I just bougt a 24-105 L lens - somewhat disappointed

F

FM1

Suspended / Banned
Messages
86
Edit My Images
No
I bought a 24-105 L series lens a few days ago and Ive finally had a chance to test it out yesterday. So going through the photos, Im somewhat disappointed at the IQ.

That maybe because my expectations were too high, but Im not sure. It looks pretty much the same as my old Tamron 17-55 lens except a little bit sharper. Colours remain exactly the same.

So are my expectations too high or have I got a dodgy copy of the lens?
 
I think you need to spend time with a new lens and get to know it before you decide its a dud, all my favourite lenses have been things I've grown to love (like my 24-70) rather than had a 'wow' moment at the start followed by disappointment following on.

Not sure why you would expect colours to change unless you are looking for a lens to alter reality, surely the more accurate the better - maybe your tamron is a good copy?
 
Can you post some example photos?
I love my 24-105L and I think the IQ is better than the Tamron 17-55VC that I sold.
 
keirik said:
I think you need to spend time with a new lens and get to know it before you decide its a dud, all my favourite lenses have been things I've grown to love (like my 24-70) rather than had a 'wow' moment at the start followed by disappointment following on.

Not sure why you would expect colours to change unless you are looking for a lens to alter reality, surely the more accurate the better - maybe your tamron is a good copy?
Click to expand...

Im not really expecting the colour to change, but I was expecting to be a lot more vibrant which is what I had read in reviews. It seems somewhat dull, even though it was fairly sunny last night.

gwgw said:
Post some pics from both(a guess the lens thread?).
Click to expand...

hashcake said:
Can you post some example photos?
I love my 24-105L and I think the IQ is better than the Tamron 17-55VC that I sold.
Click to expand...

Ill upload some pics in the next 10 mins or so.
 
You've probably been listening to those people who state that in order to take a decent photo you just have to have an L lens, because they make your breakfast in the morning and all that... The placebo effect kicked in and then when reality hits... you realise, it's just a lens...
 
The 24-105 is a fantastic lens :)

How are you processing the images? Are you shooting RAW or JPG?
 
The non-Vc tamron is a excellent lens and i wouldn't expect you to see any major improvements, and the tamron stepped down to f4 will probably produce better IQ than the Canon - but the 'L' will have much better build quality and quicker focusing.
 
I was really disappointed with mine, I am getting use to it, but I still prefer images taken with the 50mm.
 
trencheel303 said:
You've probably been listening to those people who state that in order to take a decent photo you just have to have an L lens, because they make your breakfast in the morning and all that... The placebo effect kicked in and then when reality hits... you realise, it's just a lens...
Click to expand...

I fear that maybe the issue. Some of the best shots Ive taken have been with my 18-55mm kit lens. The only noticeable improve I have seen is quicker and more accurate focusing.

Grendel said:
The 24-105 is a fantastic lens :)

How are you processing the images? Are you shooting RAW or JPG?
Click to expand...

All shot in RAW. No pp on the images yet. Just comparing both lens 'out of the box' so to speak.

Dogfish_magnet said:
The non-Vc tamron is a excellent lens and i wouldn't expect you to see any major improvements, and the tamron stepped down to f4 will probably produce better IQ than the Canon - but the 'L' will have much better build quality and quicker focusing.
Click to expand...

I think this is definitely the case but I will have to shot a lot more with the L lens to verify.

Coasty said:
I was really disappointed with mine, I am getting use to it, but I still prefer images taken with the 50mm.
Click to expand...

I feel your pain man.
 
None of these photos have been edited in anyway.

Tamron

1.
T5.jpg


2.
T4.jpg


3.
T3.jpg


Canon

1.
L_1.jpg


2.
L_3.jpg


3.
L_4.jpg
 
On my monitor the pics look just a bit dark - may need a slight lift in brightness.

To be honest you won't see much difference between the 2 lenses at full size.

It's also quite possible for a chart to show quite marked differences in a lens performance but in the real world that difference can be extremely small.

The improvements come when you enlarge a small part of a pic.

What camera do you have?
 
petersmart said:
On my monitor the pics look just a bit dark - may need a slight lift in brightness.

To be honest you won't see much difference between the 2 lenses at full size.

It's also quite possible for a chart to show quite marked differences in a lens performance but in the real world that difference can be extremely small.

The improvements come when you enlarge a small part of a pic.

What camera do you have?
Click to expand...

50D.

Im starting to think that forking out the extra premium for an L series really wasnt worth it.
 
on my monitor I far prefer the Canon pics

Don't forget L lenses are very tough so you pay for that

I dropped my 28-300 onto concrete from 3 feet, and all it needed was a new bit for the focus ring.

cost me 300 quid to fix, but better than 2grand for a new lens
 
My immediate observation would be that the Tamron shots all look a bit under exposed, whereas the Canon shots look (if anything) a tad over exposed.

Also, from looking at the exif these were shot on 2 different bodies. The Tamron shots on a 40D & the Canon on a 50D

Looking at shot 2 from the Tamron - 1/500 f6.3
Looking at shot 2 from the Canon - 1/80 f4.5

You're not really comparing like for like imo :)

I'd want to set the lenses to the same settings in the same conditions to make a fair comparison
 
I'm about to purchase one this week and you're making me worried now. There aren't any third party lenses that cover similar range and f4 or better constant.
 
Grendel said:
My immediate observation would be that the Tamron shots all look a bit under exposed, whereas the Canon shots look (if anything) a tad over exposed.

Also, from looking at the exif these were shot on 2 different bodies. The Tamron shots on a 40D & the Canon on a 50D

Looking at shot 2 from the Tamron - 1/500 f6.3
Looking at shot 2 from the Canon - 1/80 f4.5

You're not really comparing like for like imo :)

I'd want to set the lenses to the same settings in the same conditions to make a fair comparison
Click to expand...

Good point, but I would have to sift through hundreds of photos to find something with similar camera settings. I have sold the Tammy so unfortunately I cant even take photos with the same settings again.

Even with the different settings, the photos look fairly similar in terms of IQ. I was expecting a very radical difference considering the difference in price. I tend to liken to owning a decent Kia and jumping into a top of the line Mercedes - you would expect to see, feel and experience the difference right way and you would. However, for this lens, despite being more than twice the cost, there was no notable difference except the build quality.

deepblu said:
I'm about to purchase one this week and you're making me worried now. There aren't any third party lenses that cover similar range and f4 or better constant.
Click to expand...

I dont know what to say to be honest. Personally I would like to shoot a lot more with the L series before jumping to conclusions. However, I cant help feel that if I probably wouldnt splash out on an L series lens again.
 
I agree with Grendel, you need to compare the two lenses using the same shutter speed and f stop.
That's the only way to compare them equally.
Also on my monitor the Canon shots looks better as well.
Have you played with the micro adjuster on the 50D?

I would also do some pixel peeping on the shots as well.
When I compared test shots with my 24-105 against my Tamron 17-50 I used my dog as a subject.
When I zoomed into the photos there was no doubt that the Canon produced a better IQ.

FM1 where are you from?
If you are near London you are welcome to try mine for some shots/
 
deepblu said:
I'm about to purchase one this week and you're making me worried now. There aren't any third party lenses that cover similar range and f4 or better constant.
Click to expand...

I bought one just before Christmas to go on my 500d. I think the L lenses take a bit of getting used to, but it's fast, quiet and very well built. Dont be put off:thumbs:
 
trencheel303 said:
You've probably been listening to those people who state that in order to take a decent photo you just have to have an L lens...
Click to expand...

Do you think that Canon stick that red ring around the front of certain lenses purely for the fun of it? It's an 'L' series lens for a reason... :cuckoo: I detect a touch of 'fox and grapes' in your response! :shrug:

Granted, there are some incredibly good non-L Canon fit lenses (I own one or two) but I guess a relevant analogy would be to buy a different variant of the same model of car... Essentially, they're both the same but one will have more refinements than the other.

To the OP; stick with it... The 24-105 is a beautiful lens to use and produces excellent images. You certainly shouldn't have any problems with it on your 50D.

Si
 
I have the 24-205 an have been really impressed with the quality. Build is solid and looks like it will take a knock or 2. I didn't know much about the lens before buying though so had no pre-conceived ideas on what to expect.
 
Just a note that you say colours are a bit dull and the day was sunny - the street entertainers shot looks like it could be overcast (no strong shadows) and the graffiti shot is in shade...I don't see much wrong with those shots myself.
 
hashcake said:
I agree with Grendel, you need to compare the two lenses using the same shutter speed and f stop.
That's the only way to compare them equally.
Also on my monitor the Canon shots looks better as well.
Have you played with the micro adjuster on the 50D?

I would also do some pixel peeping on the shots as well.
When I compared test shots with my 24-105 against my Tamron 17-50 I used my dog as a subject.
When I zoomed into the photos there was no doubt that the Canon produced a better IQ.

FM1 where are you from?
If you are near London you are welcome to try mine for some shots/
Click to expand...

Havent played with the micro adjuster as yet and to be honest, Im dont even know how to. Is there a link with some details?

Yep, Im in central London and cheers for the offer. I may take you up on it some time in the future. Ill be back home in Oz for the next month or so, so it would have to be when I come back.

Spiritflier said:
To the OP; stick with it... The 24-105 is a beautiful lens to use and produces excellent images. You certainly shouldn't have any problems with it on your 50D.

Si
Click to expand...

I certainly hope so. I will definitely stick with it for a couple of months before making any decisions.

wippers said:
I have the 24-205 an have been really impressed with the quality. Build is solid and looks like it will take a knock or 2. I didn't know much about the lens before buying though so had no pre-conceived ideas on what to expect.
Click to expand...

That was my mistake - my expectations were way too high. Even so, I think the justification is justified given the premium price.

grotty said:
Just a note that you say colours are a bit dull and the day was sunny - the street entertainers shot looks like it could be overcast (no strong shadows) and the graffiti shot is in shade...I don't see much wrong with those shots myself.
Click to expand...

The sun was in and out but I tried to shoot in the sunny areas. I will give it a few more goes some time today if I get the time.
 
I loved the handling and build quality of my 25-105, but when paired with a 7D the 17-55 IS gave noticeably better IQ. Perhaps I had an iffy 24-105 or maybe a very good 17-55 IS but after close comparison of both I kept the 17-55.

I think the build quality of the 24-105 outshines it's IQ on a crop sensor. The 17-55 is the exact opposite (poor build quality but top notch IQ).
 
what specifically is _wrong_ with the photos, technically? I can't see any sharpness or similar problems there, and end of the day that's not too important anyway.... if you can identify anything technically wrong with the photos then you can work on that, (not likely to be a 'fault' of the lens...you did pay for the red ring after all ;)

if not, then it's just a case of subject matter and camera settings... too many canon users put L on a pedestal with the belief that their pictures will be magically amazing... so yeah, I can't see anything wrong with the lens there, so go out and shoot :)
 
The colour has to be nice and rich, but the images need to go through pp and must be viewed on a pro-grade monitor or printed. I could imagine how 50D may outresolve the lens in the corners; this is really a kit lens for 5D. Nevertheless it should be capable of producing stunning results. This is where the composition and light come in.
 
It's a really good lens. I think the lack of impact of the photos is due to Post processing and in the case of number 2, too slow shutter speed setting.

The Tammy is a decent lens, but the 24-105 is better in terms of corner sharpness, reach, build quality focussing speed & the the IS is very useful.

I suspect you need some time to bond with the lens & find out how to extract the best from it. It is a super tool - maybe not quite in the league of a prime, but I think it is very very sharp for a zoom and gives great colours.

Phil
 
I'll go against the general flow here....

I think you hit the nail on the head when you questioned your expectations....they were probably based on the L tag.

The IQ of L series lenses cover a range from mediocre to excellent and you've probably picked one which tends towards the former. I've got a few L's and had a few more and I can't honestly think of a current L series that the 24-105 outclasses in terms of IQ....maybe the 17-40/4 L but I've never had one to form an opinion. It's got a useful zoom range and reasonable IS and build quality....good value for money and a truly portable option.

Bob
 
Canon Bob said:
I'll go against the general flow here....

I think you hit the nail on the head when you questioned your expectations....they were probably based on the L tag.

The IQ of L series lenses cover a range from mediocre to excellent and you've probably picked one which tends towards the former. I've got a few L's and had a few more and I can't honestly think of a current L series that the 24-105 outclasses in terms of IQ....maybe the 17-40/4 L but I've never had one to form an opinion. It's got a useful zoom range and reasonable IS and build quality....good value for money and a truly portable option.

Bob
Click to expand...

Hi Bob!

Other L-lenses can definitely outclass the 24-105 (and I agree that the 17-40L is not the best L, although for some reason I was always happy with it on FF and disappointed on a cropper), but in what way do you find it disappointing? The two I have owned have been very sharp and with great colours - I've just flicked through a few shots from holidays last year and every one is really crisp.

Obviously the faster primes will give more subject isolation potential and smoother bokeh but if you asked me what more I could wish for from a 24-105 I would be struggling other than to say '24-105 f/2.8 would be nice!'.

Is there possibily some sample variation going on?

Phil
 
philthejuggler said:
Hi Bob!
.......but in what way do you find it disappointing?
Click to expand...
Disappointing?....none, it does what it's supposed to for the money. Back to the question though....is there an current L with lower IQ?


philthejuggler said:
Hi Bob!
Is there possibily some sample variation going on?
Click to expand...
It's inevitable that there is copy variation but mine's just fine. I think that the real variaition is in expectation and judgement which leads back to the question above.

Bob

Edit...answering my own question here....the 28-300L is probably lagging behind for obvious reasons.
 
Canon Bob said:
Disappointing?....none, it does what it's supposed to for the money. Back to the question though....is there an current L with lower IQ?



It's inevitable that there is copy variation but mine's just fine. I think that the real variaition is in expectation and judgement which leads back to the question above.

Bob

Edit...answering my own question here....the 28-300L is probably lagging behind for obvious reasons.
Click to expand...


Hmm - not tried the 28-300L, but wouldn't expect it to be stunning! I think the short end of the 100-400 is pretty weak until stopped down but I guess you're right about the 24-105 being at the poorer end of the L's. I just wouldn't usually associate the word mediocre with an L lens!!!

Phil
 
It seems to me that your Tamron shots were taken in sunny, contrasty conditions that gives them some pop factor straight out of camera, and your Canon shots weren't.

I wouldn't give up on the Canon just yet until you have tested it under similar conditions.
 
Thanks for all the feedback guys. Very much appreciated.

I have come to the conclusion that my expectations were too high for this lens. I was expecting spectacular IQ from the lens given all the great reviews. I am still of the opinion that its fairly standard IQ given its price tag. There is definitely not enough of a difference to warrant paying an additional £300 for this lens over the Tammy.

Anyhow, in saying all of this, I will still stick with the L lens for a while longer before making any decisions.
 
I think you are having unrealistic expectations of a lens, full stop. It won't make great light were there is none or make your photos better.
 
Speaking personally, and looking at my own shots with this lens, I have some very average shots with it and some wonderful ones. Same applies to shots with my 50mm f1.8.

I tend to put it down to a fault between the floor and the shutter button. Getting focus and exposure correct before I shoot vastly improves the quality of my images. Whether there's a 17-55 kit lens on the front or the L glass. I can't fault this lens in any way, but that's coming from the 17-85 and prior to that the kit 17-55.

Not saying that applies to you, but it's something that definitely applies to me.

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