The 24-105mm Changed my View!

[Loupey]

You’ve probably heard me preaching the use of prime lenses before . Despite owning 3 Canon zooms (17-40mm, 24-70mm, 70-200mm), I’ve never been overly impressed by them.

With the above or my 28mm and 50mm primes, I did not have what I considered a versatile walk-about lens. I’ve been eyeing the 24-105mm f/4L IS for a while now for it’s wider zoom range and the IS. The f/4 was a bit of a turn off (why I originally went with the 24-70mm f/2.8L).

So I purchased the 24-105mm a few weeks ago and WOW what a lens! The first thing I did was shoot it wide open for a while. The resolution, contrast, and color rendition are outstanding. Stopping it down grains some improvement but the difference is very hard to see. There is a slight loss of resolution in the corners at the wide end and some distortion and vignetting is apparent when used with a full-frame camera. The lighter weight and smaller size compared to the 24-70mm is a welcome change for portability.

In fact, the resolution is so good that it was difficult to see the difference compared to the 28mm f/1.8 and 50mm f/1.4 primes. These primes in particular are quite soft wide open and I typically stop them down to no larger than f/2.8 – so much for fast non-L primes . So I promptly sold off those two in addition to the 17-40mm and 24-70mm and bought the 5D to go with the 24-105mm.

Here are two examples shot WIDE OPEN and HAND-HELD. The first one at 24mm with the 30D and the second one at 105mm at 1/15s (thank you IS!) with the 5D.

[MB1]

Thanks for posting this, I was thinking about that 24-105 f4 IS to use on my 5D.

Now where can I find it for $50............

[Loupey]

MB1 - thanks for looking. I am quite pleased with both the 24-105mm and the 5D.


Here is another example. Shot stopped down to f/8 but at the 24mm end with the 5D. The cropped version shows the quality of the bokeh in the tree bark in the background. The 24-105mm is not absurdly sharp like my 35mm f/1.4.


But it's close. Real close. Amazingly close for a zoom.

[Loupey]

Here is the other reason why I wanted to try this lens - as a make-shift macro lens.

I travel and shoot light (never carrying a camera bag - even when out in the "field") and almost never use a tripod. Extension tubes are easy to stuff into pockets.

So the IS was a big draw for me as a macro shooter, sans tripod.


This example has been cropped significantly to show detail. Shot with an extenion tube and hand held. Not tack sharp; but may be helpful in a pinch.

[JamesV]

Wow Loupey,
Thanks for the thread, as I have been looking at either the 24-70 or the 24-105 as my next lens to purchase. I currently have my XTi 18-55 kit lens and 50mm 1.8. I really wanted it for the walk around lens.
I really like the butterfly picture.

James

[Alison]

I have been talking to my hubby about this lens. Kinda kicking myself for not holding off to buy the 5D and 24-105 lens kit.

My reason being it has the 50mm/85mm range in it. Not too mention the yummy IS.

The f/4 is what puts me off too, but then I think, what would I use it for? Probably group shots So I wouldn't use f/2.8 for that purpose anyway. I don't think there are any losses there if you look at it that way.

I'm not selling my 17-40 f/4 L until I have that lens to replace it.

[EOSThree]

I just bought one, it's on the slow boat to Alaska now. Your thoughts confirm what I have heard about this lens. I can't wait for it to arrive now...and for the weather to improve a little too. It's still pretty much winter/very early spring here, snow in the forecast, a foot or so still on the ground.

[MB1]

....This example has been cropped significantly to show detail. Shot with an extenion tube and hand held. Not tack sharp; but may be helpful in a pinch.

The problem with everyone doing our own processing on computers is that we are always looking at the image at 100% to decide if it is sharp or not. IMO the way images look printed is what really matters in the real world and this one should print great.

[Alison]

Something else that I noticed about your test shots Loupey is that they were completely different subjects. One is light, one is dark and they were taken with completely different camera's.
Is that really a fair test?

[Loupey]

I'm glad some of you found the info useful.

...Probably group shots So I wouldn't use f/2.8 for that purpose anyway. I don't think there are any losses there if you look at it that way...

That was my thought as well.

I work with several local professional photographers and I realize that the 24-70mm has become the standard for portrait, industrial, and commercial work. Sure it may balance nicely on a 1DsMKxxx body and may get heavy use in short bursts without fatigue. But I found it severely unbalanced and awkward on the x0D-series bodies - both in hand and off the shoulder. The 24-105mm is much more comfortable in that respect.

Another example: shot from about 6' away at 105mm with the 5D. The fingerprint and brush detail are plainly visible. Very acceptable to me considering it is a candid street scene with natural, uncontrolled ambient lighting - which is the type of stuff I'm going to shoot with a "walk-about" lens

As MB1 mentioned, no one will typically see detail at this level, but it is nice to know it is there and will be key to making extremely large prints or high level crops of future images.

[Loupey]

Something else that I noticed about your test shots Loupey is that they were completely different subjects. One is light, one is dark and they were taken with completely different camera's.
Is that really a fair test?

My point there (I'm assuming you're referring to the first pair of images?) is not to compare the two images to each other, but rather to show the level of detail captured in two completely different scenes with two completely different cameras.

In other words, each image (by itself) shows high level of "acceptability" in terms of resolution alone. Color and saturation are subjective and dependent on how each person performs their own post processing.

[Loupey]

OK, so here is a side-by-side comparison test I did early on and it left me scratching my head in disbelief.

Same subject, same lighting, same camera (40D) but with two different lenses. The images are straight out of the camera JPEGs with no in-camera processing (Neutral picture style, no sharpening, no contrast boost, no saturation boost).

1st pair: uncropped comparison at 35mm. Can you see a difference?
2nd pair: highly cropped off-center portion. Can you see a difference now?

What's amazing is that the first image in each pair is from the 35mm f/1.4L prime. What's even more amazing is that the 35mm prime image was shot at f/4 (stopped down) while the 24-105mm is also shot at f/4 (wide open).


I know... That's what I mean.

[Alison]

I don't see a difference!

[Loupey]

Recently took the 24-105mm f/4L IS on a trip abroad mated to the 5D full-frame body.

This combo is an extremely versatile combo for street shooting. However, I wouldn't have felt comfortable taking it as my main lens with a 1.6x crop body (as the wide end of the zoom would not have been sufficient).

I used neither a flash nor a tripod throughout my trip and found the internal stabilization up to the task of extreme low-light photography. Some more images of this trip can be found here.

A few images along with their pixel-peeping blow-ups:

Image 1) 24mm, f/4.5, 1/8s, ISO 500
Image 2) 95mm, f/4, 1/30s, ISO 400
Image 3) 28mm, f/4, 1/20s, ISO 800
Image 4) 105mm, f/4.5, 1/20s, ISO 1600

[Liz]

Loupey,

You picked a winner! Your shots prove that! I just love what this lens can do. Thanks for posting your shots - you made me miss mine!

I owned the 24-105 for about a year, but had to sell it along with my other "heavier" lenses due to a back and neck problem. It took a long time to let go of it - it is such an awesome lens. I was blown away the first time I used this lens and saw the color it puts out. It literally took my breath away! I love this lens.

Here are a couple of "snapshots" from this lens and the XTi.

Congratulations Loupey - and enjoy!

Liz