Sid, I just shoot pictures with lenses, I do not test them on an optical bench. dunno
I tend to shoot the 24-105 L a half a stop down from its maximim aperture, rather than wide open, probably more out of habit from using poorer quality glass when I was younger than real need with the 24-105.
I shot the 24-105 exclusively in the sand storm in Antelope Canyon on a 1DsMkll on a Gitzo tripod and came away with images that I am pleased with. I can see individual grains of sand in prints at 10x15 inches and they seem satisfactory in the corners to me.
For instance,
Another image I like demonstrating the 24-104 L, I posted previously from Disney in Florida - shot with a 20D so not full frame, but the corners seem sharp for a hand held shot.
It does vingette some, and you need to watch for flare shooting into the light, but not as much as you might think for a 4:1 zoom
This file is untouched save for exposure correction from RAW. f/7.1, 24mm, handheld at 1/60th. IMO it's pretty good. As good as any of Canon's other available lenses at 24mm, at the corners, on FF, full-wide. I don't have any at f/4, but who shoots landscapes at f/4 anyhow?
Thanks. Yeah, about the same. Bottom right corner really shows it, that's what the 16-35 looked like. I assume this is a big part of why you got the 21mm Distagon?
Your images are too small for me to be able to tell.
Yeah, I know, I was at work. I went back and opened a RAW file from the Antelope Canyon shoot, proceesed the file in RAW with NO sharpening either in RAW OR in PS. None, zero, nada. I chose the Antelope shoot because I know they were shot on a tripod with MLU and a cable release or tripped by a self timer.
Here is the original file, full frame, no cropping. I set black and white points to balance the color, and a mild curve to achieve a little better contrast to help evaluate sharpness.
ISO 100 1 second f8.0 at 70mm
Here is a 100% pixel image of the upper left corner without sharpening
Upper right corner
Lower left
Lower right
Center of the stick
But we all know that no one would use a RAW image straight out of a 1DsMkll without any sharpening.....
Center after Smart Sharpening of the L channel 149% 1.4 pixels Basic mode
Upper left after sharpening as per center
Upper right after Smart Sharpening as described
There may be apparent variations in sharpness due to distances from the camera as these areas were not all necessarily on a single plane. But to my eye, they seem pretty good for a 4:1 zoom. I'll have to see if I can find a shot at 24mm - not sure I have one from a tripod and MLU though.
I think I prefer it in B&W. Here it is as I converted it in channel mixer.
I have left the original size files available in the gallery for the next few days, waxy. Maybe this will help, at least at 70mm anyway.
Thanks PF, that looks terrific. Yeah, you read my mind. I was wondering about wider.
I hafta admit, when I saw what was happening with the 16-35 at pretty much all aperatures, I was miffed. But to justify the Distagon, I'd have to earn money with my shots, and I don't. Life is compromise!
My biggest surprise after using this lens again today, was the quality of the bokeh. Really, really nice.
...had mine less than a week now and just love the 24-105...I have had the lens out on two paying shoots and cannot find fault...on one assignment had a couple of minutes to kill and shot a bee on a flower...full extension at about 2 feet from the bee and cropped 75% out of the frame...used it for the blurr challenge...I have no commercial reason for buying a macro but sure had fun...the f4 is real selective of focal plane...depth of field...or lack of... has the bee going out of focus on its far side...I have allways been a shooter that believes in prime lenses...this lens has me rethinking...also the "IS" is really something for an old shaky guy like me...I had my lab make a 12x18 of the file and folks in the lab thought I had shot it with my medium format...it is that good of a lens.
...some of you have seen this image last week..."O" well...
Love this lens!
I shot a wedding with this lens on the first and found that it was excellent inside and out! I never had so many shots come out that I didn't have to 'fool' with !
You can see the slide show of the wedding on my site at http://susilawsonphotography.biz
under the client wedding link.
I also picked up one of these a couple of weeks back and absolutely love it, as mentioned the bokeh is absolutely first class. This is my first lens with IS and im very impressed that i can handhold down to 1/8.
Going up London tomorrow evening to give it, its first proper workout, cant wait
It might show more sunlight but then The 35L was shot at sunset (which
was 8:15ish) while the 24-105 was about 10 minutes earlier. Given where
the sun sets, I could understand why 10 minutes would make a difference
in the amount of apparent light. Note too the difference in exposure (and
the position of the ship--behind the North Tower (left)).
Now if you want to say things like versitility and sharpness, I'd agree with
that. It's much lighter than my 24-70 and Andy's assesment that once you
put it on, you're not likely to take it off is a good one too.
Ian
Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
Comments
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
I tend to shoot the 24-105 L a half a stop down from its maximim aperture, rather than wide open, probably more out of habit from using poorer quality glass when I was younger than real need with the 24-105.
I shot the 24-105 exclusively in the sand storm in Antelope Canyon on a 1DsMkll on a Gitzo tripod and came away with images that I am pleased with. I can see individual grains of sand in prints at 10x15 inches and they seem satisfactory in the corners to me.
For instance,
Another image I like demonstrating the 24-104 L, I posted previously from Disney in Florida - shot with a 20D so not full frame, but the corners seem sharp for a hand held shot.
It does vingette some, and you need to watch for flare shooting into the light, but not as much as you might think for a 4:1 zoom
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
So it's a valid issue with landscapes.
Your images are too small for me to be able to tell.
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
This file is untouched save for exposure correction from RAW. f/7.1, 24mm, handheld at 1/60th. IMO it's pretty good. As good as any of Canon's other available lenses at 24mm, at the corners, on FF, full-wide. I don't have any at f/4, but who shoots landscapes at f/4 anyhow?
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Yeah, I know, I was at work. I went back and opened a RAW file from the Antelope Canyon shoot, proceesed the file in RAW with NO sharpening either in RAW OR in PS. None, zero, nada. I chose the Antelope shoot because I know they were shot on a tripod with MLU and a cable release or tripped by a self timer.
Here is the original file, full frame, no cropping. I set black and white points to balance the color, and a mild curve to achieve a little better contrast to help evaluate sharpness.
ISO 100 1 second f8.0 at 70mm
Here is a 100% pixel image of the upper left corner without sharpening
Upper right corner
Lower left
Lower right
Center of the stick
But we all know that no one would use a RAW image straight out of a 1DsMkll without any sharpening.....
Center after Smart Sharpening of the L channel 149% 1.4 pixels Basic mode
Upper left after sharpening as per center
Upper right after Smart Sharpening as described
There may be apparent variations in sharpness due to distances from the camera as these areas were not all necessarily on a single plane. But to my eye, they seem pretty good for a 4:1 zoom. I'll have to see if I can find a shot at 24mm - not sure I have one from a tripod and MLU though.
I think I prefer it in B&W. Here it is as I converted it in channel mixer.
I have left the original size files available in the gallery for the next few days, waxy. Maybe this will help, at least at 70mm anyway.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
I hafta admit, when I saw what was happening with the 16-35 at pretty much all aperatures, I was miffed. But to justify the Distagon, I'd have to earn money with my shots, and I don't. Life is compromise!
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
I think.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
...had mine less than a week now and just love the 24-105...I have had the lens out on two paying shoots and cannot find fault...on one assignment had a couple of minutes to kill and shot a bee on a flower...full extension at about 2 feet from the bee and cropped 75% out of the frame...used it for the blurr challenge...I have no commercial reason for buying a macro but sure had fun...the f4 is real selective of focal plane...depth of field...or lack of... has the bee going out of focus on its far side...I have allways been a shooter that believes in prime lenses...this lens has me rethinking...also the "IS" is really something for an old shaky guy like me...I had my lab make a 12x18 of the file and folks in the lab thought I had shot it with my medium format...it is that good of a lens.
...some of you have seen this image last week..."O" well...
Guess again
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
I shot a wedding with this lens on the first and found that it was excellent inside and out! I never had so many shots come out that I didn't have to 'fool' with !
You can see the slide show of the wedding on my site at
http://susilawsonphotography.biz
under the client wedding link.
Going up London tomorrow evening to give it, its first proper workout, cant wait
Just a little comparison, you can judge for yourself.
http://www.moonriverphotography.com/gallery/1782861
The more I use this lens, the more I love it.
I'm just sayin'
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
was 8:15ish) while the 24-105 was about 10 minutes earlier. Given where
the sun sets, I could understand why 10 minutes would make a difference
in the amount of apparent light. Note too the difference in exposure (and
the position of the ship--behind the North Tower (left)).
Now if you want to say things like versitility and sharpness, I'd agree with
that. It's much lighter than my 24-70 and Andy's assesment that once you
put it on, you're not likely to take it off is a good one too.
Ian
Humor!
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
:boid might have been the first clue...
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
had to compensate myself for a six month struggle with low shutter speeds and blurred shots while doing in spite of! with the sigma 18-200 f/3.5-6.3
my 1st "L" and 1st "IS". didn't have too much time to really test run it yet but just had to find out what this "IS" was all about...
20D f/4 1/13s iso800 24mm
1/13s handheld!!!
i like it!
don't know how the flare got in there at the top right
Nir Alon
images of my thoughts
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Do you have a filter on the lens? that is usually the culprit