|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 6/12/2007
Posts: 38
Location: London
|
I've just upgraded from my Nikon D300 to a Canon EOS 5D Mark II and have to say I'm quite disappointed - not so much with the camera but from the 24-105 lens. In fact I'd go as far as to say I felt I was getting better results from the 18-70 and 18-105 kit lenses I was using on the D300.
Looking at various tests (raw and jpeg) I'm sure I can get a lot more out of the sensor than the 24-105 has to offer. Just wonder whether anyone has experience of using other standard zooms on this camera. I know there is a 24-70 but it means spending another £900 - I just wonder how much better this is than the 24-105 and whether anyone has experience of the Sigma equivalents.
Lastly I want to get a telephoto lens and wonder whether anyone has an opinion of the 70-200 F4 L v the 70-300 IS lens. I realise the 70-300 doesn't have L series optics but in the past I've found fast lenses don't necessarily offer that much better performance if you not that bothered about the greater minimum f -stop.
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 5/15/2007
Posts: 961
Location: UK
|
Have you calibrated it to the body?
Jaybee
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 6/11/2007
Posts: 323
Location: London
|
I too am very very disappointed with the 24-105 lens, I still use a lot of my Olympus OM primes with much better results. Even my 75-150 OM zoom bought for £50 blows away the Canon.
I don't know too much about the Canon zooms, but I've just purchased the new 24mm T/S, wow, that's a real cracker... outstanding optics.
Tony
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/5/2008
Posts: 61
Location: Texas
|
I also have the 24-105 F4L and expected more from it for the money. As with many lenses, the extremes of both aperture and focal length (for zooms) do not have the best quality, and this seems to be especially true for the 24-105's aperture. There is a surprising difference in sharpness between F4.0 (wide open) and F4.5 that has nothing to do with DOF, at least with my copy, so I always avoid F4.0. I haven't found it's sweet spot yet, but it seems to be between F5.0 and F8.0, so I try to stay between these two. Even though it's a lot less money, my favorite lens is my 85 1.8. It seems as sharp or sharper then the 24-105, but unfortunately for me, is too long for most of my shoots that are indoors.
You might do some testing with your 24-105 and look at your images to see if you've been shooting wide open to see if you get the same results.
Richard.
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/3/2008
Posts: 173
Location: Leafy, Posh South Bucks UK
|
before I was seduced by shiny gold boxes I used a 5D (MkI) with a 24/105 and was delighted with the results many of which have sailed through QC; I found that the lens operated best at around f/9 and it produced a lot of CA otherwise images were sharp and well detailed.
In a straight comparison with Canon's 24/70 I got better results with the 24/105 but I may have had a Monday morning/ Friday afternoon version of the 24/70.
As for the telephoto zooms I found that Canon's 70/300 were quite disappointing but Canon's 70/200 f/2.8 IS is still IMO one of the best lenses on the market currently. I would imagine that the 70/200 f/4 would give significantly better results than the 70/300 including the "DOH" version.
pp
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 7/23/2008
Posts: 1,061
Location: Devon, UK
|
There was a long thread very recently HERE which covered a lot of this ground.
Alan
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 11/6/2009
Posts: 2
Location: South Oxfordshire
|
I too have found the 24-105 on the 5Dmk2 somewhat disappointing - sharp enough centrally (best at f8) but blurring at the edges quite a bit and this sees worse in the far left bottom corner than on the right - I'm going to try the focusing checks suggested. I agree about the sharpness of the OM lenses too.
I've also noticed that on long exposures (with mirror lock up and time delay switched on) I seem to get better results by turning off the image stabilisation. Is this a general stabilisation issue do you think or is it just my set up? Tripod is sturdy enough and there was no wind.
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 9/26/2007
Posts: 105
Location: UK and Germany
|
DavidD wrote:I too have found the 24-105 on the 5Dmk2 somewhat disappointing - sharp enough centrally (best at f8) but blurring at the edges quite a bit and this sees worse in the far left bottom corner than on the right - I'm going to try the focusing checks suggested. I agree about the sharpness of the OM lenses too.
I've also noticed that on long exposures (with mirror lock up and time delay switched on) I seem to get better results by turning off the image stabilisation. Is this a general stabilisation issue do you think or is it just my set up? Tripod is sturdy enough and there was no wind.
David, if I remember correctly, it says exactly that in the lens instruction booklet. Anyway, yes, always turn off IS when using a tripod.
Mark
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/14/2009
Posts: 381
Location: UK
|
Do you think, that it's generally the case that
camera manufacturers are lagging behind in the quality
of their 'lens' designs, particularly 'zooms', in relation to FF ?
FF must be so much more demanding of lenses.
Prior to the appearance of the current extremely high ISO / MP cameras,
their priority was to produce quality lenses that could be stopped
down to 2.8 or lower; - now this seems to be a less important feature.
Perhaps they need to change tack, in order to keep up with both,
the developments of the new camera-body, and the needs of todays' photographers ?
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/20/2009
Posts: 68
Location: South Africa
|
While I haven't used the 24-105, I am planning an upgrade to the 5DII and have been investigating lenses. I took one look at the review of the 24-105 on Photozone and decided it certainly wouldn't feature in my future. It seems to me when moving to FF, primes will be essential ... apart from my trusty 70-200.
iSpy photography
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 9/14/2008
Posts: 518
Location: Sydney, Australia
|
As I stated in a previous thread, I didn't like the 24-105 and after a year, I sold it. The 24-70 is a far better lens and is one which is excellent for assignment shooting. I also have the 70-200 f/4 L IS and previously had the non-IS version and to be honest, I found no difference between the two as far as sharpness is concerned.
Sheila
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 6/12/2007
Posts: 38
Location: London
|
Going on from this has anyone compared the Sigma equivalent to the Canon 24-70
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 5/15/2007
Posts: 961
Location: UK
|
tonyfotoman wrote:Going on from this has anyone compared the Sigma equivalent to the Canon 24-70
Tony, in case you missed it earlier
HAVE YOU CALIBRATED THE 5DII AND THE 24-105 TO EACH OTHER?
Yes or No will do - no need to waste characters. If you haven't done this yet then you must do it - it can make a soft lens completely sharp.
Jaybee
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 7/25/2007
Posts: 442
Location: suffolk
|
jaybee wrote:tonyfotoman wrote:Going on from this has anyone compared the Sigma equivalent to the Canon 24-70 Tony, in case you missed it earlier HAVE YOU CALIBRATED THE 5DII AND THE 24-105 TO EACH OTHER? Yes or No will do - no need to waste characters. If you haven't done this yet then you must do it - it can make a soft lens completely sharp. Jaybee
Out of interest,how do you calibrate a lens to body?
Is it just a Canon thing or do Nikon do it as well?
Tim.
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 9/28/2009
Posts: 69
Location: Manchester UK
|
hate having to post this, but I just wonder if the 5D MkII sensor is as flat as it should be? The reason I'm comming to this conclusion is that I can see the effect of blurring/loss of resolution on so many lenses that it can't be all of them that are badly made, in the end I have to come back to the fact that it might just be the camera body that's at fault. The trouble is in testing it because it's not as if it's mile out, it's enough so you'd notice at actual pixels, but not at normal viewing. I borrowed a 17 - 40mm yesterday just to try another lens, and the top right corner had virtually no detail at all, yes I was pushing it to do it by shooting wide open at a brick wall at 17mm, but I hadn't expected this level of fall off.
Talking to a few other people (and Canon) warped/dished/missaligned sensors are not unheard of, and now I'm wondering if it shouldn't be paying Canon's repair workshops a vist.
Anyone any thoughts on this?
And yes I have calibrated the lenses and the centres are sharp it's occured on numerous lenses not just one or two.
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 2/12/2009
Posts: 214
|
I got hold of my 5DMII kit (camera + 24-105) about 10 days ago. First small batch of test images sailed through QC. All common garden subjects shot RAW in none too bright light. I'm sure I can shoot substantially better as my work flow establishes. I submitted 60 Mb images as it is, with strictly no other alteration than that of WB or color in general. Focal length around 70mm/ f8.0/ tripod/ no filter (yet)/ mirror lock/ ISO 100/ IS OFF. 100% of the submitted images also approved as of XXXL size at the other site I submit to. And, this is precisely ALL THAT MATTERS, and that is what the kit was procured for !
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 11/6/2009
Posts: 2
Location: South Oxfordshire
|
Thanks Mark - I'm not used to IS and you've confirmed what I found today. I experimented with exposures that you can hand hold (eg 1/30th sec or faster) and longer exposures (eg 1/2th or slower) - with all exposures on a tripod with mirror lock up, time delay and electronic shutter release. At hand hold exposures there is no noticeable difference with the IS on or off. With longer exposures the IS ones are blurred and non-IS ones are not. I checked the auto focus using the tools identified on the forum and the lens is spot on. So my softness problems seem to have been a result of slower exposures with IS on and not the lens in itself.
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 7/23/2008
Posts: 1,061
Location: Devon, UK
|
This is doing my head in. For every person who says the 24-105 is a great lens there's another who says it's a crap lens.
This cash is starting to burn a hole in my wallet.
Alan
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 2/12/2009
Posts: 214
|
Inchiquin wrote:This is doing my head in. For every person who says the 24-105 is a great lens there's another who says it's a crap lens.
Alan
It may not have been labelled as a 'great' lens by any of the users, but if it is totally fulfilling the purpose it has been procured for (clearing QC, sans interpolation, as in my case above), one has reason to be satisfied of its possession !
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 10/13/2009
Posts: 22
Location: UK
|
Tim wrote:jaybee wrote:tonyfotoman wrote:Going on from this has anyone compared the Sigma equivalent to the Canon 24-70 Tony, in case you missed it earlier HAVE YOU CALIBRATED THE 5DII AND THE 24-105 TO EACH OTHER? Yes or No will do - no need to waste characters. If you haven't done this yet then you must do it - it can make a soft lens completely sharp. Jaybee Out of interest,how do you calibrate a lens to body? Is it just a Canon thing or do Nikon do it as well? Tim.
Anyone out there care t answer Tims question? I am also intrigued as to how you calibrate a lens to a body
|
|
|
Guest |
RSS feeds