Canon 24-105 lens quality

Carl911

Carl911

Suspended / Banned
Messages
323
Name
carl
Edit My Images
Yes
I have recently purchased a Canon L-series 24-105 lens.
I thought I would compare the PQ against my Canon 85mm Prime lens.
I set the camera up on a tripod and framed the 85mm prime on some objects in my lounge.
Keeping the frame object distances in mind I set up the 24-105 so that the same frame fell within my eye piece.
I set the same F number and shutter speed which both seem to achieve the correct exposure.
I took the two pictures and compared.
I carried this process out twice on two different frames.
I compared the pictures on the camera and zoomed right in to see the detail of some writing on a battery.
In both cases, the 85mm prime seemed sharper.
Now, to be honest i expected the 24-105 to produce the better image quality given the price difference.
Does this sound right or is it just a case of no zoom lens will match up against a prime for PQ quality?
Does anyone else have the same lens and have tried a similar test.

Carl
 
I think in this scenario a decent prime lens will end-up beating a zoom lens stopped down a bit. The thing is your shooting say f/4 WIDE OPEN on the zoom and f/4 on the prime so that 2+1/3rd of a stop stopped down. Thats essentially all it is.


This isn't strictly true but the way I would think of it is

f/8 most decent lenses will look more or less the same.
f/4 the 2.8 zooms and cheaper primes will look almost equal.
f/2.8 the decent prime, cheap primes look a bit better than the zoom.
f/2 the expensive prime looks much better than a cheaper prime.
f/1.4 chances are the cheaper prime can't do this.

I think your expecting too much from an f/4 zoom. Obviously some are better than others so there are no simple rules.
 
Both lens shot at F/7.1 & Shutter Speed 1/10 ISO200
I used a tripod and the 2 second timer.
I took a 100% crop from both pictures:-

85 Prime-
4535322857_bb21117c0b.jpg


24-105 L (actually shot at 92mm)
4535963414_5999e01f3d.jpg


Not sure even at 100% crop this shows any real difference, I could crop 160% perhaps.
The one thing I noticed looking again at these crops is that general detail in the pot is far better from the 24-105 although the writing on the phone keys seems to be sharper on the 85prime.
Seems odd, maybe theres a logical explanation.

Carl
 
Eh??? Primes tend to be sharper as they have less lens elements... Price really doesn't reflect IQ as there are so many other variables (zooms have a more complex mechanical / optical construction for example). Stop pixel peeping and enjoy one of the best walkabout zoom lenses money can buy!!

Carl
 
Well the first problem there is that you're shooting at 1/10th of a second in low light. If you're shooting test shots you really need to make sure there at 1/60th or faster (depending on focal length) unless you're on a tripod with mirror lock up and a cable release? Anyway, the 85mm and 24-105L are both excellent lenses however prime lenses regardless of price difference will always be sharper and near distortionless compared to a zoom lens. I've got both these lenses and the yes the sharpness of the 24-105L isn't as good as the 85mm but it's not massively noticeable. Either way I think these two lenses come into different classes. I use the 24-105L for flexibility and shooting landscapes, where as I use the 85mm in low light and for portraits. Hope that helps :)
 
Have to agree with Carl on this. Not really a valid comparison
 
CReid said:
Eh??? Primes tend to be sharper as they have less lens elements... Price really doesn't reflect IQ as there are so many other variables (zooms have a more complex mechanical / optical construction for example). Stop pixel peeping and enjoy one of the best walkabout zoom lenses money can buy!!

Carl
Click to expand...

lol, you are probably right.
I try not to pixel peep but sometimes with new kit I like to compare.
Dont get me wrong, if it produces pictures as good as the 85 prime but with the benefit of zoom and build quality then I have what I paid for and it does that.
I just found it odd that the overal picture was not consistant in that the main picture detail is very good, better than the prime other than writing detail sharpness. You can clearly see the colour around the bowl is much better definition on the 24-105, its just strange the letters are somewhat fuzzier.
Either way, I have mo intention of changing this new lens, I shall hopefully get some nice holiday pictures with it soon.

Thanks for you r comments.

Carl
 
What I have noticed is that all you lucky people are using full frame 5D's, my next investment...:thumbs:


Carl
 
Carl911 said:
lol, you are probably right.
I try not to pixel peep but sometimes with new kit I like to compare.
Dont get me wrong, if it produces pictures as good as the 85 prime but with the benefit of zoom and build quality then I have what I paid for and it does that.
I just found it odd that the overal picture was not consistant in that the main picture detail is very good, better than the prime other than writing detail sharpness. You can clearly see the colour around the bowl is much better definition on the 24-105, its just strange the letters are somewhat fuzzier.
Either way, I have mo intention of changing this new lens, I shall hopefully get some nice holiday pictures with it soon.

Thanks for you r comments.

Carl
Click to expand...

Just enjoy your new lens and don't get tied up in detail, it will be a stellar performer on your holiday (assuming you're going somewhere sunny??) and you'll love the range 24-105mm gives you. Comparing images at 100% is a pretty pointless and frustrating exercise especially when you're not comparing like for like in this case. I went through a pixel peeping phase but you know what, I got over it as unless you're printing massive images it makes b****r all difference, most of us will never do more then publish at 800px on the web or print maybe at A4... I've had 60cm canvases done that weren't technically "sharp" but they still look bloody impressive on the wall...

Carl
 
85mm SHOULD outclass 24-105 at 85mm at all settings. I would be worried if it didn't. However 24-105mm will take nice shots at 50mm, 35mm, 24mm and so on. The prime can't do it.
 
I use the 24-105 for 95% of my wedding shots and I have a love / hate relationship with this lens. It is a good general performer with a superb zoom range for weddings on full frame. I used to think that it was a fantastic lens optically and well worthy of the red ring of the L marque until I bought an 85 f1.8 and a 70-200 f4 L IS and both of these knock the spots off the 24-105 optically. Don't get me wrong, under optimum conditions the 24-105 will perform exceptionally well, but try to ask too much of it and its weaknesses will start to show. I have similar feelings about the 24-70L. Having said all this, I could never imaging shooting a wedding without a mid range zoom and for me the 24-105 is the pick of the bunch.
 
Comparing your two images I would say that he focus point is different in each. On the lower photograph, the far edge of the bowl seems to be sharper than in the first photo. Conversely the numbers on the phone appear to be sharper in the first picture.

From that I would suggest that the focus point of the first picture was slightly further back than the second picture.

Were these auto or manually focused? If auto, you may need to micro adjust the focusing of one of your lenses, if that's an available option on the body you have.
 
Scarecrow said:
Comparing your two images I would say that he focus point is different in each. On the lower photograph, the far edge of the bowl seems to be sharper than in the first photo. Conversely the numbers on the phone appear to be sharper in the first picture.

From that I would suggest that the focus point of the first picture was slightly further back than the second picture.

Were these auto or manually focused? If auto, you may need to micro adjust the focusing of one of your lenses, if that's an available option on the body you have.
Click to expand...

:agree: Just what I was about to post.
 
Scarecrow said:
Comparing your two images I would say that he focus point is different in each. On the lower photograph, the far edge of the bowl seems to be sharper than in the first photo. Conversely the numbers on the phone appear to be sharper in the first picture.

From that I would suggest that the focus point of the first picture was slightly further back than the second picture.

Were these auto or manually focused? If auto, you may need to micro adjust the focusing of one of your lenses, if that's an available option on the body you have.
Click to expand...

I did use auto focus for the two pictures. although I used only the centre focus point selected so position focus should have been the same but i gather there may be some focus variance between lens. Although, Im happy with the comments regarding comparisons, I may still try another picture manually focusing with a faster shutter speed etc. See if this improves the PQ between them.
Carl
 
Chaz Photos said:
you have not said what camera you got can you or have you done the micro adjustment on the lens>?
Click to expand...

I have a Canon 40D body, not sure how , if I can micro adjust?..

Another two pictures in lighter conditions
I manually focused on the Fortnum & Mason writing:-

24-105mm

4538209996_33dcc14dfa.jpg

85mm Prime
4538203098_8b9c3cbbbc.jpg
 
The second is indeed sharper but a touch of sharpening on the first would sort it out fine.
 
Are you shooting raw? Processing the same?

I don't think your test photo's are valid. On the first pair the focus is sharp, just in a different place in both shots. In this the 24-105 looks soft, but again it depends on where/how you focussed.

With the 40D, try manually focussing using live view and repeat. You can zoom in to get the critical focus.
 
Another go at a label-1/60th-f7.1-iso200.
Shot in RAW, then coverted to Jpeg.
Otherwise as it come out of camera with no adjustments for either.
Used the manual focus zoomed in to 10X.
To be fair, its getting closer, slightly softer from the 24-105 but probably nit picking now.
85mmPrime

4538466200_3f2a63409d.jpg

24-105
4537828867_b9ea55e9eb.jpg


carl
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top