Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: 24-105L V Canon prime lenses test comparison  (Read 8994 times)

ashley

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 94
    • http://www.ashleykaryl.com
24-105L V Canon prime lenses test comparison
« on: November 24, 2009, 04:44:07 pm »

Just about everything I need to do in 35mm can be achieved within a relatively short focal range and for years I worked exclusively with my prime lenses from the 28mm F2.8 to the 100mm Macro. More recently I purchased a 24-105L and have been generally impressed by the performance, so I decided to test it side by side against the primes to see how they compare.

The first two parts with the 28mm F2.8 and the 35mm F2.0 can be seen at the following urls and I shall add some more when the other lens tests have been prepared. Any thoughts or comments are welcome.

http://www.nudephotopro.com/blog/2009/11/c...ootout-at-28mm/

http://www.nudephotopro.com/blog/2009/11/c...ootout-at-35mm/

Logged
Ashley Karyl Photographer
[url=http://w

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22814
  • http://myrvaagnes.com
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
24-105L V Canon prime lenses test comparison
« Reply #1 on: November 24, 2009, 05:58:08 pm »

Very interesting comparisons so far. I look forward to the longer focal lengths as well.

I'm also delighted to see that the 24-105 seems to do so well, as it is the lens I use 90% of the time. Mine seems very sharp (but I haven't done any tests), and I like being able to pick the best focal length for each individual shot without having to switch lenses or crop in post.

Eric

Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes (visit my website: http://myrvaagnes.com)

ashley

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 94
    • http://www.ashleykaryl.com
24-105L V Canon prime lenses test comparison
« Reply #2 on: November 24, 2009, 07:26:04 pm »

Quote from: EricM
Very interesting comparisons so far. I look forward to the longer focal lengths as well.

I'm also delighted to see that the 24-105 seems to do so well, as it is the lens I use 90% of the time. Mine seems very sharp (but I haven't done any tests), and I like being able to pick the best focal length for each individual shot without having to switch lenses or crop in post.

Eric


I am quite busy at the moment so it may be a couple of days before I can manage the next comparison with the 50mm F1.8 but I'll make sure it gets done. Like you Eric, I don't really need a test like this because I can see in general picture taking how the lens is performing, but I think it is impressive just how far zooms have come in recent years and I was curious to see the difference. There was a time when I wouldn't have considered using a zoom but when I see files coming out crisp and sharp across a wide range at all apertures it seems like a very practical choice. It seems fairly evident that the zoom has some weakness at 24mm and falls off a bit at 105mm but it appears to be extremely sharp from roughly 35mm to 90mm.
Logged
Ashley Karyl Photographer
[url=http://w

Vivec

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 25
    • http://www.daanvisuals.com
24-105L V Canon prime lenses test comparison
« Reply #3 on: November 25, 2009, 12:19:56 am »

Thanks for the interesting comparison.

One thing that came to mind when I looked at your test, is that one has to be very careful when shooting a flat surface like a fence.
This is because many lenses have a slight back or front focus. I even suspect this is the case with the primes here -- even the slightest back/front focus will show softness across the entire surface. What you can do to figure out if this is the case is for example to have some surface stick out to the front and to the back and see if sharpness differs there, or use manual focus with liveview to tweak to the front and back until best sharpness is reached in the center.

Logged

Ed Blagden

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 502
24-105L V Canon prime lenses test comparison
« Reply #4 on: November 25, 2009, 03:21:32 am »

I have the 35mm f/2 and the 24-105mm f/4L, and subjectively I have to agree that the zoom is very good, on a par with the prime and maybe a bit better when it comes to IQ... I'm no pixel peeper, but my own subjective impressions bear out this test.

However, the prime still spends a lot of time on the front of my 5D for everyday "street" and candid people photography.  Why?

1.  F/2.  Yes, the zoom has IS and the prime doesn't, but this doesn't help with subject motion blur, nor does it help the AF to perform accurately in low light.
2.  The zoom weighs 670g and is the size of a beer can, the prime weighs 210g and is the size of a small coffee cup.  I tend to feel a bit self concious when I'm carrying the big zoom around, and I'm sure this rubs off on my subjects.  I tend to get much better shots of people when I'm using smaller equipment.

Just my 2p worth.

Ed
Logged

Paulo Bizarro

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7393
    • http://www.paulobizarro.com
24-105L V Canon prime lenses test comparison
« Reply #5 on: November 25, 2009, 04:44:30 am »

Quote from: ashley
The first two parts with the 28mm F2.8 and the 35mm F2.0 can be seen at the following urls and I shall add some more when the other lens tests have been prepared. Any thoughts or comments are welcome.


To be fair, the above mentioned two lenses are very old designs (late 1980's or early 1990's). The 24-105 zoom lens was built with digital sensors in mind, and it is of L category, so there is no surprise that it performs very well. I have been wishing for a very long time for Canon to update their "consumer range" prime lenses, like the 24 2.8, 28 2.8, and 35 2.0. They are in dire need of a little better glass, more iris blades, and improved AF motor. Canon users should not have to jump into L category glass and price (24 and 35 Ls) to have those things. An improvement in these "economic range" lenses would be very welcomed, not only for full-frame users, but also for crop-sensor users.

ashley

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 94
    • http://www.ashleykaryl.com
24-105L V Canon prime lenses test comparison
« Reply #6 on: November 25, 2009, 04:57:31 am »

Photographing the garden fence like this was only a bit of curiosity really and for the record I know it's not a perfect test.

To me this all come down to a question of being pragmatic and making the right choices based on your needs and budget. No lens is perfect and they all have their limitations. I am sure that the L series primes would be the best choice of all in pure optical terms but that doesn't help you when you are stuck in a small room photographing a model while having to change lenses every minute and losing good shots.

I thought about the F4 question before getting this zoom and concluded that for the kind of pictures I do in the 35mm format F4 is about as wide as I would ever go. I would almost never work any wider than 35mm when photographing models and indeed most of my pictures can be done in the range of 50-100mm. I have never felt the need either to have a longer lens than 100mm.

In the future it's possible I may sell the 28mm and 35mm lenses, but I'd probably keep the other primes because they bring other qualities to the table. For example I can use the 24-105L in servo mode to photograph a model running towards me and it will do a fine job, but the 85mm F1.8 is the only lens with fast enough AF to obtain reliably crisp images if I am running backwards at the same time. That's real world lens testing and not silly lens test charts  

Any zoom lens involves compromises but I think Canon have made a sensible call in the way this lens is configured. For me the the great part is that I no longer feel like it was necessarily a bad decision to have chosen the zoom whereas a few years ago I would jump through hoops all day long purely to work with a prime at any cost.
Logged
Ashley Karyl Photographer
[url=http://w

ThomasPoeschmann

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 30
    • elbsandsteinfoto.de
24-105L V Canon prime lenses test comparison
« Reply #7 on: November 25, 2009, 07:47:34 am »

I would never compare a good zoom against two of the worst primes in the Canon lineup. Sure, you can capture nice images with them. But do not push your nose against 100% when doing so.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2009, 07:49:52 am by ThomasPoeschmann »
Logged

Ben Rubinstein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1822
24-105L V Canon prime lenses test comparison
« Reply #8 on: November 25, 2009, 07:52:15 am »

Quote from: ThomasPoeschmann
I would never compare a good zoom against two of the worst primes in the Canon lineup. Sure, you can capture nice images with them. But do not push your nose against 100% when doing so.

+1
Logged

ashley

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 94
    • http://www.ashleykaryl.com
24-105L V Canon prime lenses test comparison
« Reply #9 on: November 25, 2009, 10:37:19 am »

To get a more complete overview I think it has to be compared to all the primes within that focal range, so while the two wide angles may not look too hot right now it may well be that the 50mm or 85mm are way out in front. I am pretty sure that the zoom wouldn't have looked too clever next to the 24mm prime if I had one to test either.
Logged
Ashley Karyl Photographer
[url=http://w

Gary Ferguson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 550
    • http://
24-105L V Canon prime lenses test comparison
« Reply #10 on: November 25, 2009, 01:06:05 pm »

Erwin Puts (of Leica fame) evaluated the 24-105mm and concluded that at f5.6 and f8, and between 35mm and 90mm, the 24-105 was "an outstandingly good lens". Remember, "outstanding" is a word he usually reserves for industry leading optics like the 90mm Leica 2.0 Aspheric.

My own experience is that (teamed with a 35 or 50mm 1.4 prime for when you need a faster shutter speed) it's the perfect travel lens, delivering sumptuous A3+ print quality at f5.6 to f11 from 28-105mm, and at f8 to f11 at 24mm. Where the 24-105 isn't quite as strong (as is so often the case wiith zooms)is the quality of the out of focus areas, which can look "wirey" and intrusive. The 24-105 isn't the worse zoom in this respect (for example I've never seen double images in the out of focus areas), but the out of focus image doesn't harmoniously and slowly melt away as it does with the best primes.
Logged

ThomasPoeschmann

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 30
    • elbsandsteinfoto.de
24-105L V Canon prime lenses test comparison
« Reply #11 on: November 25, 2009, 04:49:57 pm »

Ashley, if you can borrow them for free and would like to take a wald outside in the garden - go ahead

Assuming you are looking for the sharpness winner I expect only a 24 1.4 (either version) or TS-E MkII, or 50 1.8/1.4 have a chance.

Do you know http://www.the-digital-picture.com ?
Logged

ashley

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 94
    • http://www.ashleykaryl.com
24-105L V Canon prime lenses test comparison
« Reply #12 on: November 26, 2009, 05:16:13 am »

Quote from: ThomasPoeschmann
Ashley, if you can borrow them for free and would like to take a wald outside in the garden - go ahead

Assuming you are looking for the sharpness winner I expect only a 24 1.4 (either version) or TS-E MkII, or 50 1.8/1.4 have a chance.

Do you know http://www.the-digital-picture.com ?


I know one photographer who has a 24L but he is 150 miles from me and we know the prime would win that test hands down. Time permitting I shall prepare the blog post comparison with the 50mm F1.8 today, so there will be more to debate later on. That cheap looking 50mm lens has always produced excellent results and the zoom has proven to be surprisingly good, so the results should be interesting.

From past  picture taking I have seen that CA is more common on the zoom, but it's never been a problem to fix so far. What really impresses me though about the 24-105L are the ability to deal with flare in really tricky lighting and the incredible IS. We can all have debates about a particular lens being optically better than another, but if I had to choose just one lens now to do all my work this zoom would be the winner without a doubt. Yes I've seen the-digital-picture.com.
« Last Edit: November 26, 2009, 05:38:41 am by ashley »
Logged
Ashley Karyl Photographer
[url=http://w

ThomasPoeschmann

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 30
    • elbsandsteinfoto.de
24-105L V Canon prime lenses test comparison
« Reply #13 on: November 26, 2009, 10:31:13 am »

The flare resistence on the 24-105 is ok, but nothing spectacular. If the sun comes 45° from the front, low over the horizon (we have winter here), it will cause a number of flares. I have seen this multiple times and switched to a different lens (35 mm, in this example). The 17-40 is clearly the winner when it comes to flare resistence.
Logged

Paul Roark

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 398
24-105L V Canon prime lenses test comparison
« Reply #14 on: November 26, 2009, 02:20:41 pm »

Quote from: ThomasPoeschmann
I would never compare a good zoom against two of the worst primes in the Canon lineup. Sure, you can capture nice images with them. But do not push your nose against 100% when doing so.

I'm going to be a contrarian here.  The Canon 35mm f/2, if used at f8 or 11, and if cropped to 16x20 is an excellent lens.  I posted some MTFs form Photodo and Zeiss at http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/35mm-MTFs.jpg  They both use 10, 20, and 40 lp/mm frequencies (not the 10 & 30 Canon uses).   The Photozone full frame and Canon tests are generally consistent with the conclusion that the 35 f2, if stopped down and where the corners are not used is an excellent lens.

My reaction to the 24 - 105 comparison is that even though it was not as good as the 35 f2 at f8 and within my usual 16x20 crop, it came closer than I thought it would.  As a one-lens companion to the 5d2 it looks like it is a hard to beat travel lens.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
Logged

Ed Blagden

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 502
24-105L V Canon prime lenses test comparison
« Reply #15 on: November 27, 2009, 02:35:56 am »

Quote from: Paul Roark
The Photozone full frame and Canon tests are generally consistent with the conclusion that the 35 f2, if stopped down and where the corners are not used is an excellent lens.

To second the contrarian view, I would add that a bit of softness in the corners isn't a deal-breaker with this particular lens, at least for me.  Why? Because I use the lens exclusively for street and candids because of its un-intimidating size, low weight and fast aperture.  For this style of shooting, corner softness is never an issue because the subject is never in the corners.

For other applications I bring out the heavy artillery but personally I'm very glad to own the little 35mm and will only part with it if and when Canon make an update with a ring USM motor, up to date glass, and more aperture blades.

Ed
Logged

ashley

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 94
    • http://www.ashleykaryl.com
24-105L V Canon prime lenses test comparison
« Reply #16 on: November 27, 2009, 04:33:46 am »

Quote from: Ed B
To second the contrarian view, I would add that a bit of softness in the corners isn't a deal-breaker with this particular lens, at least for me.  Why? Because I use the lens exclusively for street and candids because of its un-intimidating size, low weight and fast aperture.  For this style of shooting, corner softness is never an issue because the subject is never in the corners.

For other applications I bring out the heavy artillery but personally I'm very glad to own the little 35mm and will only part with it if and when Canon make an update with a ring USM motor, up to date glass, and more aperture blades.

Ed

You make a very valid point Ed. No matter what my little tests may show here, in practice a little softness at the edges is unlikely to be a problem with the images that I actually do for my work. It doesn't really matter if a white studio background is soft at the edges or for that matter an out of focus landscape background. Most of my work is destined for commercial purposes and it's truly shocking how much detail is lost in printed magazines etc. Ink on paper is a great leveller and negates many of the differences between different cameras and lenses. I am not being blase here about quality either, but merely acknowledging a practical reality.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2009, 04:37:41 am by ashley »
Logged
Ashley Karyl Photographer
[url=http://w

Ed Blagden

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 502
24-105L V Canon prime lenses test comparison
« Reply #17 on: November 27, 2009, 06:31:28 am »

Quote from: ashley
I am not being blase here about quality either, but merely acknowledging a practical reality.

Hey, I had you down for a pixel peeper for a while, but now I take it all back!  

Ed
Logged

Chris Pollock

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 206
24-105L V Canon prime lenses test comparison
« Reply #18 on: November 27, 2009, 04:16:12 pm »

Quote from: ashley
To get a more complete overview I think it has to be compared to all the primes within that focal range, so while the two wide angles may not look too hot right now it may well be that the 50mm or 85mm are way out in front. I am pretty sure that the zoom wouldn't have looked too clever next to the 24mm prime if I had one to test either.
A while back I posted a comparison between the 85mm F1.8 and the 24-105 @ F5.6. The prime lens won by a comfortable margin near the edges, and was slightly better in the centre of the frame. I can also confirm that the 50mm F1.4 is noticably superior to the 24-105. I also did a comparison between my 24-105 and one belonging to a friend, and found no difference in sharpness. I therefore doubt that I have a below par copy, since it's unlikely that two lenses bought months apart would be defective to exactly the same extent.

Based on my own personal experience and reviews that I've read, Canon's non-L primes from 50mm onwards are still excellent, except near maximum aperture. Their wide angle primes are another story - my 20mm F2.8 was inferior to the mediocre 17-40 zoom. As others have said, Canon desperately need to redesign their non-L wide angle primes. Nowadays you can buy an excellent high resolution DSLR for not that much money, so Canon really should sell some reasonably priced lenses to match the capabilities of their sensors.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up