking I would be wowed. I'm not sure what to think. I wasn't really wowed at all and wonder if I have a bad copy, or is there just not that much difference in picture quality? Here's two pics of the same flower taken this evening. I used a tripod, set the ISO for 125 and used both lenses at 105mm/F5.6 1/45 sec. Can someone tell me what I'm missing? Is this a bad copy of the L lens or a good copy of the Kit lens?

Scott_Quier

I have to admit I don't see any major difference between the two shots. In fact, I went to your web-site hoping to get a glance at EXIF information and noted that you provided a description on each of them. My guess as to which was from the 28-105 and which from the kit lens was wrong.

That may be more a statement of your ability as a photographer than anything else - you pulled what looks like a sharp, crisp image (look at the pollen stamen on the left-most flower for example) from both of these lenses. Either that or you got a stunning copy of the kit lens. Of course, had we had the original RAW files, pixel-peepers could have had a field day.

ziggy53

The EF 28-135mm, f3.5-f5.6 IS USM is not a bad lens. At 100mm it is at f5.6 as the largest aperture. The EF 24-105mm, f4L IS USM is capable of f4 at 105mm, and the f4 setting of the 24-105mm will beat the f5.6 on the 28-135mm (but the 28-135mm is better than the lesser lenses in a similar range.)

If you want to see more improvement in a lens with less overlap to the 28-135mm, try the EF 70-200mm, f4L, IS USM. That lens rivals some primes in sharpness and gives you more telephoto to boot. It is also a larger aperture through most of the range (compared to the 28-135mm) and it is extremely usable wide open.

In other words, while the 24-105mm gains you some light gathering at the long end, versus the 28-135, the 70-200mm would gain you additional telephoto, making it complimentary to the other lenses' range.

TGAllen

Thanks for the replies. I had been out in the yard shooting various subject with the L lens at F4 and when I uploaded them, they didn't seem very sharp or maybe it was focusing issues. That is when I decided to try a quick comparison. Light was running out fast, so I just took a couple of shots with each lens with the same settings, then processed one photo in LR2 and synchronized it with the other so they would have the same adjustments.

Scott, I guessed wrong on the pics also, so I'm thinking it's not worth the $800 difference. I'll be returning it today and trying a different range, maybe the 70-200 or the 17-40.

Scott_Quier

Since you've opened the door on suggestions (you used the word "maybe" ), taking a look at any of the 70-200 variants or the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS will be well worth your time.

kini62

I wouldn't expect there to be much if any difference at 5.6 (not sure what wide open is on the 28-135 at 105 is, but if it's close to 5.6 then I think you have a nice copy).

The benefits of the 24-105 are the faster AF (it should be anyway) better build, constant aperture and of course the cooooollll red line on the end to let everyone know that it is an L and that you are shooting Canon:D

Seriously, if the lens works for you, spend the money that the would go to the 24-105 on something like a 135/2, or 35/1.4 or 10-22 etc...

Gene

TGAllen

I took it back today and got 2 Tamrons (17-50 f2.8 and the 90 f2.8) and the 580ex II for pretty much an even exchange. I got home and took a few shots and when I uploaded them, I was Wowed like I thought I would have been with the L lens! There's no way the Tamron's should be that much better than the L lens, so I'm assuming it was a "soft" copy. It wasn't as noticeable on the examples I posted, but I had shot quite a few of my dog earlier and they were just not sharp at all. If anyone cares or wants, I can certainly post some of the dog pics with the L lens and some with my new Tamrons. It won't be a scientific comparison, but you can definitely see the difference.

Thanks again for the replies.

ziggy53

TGAllen wrote:

I took it back today and got 2 Tamrons (17-50 f2.8 and the 90 f2.8) and the 580ex II for pretty much an even exchange. ...

Those new lenses plus your new flash and the old 28-135mm zoom should be a pretty capable kit. We expect greatness from here onward.

Scott_Quier

TGAllen wrote:

I took it back today and got 2 Tamrons (17-50 f2.8 and the 90 f2.8) and the 580ex II for pretty much an even exchange. I got home and took a few shots and when I uploaded them, I was Wowed like I thought I would have been with the L lens! There's no way the Tamron's should be that much better than the L lens, so I'm assuming it was a "soft" copy. It wasn't as noticeable on the examples I posted, but I had shot quite a few of my dog earlier and they were just not sharp at all. If anyone cares or wants, I can certainly post some of the dog pics with the L lens and some with my new Tamrons. It won't be a scientific comparison, but you can definitely see the difference.

Thanks again for the replies.

You reference to "soft" copies motivates me to ask, "Did you attempt to dial in the lens using the AF Microadjustment facility built into the 50D?" I ask because I have only one lens in my kit that did not benefit from this effort.

TGAllen

ziggy53 wrote:

. We expect greatness from here onward.

Well, at least I'm running out of excuses!:D

TGAllen

Scott_Quier wrote:

You reference to "soft" copies motivates me to ask, "Did you attempt to dial in the lens using the AF Microadjustment facility built into the 50D?" I ask because I have only one lens in my kit that did not benefit from this effort.

I thought of trying that, but I figured I would screw up a new 50D... I'm new to the Canon system ( well except for the T90 I had back in the 80's) and still learning all the bells and whistles. When I see Micro and Adjustment in the same sentence, I turn the page...

Scott_Quier

TGAllen wrote:

I thought of trying that, but I figured I would screw up a new 50D... I'm new to the Canon system ( well except for the T90 I had back in the 80's) and still learning all the bells and whistles. When I see Micro and Adjustment in the same sentence, I turn the page...

Wrong response. The adjustment is all done through the camera menus. If you "screw it up" all you have to do is reset it zero and no harm done. Check out the "AF Microadjustment" link in my siggy for a more complete discussion on this subject. It can make the difference between a non-starter and a stellar performer.

TGAllen

Scott_Quier wrote:

Wrong response. The adjustment is all done through the camera menus. If you "screw it up" all you have to do is reset it zero and no harm done. Check out the "AF Microadjustment" link in my siggy for a more complete discussion on this subject. It can make the difference between a non-starter and a stellar performer.

Thanks! I will check it out.

jmphotocraft

When I went from a kit 17-85IS to the 24-70/2.8L, what I found was that the 17-85 could come very close to the quality of the 24-70, under the right conditions and circumstances. And I would call your comparison above "the right conditions and circumstances" - good light, tripod, still subject, good colors. The difference I found was that the 24-70 gave results similar to the very very best shots taken with the 17-85, but on a consistent basis, and in wider varieties/amounts of light. Also you're paying for the build and constant, faster aperture. I think over time you'll find the 24-105 to be a lot more versatile and usable than your 28-135, even without the extra 30mm.

Edit - I see you've returned your 24-105. I might suggest that the Tamron 17-50/2.8 wowed you because 1, it is known to be an excellent lens, and 2, it is a constant f/2.8 lens. This activates the high precision AF mode of your camera, and also when you stop it down to f/4 or f/5.6 it should be significantly sharper than an f/4 or f/5.6 lens wide open. This is because then you're only using the "meat" of the f/2.8 lens vs. the whole of the slower lens.

TGAllen

Well, I tried the focusing test and it is dead on, so I'm saying the L lens was a bad copy. Sounds like they are not uncommon. I shot quite few pics of my dog and other things before I started to suspect something wasn't right. The "ideal" conditions seems to have helped the L lens as that was one of the better shots I have from it. If I could do it all over, I might ask for another copy before abandoning it, but I guess I'll have to be happy with the Tamrons.

gecko0

TGAllen wrote:

Well, I tried the focusing test and it is dead on, so I'm saying the L lens was a bad copy. Sounds like they are not uncommon. I shot quite few pics of my dog and other things before I started to suspect something wasn't right. The "ideal" conditions seems to have helped the L lens as that was one of the better shots I have from it. If I could do it all over, I might ask for another copy before abandoning it, but I guess I'll have to be happy with the Tamrons.

After reading a LOT on various photography forums, the "bad copy" of a lens comments seem to be used far too often. IMO (and per a few excellent articles that I'll try to dig up and link to later), it's the combination of that specific lens with a specific body...so it's more of a "bad combination" rather than a defective lens. This is why having the lens/body calibrated together is so essential. The idea is that the lens and body each pass QC/QA properly, but are not "perfect". Then, if each is within spec, but on opposite sides of the "ideal", then they create a combination that is indeed "bad". Putting the same lens on another body could very well work fine...or be worse...or better...just depends on the state of calibration of each.

Of course, in the end, it appears to be bad, which is why the microadjustment is so nice. I wish I had that option on my XSi!

.01

ziggy53

gecko0 wrote:

After reading a LOT on various photography forums, the "bad copy" of a lens comments seem to be used far too often. IMO (and per a few excellent articles that I'll try to dig up and link to later), it's the combination of that specific lens with a specific body...so it's more of a "bad combination" rather than a defective lens. This is why having the lens/body calibrated together is so essential. The idea is that the lens and body each pass QC/QA properly, but are not "perfect". Then, if each is within spec, but on opposite sides of the "ideal", then they create a combination that is indeed "bad". Putting the same lens on another body could very well work fine...or be worse...or better...just depends on the state of calibration of each.

Of course, in the end, it appears to be bad, which is why the microadjustment is so nice. I wish I had that option on my XSi!

.01

Gecko0, welcome to the Digital Grin.

Thanks for your comments. I'm not sure it necessarily applies in this case since TGAllen apparently did some focusing tests, but you are right that both camera and body need consideration for critical focus and AF assessment.

gecko0

thank you for the welcome...i've lurked for a bit, but decided to jump in with some posts.

here is one of the articles i mentioned:

http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.12.22/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-myths

it's an interesting read, if anything.

Balls187

I wonder, if you've tried shots hand holding with both lenses, and see if you see similar results.

TGAllen

I agree with Gecko0 that it would have been nice to calibrate the lens and 50D together. I've seen some great pics with a variety of L lens, so I'm not questioning their capabilities. Just for some reason, I wasn't getting results any better than with the lens I already had.

I looked back through some of the pics, and like I said, it isn't a scientific study, but here's another example. I know they are identical at all, but they both should be sharp, but only the Tamron is.

Canon:



Tamron:


I think I'll try renting first next time.

happysmileylady

Man! I wish I could get images that sharp out of MY tamron 17-50!

Cameron

One other thought on the 24-105 lens - that lens has image stabilization and, if you just fire off a shot without letting the stabilization settle-out you can get some blurry images. It usually takes ~1/2 second after you half-press the shutter release to engage the stabilization - once engaged,subsequent shots won't have that delay.

At any rate, it looks like you have a keeper now!

TGAllen

CSwinton wrote:

One other thought on the 24-105 lens - that lens has image stabilization and, if you just fire off a shot without letting the stabilization settle-out you can get some blurry images. It usually takes ~1/2 second after you half-press the shutter release to engage the stabilization - once engaged,subsequent shots won't have that delay.

At any rate, it looks like you have a keeper now!

Thanks, I wasn't aware of the IS "pause". I'm going to rent an IS- L lens for a wedding next month so I'll have to keep that in mind.

HappySmileyLady, I have the 17-50 in both the Sony and Canon mounts now. So far the Sony mount seems to be a better copy, but maybe I'm still not used to the Canon yet.

Internaut

Top notch glass and fine wine.....
Make nice parallels. You can pay $30 for a bottle of wine or you can pay $300 or $3000. The $300 wine is unlikely to taste ten times better than the $30 bottle; likewise for the $3000 vs the $300. The same is true of glass and just about everyone seems to have raised their game as far as kit lenses go (I'd stick my neck out and blame it on Olympus or Pentax but let's face it, CaNikon are so utterly huge, I suspect couldn't care less what the little players do). And yet.... If I use my Leica 14-50 instead of my Olympus 14-42....... The difference isn't huge but there's certainly something addicting about good glass.......

Photoskipper

Whether it is L or kit or 3rd party lens, they all works similar - to produce a reasonably good photos.

It is another marketing exericse - to differentiate the product and maximise the profit for the major players.

Like the cars, most of cars comes with 4 wheels and an engineer, which can bring you to point A to point B at a reasonable comfort and time. Some people may pay 20 times more for a sport car but driving 50 mph on the freeway.

Kit lens is a basic lens to make the entrance barrier of DSLR lower so that it can convert the new users and capture bigger market. L is something make the names and dreams. It is very easy to move the know how from the high end product to a cheap production. Low end product usually has lower margin while the company cream on the high end models. It means, it is more worth to buy a low end model than the high end in terms of value.

It is difficult to make a 5% improve for average product nowadays. Most of the product are so good otherwise it is not possible to survive in the market. For product design, we usually pay double the price to have 10% incremental product improvement.

chrisjohnson

@scott,
I looked at your piece on micro-adjustment and very good too.

Seems more of advice how to set a personal preference rather than a "good lens" "bad lens" story. All the photos are good to my eyes, although my favourite is not the one you chose.

I don't really believe in this good copy stuff. It is incredibly uneconomic for an A brand to produce bad copies of anything. And if they do it will be blindingly obvious. No doubt all lens-camera combinations are a little bit different, but the differences are very slight and if they bug you then Scott's advice is well worth following. Hardly ever worth returning the lens imho.

TGAllen

Sorry to dig up an old thread, but I wanted to give Canon it's props. I rented the Canon 70-200L F2.8 IS and I was very "WOWED" instantly. Whether or not you believe in bad copies, I'm convinced.

I have the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 for my Sony and I love it, but it doesn't compare to the Canon L lens, in terms of build or focus speed. I'll be able to compare some pics in another week, but I will have a hard time sending this back to the rental company.:cry

pwp

TGAllen wrote:

Sorry to dig up an old thread, but I wanted to give Canon it's props. I rented the Canon 70-200L F2.8 IS and I was very "WOWED" instantly. Whether or not you believe in bad copies, I'm convinced.

I have to say that is one of my favorite lenses to use!! Glad you had a great experience with it!

JohnBiggs

TGAllen wrote:

I used a tripod, set the ISO for 125 and used both lenses at 105mm/F5.6 1/45 sec. Can someone tell me what I'm missing? Is this a bad copy of the L lens or a good copy of the Kit lens?

Did you turn off IS? I know the 24-105 is supposed to be 2nd Gen IS, however others have reported issues with this lens on tripod with IS on and in the manual it says to turn it off while on a tripod.

TGAllen

JohnBiggs wrote:

Did you turn off IS? I know the 24-105 is supposed to be 2nd Gen IS, however others have reported issues with this lens on tripod with IS on and in the manual it says to turn it off while on a tripod.

No, I didn't turn off the IS. The uninspiring photos were taken in the back yard of my dog, when I first noticed how "unsharp" they were. The photo in the original pic was posted as a comparison to what that lens would look like compared to the kit lens. It may very well have needed the AF Microadjustment, but I had taken it back before I realized it was an easy procedure. That may be why that one photo of the flower is sharp (because it was focused on something closer or further away).

ivar

TGAllen wrote:

No, I didn't turn off the IS. The uninspiring photos were taken in the back yard of my dog, when I first noticed how "unsharp" they were. The photo in the original pic was posted as a comparison to what that lens would look like compared to the kit lens. It may very well have needed the AF Microadjustment, but I had taken it back before I realized it was an easy procedure. That may be why that one photo of the flower is sharp (because it was focused on something closer or further away).

What is the aperture/shutterspeed/iso/... on the shot w the canon?