24-105 softness I need some help

[One Frame at a Time]

Hi,

I am trying to decide if I should hold onto this lens.  Read about so many people getting bad copies.  I shot some tests against my old 28-135 and the images do look better with the new lens in a way.  Better color saturation and some undefinable quality that seems more natural.  But almost all the shots seem slightly sharper with the 28-135.  Not all but most.  You really have to look at 100% to see the difference but it is there (unfortunately).

I am leaving on Tuesday on a trip so I either have to send it back or live with it.  If the images did not have better color I would not have a decision to make.  I also do not really want to go through the process of returning this lens multiple times until I get a good copy.  That just does not seem right.  Does Nikon have this problem with thier lens quality?

Constructive thoughts would be appreciated.

[stever]

my 24-105 is noticeably sharper in the corners than the 28-135 at f4 and f5.6 on the 5D.  in the center, not much difference - probably limited by the camera

on a crop frame camera the corner difference is smaller

from other people's comments, believe i have an average copy

[One Frame at a Time]

my 24-105 is noticeably sharper in the corners than the 28-135 at f4 and f5.6 on the 5D.  in the center, not much difference - probably limited by the camera

on a crop frame camera the corner difference is smaller

from other people's comments, believe i have an average copy
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163669\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks Stever.  Not the reply I was expecting but welcome none the less.  I was expecting a lot more sharpness from the 24-105 all around.  If its just about the same
(mine seems a bit softer) why is this lens so much more $$, and why are people paying it ?

What kind of subjects are best for this kind of testing (if you know)?  I shot some trees, and then  rocks with moss with a note card in the center for the focus target.  I need to make a decision quick.

One more question, could it be that the camera is not as accurate as some of Canons better offerings?  I am using the 400XTi currently.  Mostly to save weight.  I shoot a lot of skiing and such.  Shaving 10 or 20 oz is a big deal for me.  I am under the impression the 400 has the same sensor circuitry as the 20D.

[stever]

i have a brick fireplace/wall in my living room that i use for comparing wide/medium lenses - brick walls are one of the classic lens-test scenes as it's easy to compare corners to center and get an idea of distortion as well

just did a memory check and looked my test images of 40D with 28-135 compared to 5d with 24-105 (couldn't quickly find 40D with 24-105).  the 24-105 combination is slightly better in the center at 5.6 and noticeably better in corners.  at f8 there is very little difference in the center, but the 24-105 is still better (but not way better) in the corners

also had a quick look at the Photozone tests which show the 24-105 much better than the 28-135 at all apertures on a crop-frame camera -- this is not what i see in my lenses -- there is lens-lens variation (photozones original test of the 100-400 was much worse than mine and since up-dated with a more representative sample)

my opinion (and i think you should get others) is that the 24-105 is not really justified on a crop frame camera.  it is also pretty heavy.  When traveling with the 20D (or now 40D) i use the 17-85 which is relatively light and compact with a more useful zoom range than the 28-135 and about the same performance - but i also try to shoot at f8 even if that means ISO 800.  shooting at f8 with the 28-135 or 17-85 you should be able to make 13x19 prints that will withstand close inspection - based on the limitations of the crop-frame sensor, i'm not sure that a 24-105 will get to 16x20

[pathfinder]

Hmmm...

I have a number of 24x 36 inch prints shot with a 24-105 f4 IS L on a 1DsMkll that seem exquisitely sharp  - In Antelope Canyon, you can see indidvidual sand grains in the light beam.  Shot at f8 at 24 mm focal length.

Shot on a good tripod with mirror lock up of course.

[thompsonkirk]

In 3 instances I've bought Canon L zooms (17-40 & 2 24-105s) that needed adjustment to reset the 'best focus point.'  This is free under the warranty, & it improved sharpness of all 3 lenses, especially the 17-40, which was initially fine at 17mm but a helpless blur at 40.

IMO any Canon zoom is likely to be off not necessarily in its optical manufacture but in its basic adjustments.  I've been quite surprised that Canon allows such loose tolerances / quality control on L lenses.  

Kirk

[One Frame at a Time]

In 3 instances I've bought Canon L zooms (17-40 & 2 24-105s) that needed adjustment to reset the 'best focus point.'  This is free under the warranty, & it improved sharpness of all 3 lenses, especially the 17-40, which was initially fine at 17mm but a helpless blur at 40.

IMO any Canon zoom is likely to be off not necessarily in its optical manufacture but in its basic adjustments.  I've been quite surprised that Canon allows such loose tolerances / quality control on L lenses. 

Kirk
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163739\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I have been shooting Canon since I bought an Elan IIe a long time ago.  I have a decent 100-400, 28-135 (even after I took a pretty good fall with it in Moab and it clattered on some rock) and  a 70-300 IS.  I had one of the first 70-300 DO but it was a total mess and sent back promptly.

I Was really hoping the 24-105 would be something special.  Certainly for the price you would think it would surpass the 28-135 but from what Steve says, maybe not?  Especially on a cropped frame camera?

[luong]

I Was really hoping the 24-105 would be something special.

It is, if you get a good copy. Sharp wide open at all short focals. When stopped down, equals or surpasses all other zooms and a few excellent primes.

[DonWeston]

Buying new lenses is NEVER a good thing to do right before a trip. You do not have time to both test the equpment and get an objective opinion and fix the issues all before you go. I have had bad copies of lenses also. You need TIME to sort out the options, exchange, send in for adjustment etc. You do not have time to explore ALL the options. IT comes down to picking your poison, sharpness over color and tone. The latter you have a choice to fix in Photoshop or PP, the former not so much. It is either sharp for you or not. Another body won't fix it, same issues between camera and lens, possibley two unknowns, and if you bought an expensive body with micro focus adjustment potential, do you want to be doing this on vacation or worse on a job. Sorting out equipment can be a pain, go on vacation with something that you know works and enjoy. JMO...Don

[One Frame at a Time]

Thanks Guys,

It was only a few days ago that I remembered the IS in the 28-135 making some weird noises last season when it got cold.  That led me to the purchase....  Should have bought 3 of them and sent 2 back.  

Thanks again,

Paul

[One Frame at a Time]

New Lens going back... After shooting a good test subject (rock wall) my 5 year old, dropped on rock in Moab 28-135    is sharper in all instances: wide open, 2 stops down, 28mm, 70mm, and 105mm.   The bottom left corner in the new lens is better but the center and the other three corners are softer.  Really stinks!  

Again, many thanks for the help.  A very Happy New Year to You All

Paul

[JohnIgel]

What kind of subjects are best for this kind of testing (if you know)?  I shot some trees, and then  rocks with moss with a note card in the center for the focus target.  I need to make a decision quick.

I like using a dollar bill as a test shot to compare lenses/apertures.  It gives a good quick read on sharpness and resolution (check the eagle's tail feathers).  Good luck.
-John

[One Frame at a Time]

I like using a dollar bill as a test shot to compare lenses/apertures.  It gives a good quick read on sharpness and resolution (check the eagle's tail feathers).  Good luck.
-John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163849\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Another good idea!  That was done on a scanner??  If not, I want that lens!
No one has responded to my question about Nikon.  Would really like to know if they have similar quality issues with their lens line-up???

[DonWeston]

It is possible to have lens and camera issues with any make or model. That said and having owned cameras of both makes, I have had fewer issues with Nikon overall, but don't ask about a bulletproof combo that I have had big issues with a year ago, a D2X and the venerable 70-200VR. So it is true that all makes and models have issues, though Canon's seem more freguent and better publicized. Also note that some lenses have more issues at different apertures and distances. Hope this helps.....

[BobDavid]

My 24-105 is significantly sharper than the 28-135. I originally bought the 28-135, but returned and exchanged it for a 24-105 due to lackluster performance. My 24-105 is very sharp.

[DonWeston]

The original poster said he was leaving on New Years Day  for a trip, hardly the time to test something new, unless it is not so important to have "perfect" images. While no one can argue overall that L glass is better on average then non L glass, one is still taking a chance with any new equipment on a trip or job. I assume since he is posing the question, the OP cares to get sharp images with his camera and lenses, so the safe bet is use what you know works, and leave the new specifically unknown variable for a later time. As he said initially, he does not have time to buy, test and return. Enjoy the trip and don't worry about the gear.

[budjames]

I purchased a 24-105 because I wanted the IS feature and I wanted to upgrade to L glass to replace my old Canon 28-135 IS. I made comparison test prints with the new 24-105 IS and my 24-70 f2.8 L (non IS) lens on my 1Ds MkII and 20D bodies.  

The 24-105 lens was unacceptably soft at all apertures and focal lengths new out of the box. I immediately packed it up and sent it to Canon USA service for warranty repairs. I got it back 2 weeks later. It is much better now. It is still not quite as sharp as the 24-70 but it's very close. After some capture sharpening, the images print very well. Vignetting is also more apparent, but this is not really noticed in the images as I don't make photos of gray cards.

The 24-105 has become my new "normal" lens. I have since sold my 1Ds MkII and 20D bodies and purchased the 40D. This combination works really well. I purchased the Canon 10-24 EF-S and now I have a nice light kit for travel photography.

Even with all of the above experiences, if I only could buy one lens, I would opt for the 24-105 IS.

Cheers.

Bud James
North Wales, PA

[Mark D Segal]

I did a review soon after the 24~105 came out. It is here:

24-105 vs 28-135

I consider my copy of the 24~105 to be very sharp.

The fact is that quality varies between copies of the same lens especially for zoom lenses, where the issue is usually alignment. Alignment is very difficult to deal with. If Canon's own measurements show that your copy falls below their standard for the product, they'll take responsibility for getting it adjusted; otherwise you keep it (or return it to your dealer for exchange or refund). I learned about this when I brought them my 17~40 for testing and they determined it was "within normal tolerance", eventhough I was not "fully satisfied".

[JohnIgel]

Another good idea!  That was done on a scanner??  If not, I want that lens!
No one has responded to my question about Nikon.  Would really like to know if they have similar quality issues with their lens line-up???
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163856\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

LOL, not a scanner!  If you want want that lens you'll need to buy Canon's 100mm Macro f/2.8, a very sharp lens and a relative bargain at about 450 USD!

[One Frame at a Time]

I did a review soon after the 24~105 came out. It is here:

24-105 vs 28-135

I consider my copy of the 24~105 to be very sharp.

Mine was the exact opposite.  The 24-105 was noticeably soft everywhere once I used a good test subject (rock wall).  The 28-135 by comparison had one corner that was soft and the rest was far superior everywhere else.  Maybe I knocked some sense into it when I dropped it??  

I will try again when I get where I am going.  Will be away for a prolonged period.  Should I order 2 or 3?  (For a thousand bucks you would think they could get the tolerances right!)  The lens I got was a sorry excuse for an "L" lens.  More like a "D" for DUD!  Its all packed up and ready to hit UPS for its return journey.