 Steve Rumble |
Canon L Series Lenses I am an amateur photographer who shoots with a Canon 60D and an 18-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS kit lens. I just bought a 24-105 f/4L IS lens, and did some test shots in my living room of a book cover from about 10 feet away. I then compared it to the same shot with my kit lens (same settings), and at 100% crop I cant tell the difference. I find the 24-105 a bit soft, like the kit lens. I used a tripod, cable release, mirror lockup, and I still can't get tack sharp images at 100% crop. What am I doing wrong? The lighting wasn't great where I was shooting, but even when I used my 580 exii flash I got similar results. Can anyone give me some advice? I am a bit disappointed in my purchase, although I am still learning about the lens. Maybe I just expected to see an immediate big difference in IQ between the 2 lenses. Any help would be appreciated.
|
|
|
|
||
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Looking at the mtf charts of both lenses on Canon's website, they look similar. So I'm not surprised that you feel the optics look the same. One of the drawbacks of zooms is a loss of optic quality. And if the zoom is a zoom that goes from the wide angle side to the telephoto, even if it's a short telephoto, you're not going to get optics that would be considered too great. With either of your lenses, it's over 4 times the focal length that they are covering. So even the L series could be on the soft side. However, because they are zooms, what it takes to maintain good optics over a changing focal length, coupled with keeping a constant aperture over a wide range of focal lengths, is the main reason for the price difference. There might be differences in the one being made with more plastic versus alloy, but I didn't check for that. Your decision to get the new lens may have come from hearing about the quality of Canon's L lenses, and you may feel disappointed. And justifiably so if being able to shoot with a constant aperture at all focal lengths wasn't something you felt would be needed that much. So you're not doing anything wrong. You might actually be able to see some differences if you try shooting at different focal lengths, or apertures. Lenses don't keep everything looking the same all through their zoom range. All that being said, anytime a zoom lens is able to keep a constant aperture, it's going to cost a lot more than one that doesn't. It's hard to construct a zoom like that and not have some spots where things fall below acceptable standard. Whether that lens also has everything else over the regular lens isn't automatic.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Steve Rumble |
Thanks for your response, Gregory. For me, what matters most is IQ, so I may be returning the 24-105 for some faster prime lenses. I think most of my pictures are portraits anyway. I do have it in the back of my mind to become a professional at some point (when I feel I'm ready). Is it worth the investment to keep this lens, because it is good quality? I guess I just wanted to start investing in better equipment, and I thought the 24-105 would be a good walk-around lens. Is it the case that someone more experienced would be able to see differences in IQ that I can't? Anyway, I appreciate your feedback. Steve
|
|
|
|
||
|
Peter W. Marks |
Steve, after Gregory's very detailed response I am a little reluctant to suggest this as I am not much into all the tech stuff. But the thought that came to mind was, " Are you using auto or manual focus. I remember reading on some forum that even on the better makes of cameras the auto sometimes mis focuses. Google something like "Soft focus problem with Canon 60D" and I suspect you will be taken to a dozen or so websites with suggested fixes. Good luck Pete
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
It may not be a question of experience, unless you're so new that you're unfamiliar with the sharpening that needs to done with every digital shot due to the noire, also called anti-aliasing. If you're judging the images straight from the camera, use the unsharp mask and add 80-100% of sharpening with a pixel size of .5-1, and judge it then. Considering the lens a good investment is relative. The convenience of having that zoom range in one lens is something one person finds super handy, while the next person prefers two lenses that may skip the 100mm area to a longer range. With an even wider aperture. Your taste or discretion may change. The first longer lens I bought was the 75-300 zoom, which is common. It wasn't expensive, and everybody wants a longer lens for all the things they want to shoot that are available to them. What's one of the first things that got you hooked on photography? National Geographic. What's one of the first things you want to go shoot? Birds in the back yard and the zoo. I see a clear difference in some of my other lenses that I have versus the 75-300. Knowing what I know now, and having what I have now, I wouldn't choose a 75-300. But take me back to when that was the first time going above 135mm, I know I wouldn't want to wait several years to pay more for a better lens when 300mm was about $270 away.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Memoriee G. Sconce |
Steve just a thought when I read your question (since I read the questions to learn not to answer because I am very much an amateur) was the IS off? Memoriee
|
|
|
|
||
|
Steve Rumble |
Thanks everyone for your help. I decided to return the lens and work on my technique for now. I tried all of your suggestions, but still can't really notice a difference. Maybe I was expecting too much, but I figured that a lens that costs 3 times more than the one I have should give noticeably better results. I'll upgrade once I have done all I can with the equipment I have.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Lynn R. Powers |
You tested the lenses in the worst possible conditions. First you had dim light, second you took photos of a book cover. Also, were the f stops on each lens the same when you took the photo? How about ISO, focus point, shutter speed and distance as well as the zoom of the two lense? If any one of them were different your tests are meaningless. Although the 24-105L is a great walk-around lens for a FF camera, any 5D series or any 1Dseries it is not ideal for a crop camera or any XXD cropped because the widest angle image you will get is equal to 38mm. The 1.6x crop factor causes this. My 24-105L sits on my original 5D whereas on my 40D I use a 17-85 f3,5-5.6 lens. The 15-85 is even a better lens but almost twice as expensive. I seldom use the 40D anymore so I did not bother to upgrade the lens. But I will use my 70-200 f4L IS on it when I need the reach. In general the L lenses are built much better and are sharper at all ranges than a non-L lens. They also contain better, read: more expensive glass, inside them. Not all L lenses are equal in sharpness. For instance my 70-200L is sharper than the 70-300m L at 200mm. So beyond 200mm the 70-300L can only go down hill but overall it is a decent lens. For 300mm I use the f4L IS prime lens (no zoom). Now go outside and take some photos. Per Canon instructions the IS MUST be turned OFF when using the 24-105L on a tripod. Find a subject about 8' away with a background at least 16' away from the camera, set the correct WB, ISO 200, f5.6, single shot, Apperture priority, center spot focus, partial metering. On both lenses set the zoom to 24mm and 100mm for your test shots. You can add 50mm so that you get the sweet spot for each lens also. I only hope that you are using either PhotoShop Elements or CS for your editing. Also heed what Gregory said about the images Out of Camera, OOC, do need sharpening. Even on the 1DX (but not quite as much). When you check your images ignore the corners and sides but concentrate on where you focused. The background should be blurry and out of focus.
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||