I switched! 24-105 F4L to 24-70, Why I did it.

[timmciglobal]

So why did I do it?

I sang the praise of the 24-105's sharpness. It beats my new 24-70 F2.8L. I sang the praise of the 24-105's IS and it is godly, I've got to get used to 1/40th @ 70 mm not working anymore...

So why?

I've been bothered by one simple image quality aspect of the 24-105 which is very hard to measure on a MTF graph or at 100% which is the images look flat.

I don't know what exactly is causing it, it's not the F4 but most of my images seem to lack demension, things feel like they are all flattened together, on top of each other but not truly being in three demensions.

So, after a few hours debate I traded my 24-105 for a 24-70 + cash.

What are my initial reactions to it coming from 24-105 (I've rented the 24-70 before but "owning" one after a 24-105 is quite different)

For starters, the AF is faster on the 24-105. It may be less accurate due to F4 vs 2.8 glass but it is faster. Second, and this is quite an issue, it really is a heavy big lens. The 24-105 is much ligher and balances much better on a 20D body. IS is also missed.

So, we'll see what types of images I bring back from shooting with it if I made a good choice or not. The 17-55 was tempting to be in my bag but in the end the poor build quality just doesn't let me spend that kind of money on a lens.

Tim

[noyjimi]

For starters, the AF is faster on the 24-105. It may be less accurate due to F4 vs 2.8 glass but it is faster.

A bit surprising to me.

Second, and this is quite an issue, it really is a heavy big lens. The 24-105 is much ligher and balances much better on a 20D body. IS is also missed.

No doubt about this - this is why I refuse to buy it even after having used it a few times. I'm no bodybuilder, that's for sure.

The 17-55 was tempting to be in my bag but in the end the poor build quality just doesn't let me spend that kind of money on a lens.

You will miss IS and we will be waiting for you to come back to the dark side. :D

[Bluedog]

I'm really enjoying my 24-105 so far, amazing sharp clean images. The IS works wonders indeed. I haven't noticed the flatness you speak of but will looking deeper into some RAW files to see if it can be distinguished.

[D Thompson]

It do weigh a ton on my 20D with grip, but wouldn't trade it. So far I love my 24-70.

[arigato]

I was really torn between the 24-105 and the 24-70 and ended up getting the 24-70. Ive been pretty happy with it so far. The weight doesnt bother me at all. How are your pictures looking now as compared to the 24-105?

[cwphoto]

Crikey Tim, you of all people...:p :D

[Bluedog]

tim I'd be curious to know if you see the flatness in the original image files or what your posting for the web. The web stuff really needs boosting with USM coming from any type lens it seems to me.

[timmciglobal]

I miss IS so much ::cry::

It's SO hard to keep my shutter speeds up indoors!

Why couldn't they of built the 17-55 out of something more then paper and elmers glue...

Tim

[JTL]

I miss IS so much ::cry::

It's SO hard to keep my shutter speeds up indoors!

Why couldn't they of build the 17-55 out of something more then paper and elmers glue...

TimHere I go again...but, if were only $500-$700, you wouldn't mind so much about the build quality...and that's the truth...;)

[timmciglobal]

Yeap, more so then the plastic is the fact that it's zoom rings are typical consumer rings and that bothers me for over a grand.

That and if I ever get a full frame I know I can use my 24-70 on it. That's a big one for me since I know full frame is going to come. The costs are going down, you'll see them in the sub 2K range within a few years. IF they make a "5d" @ 1499 online (1799 MSRP) I'd have a very hard time not buying it.

Tim

[24Peter]

IF they make a "5d" @ 1499 online (1799 MSRP) I'd have a very hard time not buying it.Tim
Well if that happens before this Christmas, looks like I'm buying two... :o

[aparmley]

Just curious -

With FF - what percentage of lenses that are very exceptable on a crop body become unacceptable on full frame - edge degradation, vignetting, etc etc. . ???

[aparmley]

Well if that happens before this Christmas, looks like I'm buying two... :o

LMAO! ;) "Here comes santa claus, here comes santa claus..."

[timmciglobal]

Probably quite a few wide open but ef-s won't mount on a 5D period so :p

Tim

[aparmley]

Probably quite a few wide open but ef-s won't mount on a 5D period so :p

Tim

Who said anything about EF-Ss? true you mentioned the 17-55 EF-S in an earlier post - but I certainly wasn't speaking with regards to EF-S lens. I've heard more than a few times "XXXX lens was a lot better on a [crop body]. . ." just curious if FF will demand a premium glass more so than crop bodies. . . :confused:

[timmciglobal]

Yes, they will.

Edge sharpness becomes much more of an issue since the edge is much further out and thus the "crop" edge being soft means a LOT more of the picture is of that edge (and worse in many cases)

Vingetting also becomes a bigger issue as does flare resistance at edges.

Tim

[aparmley]

Edge sharpness becomes much more of an issue since the edge is much further out and thus the "crop" edge being soft means a LOT more of the picture is of that edge (and worse in many cases)

Vingetting also becomes a bigger issue as does flare resistance at edges.


See now, thats more like what I've read numerous times. . . ;)

[cwphoto]

See now, thats more like what I've read numerous times. . . ;)

Didn't seem to give millions of film shooters any problems. It's blown out of proportion.:rolleyes:

[cdifoto]

Didn't seem to give millions of film shooters any problems. It's blown out of proportion.:rolleyes:

Yeah...thanks to the pixelwackers. I mean masturpeepers. I mean pixel-peepers. :rolleyes:

[timmciglobal]

Well I wouldn't say it didn't give film shooters problems, you can find a lot of complaints before dSLR's of soft corners on many of consumer lines of EF lenses. As far as bothering them it depends on what your doing I think. If you have soft corners and your doing a full body shot well thats going to be an issue. If your doing a portrait and the corners the grass looks smeared and out of focus well yes, thats an issue.

As far as pixel peeping, before dSLR's people didn't print 11X14 shots they took at thier kids baseball game nor did they come home and zoom and crop in just on their kid on the mound.

Tim

[cdifoto]

Well I wouldn't say it didn't give film shooters problems, you can find a lot of complaints before dSLR's of soft corners on many of consumer lines of EF lenses. As far as bothering them it depends on what your doing I think. If you have soft corners and your doing a full body shot well thats going to be an issue. If your doing a portrait and the corners the grass looks smeared and out of focus well yes, thats an issue.

As far as pixel peeping, before dSLR's people didn't print 11X14 shots they took at thier kids baseball game nor did they come home and zoom and crop in just on their kid on the mound.

Tim

I think C-Dub's point is they lived with it instead of obsessing over it. If it bothered them THAT much (read: was unacceptable), then better, more expensive glass and a whole different system would be more appropriate.

[ReF]

Didn't seem to give millions of film shooters any problems. It's blown out of proportion.:rolleyes:

i totally agree. all the technical nitpicking about edge sharpness, vignetting, CA in the corners, and other junk makes my eyes roll. how often is an important visual part of a good image that needs to be in very sharp focus going to be located in the extreme corners anyways? and even if there are defects it ain't gonna be that bad unless the lens sucks - certainly those flaws aren't going to break a picture unless the corners are terribly smeared. post processing addresses a lot of these problems anyways.

[cdifoto]

i totally agree. all the technical nitpicking about edge sharpness, vignetting, CA in the corners, and other junk makes my eyes roll. how often is an important visual part of a good image that needs to be in very sharp focus going to be located in the extreme corners anyways? and even if there are defects it ain't gonna be that bad unless the lens sucks. post processing addresses a lot of these problems anyways.

What I really find amusing is the same people who bitch about light falloff on full frame will turn around and as for critique on a photo in which they have ADDED vignetting in post. :rolleyes:

[ReF]

What I really find amusing is the same people who bitch about light falloff on full frame will turn around and as for critique on a photo in which they have ADDED vignetting in post. :rolleyes:


LOL, don't get me started

[aparmley]

Oops.

:o

(slowly - quietly turns around and leaves the room)

[JTL]

It's just that digital technology has given a whole group of people who suffer from OCD a new way to demonstrate their disorder. And it's just not the peeking toms...I mean I've witnessed people post sound recordings (which were always near-silent) of their USM motors and ask.."Is this noise normal?" The sick part of it is that we always get suckered by this kind of crap and jump in and try to explain, educate and defend, when we really should be telling them to take their medication...

[aparmley]

It's just that digital technology has given a whole group of people who suffer from OCD a new way to demonstrate their disorder. And it's just not the peeking toms...I mean I've witnessed people post sound recordings (which were always near-silent) of their USM motors and ask.."Is this noise normal?" The sick part of it is that we always get suckered by this kind of crap and jump in and try to explain, educate and defend, when we really should be telling them to take their medication... which reminds me, "hunny - bring me some water!"

:D LMAO ;)

[Vich]

We have to wonder if increasing the image circle isn't a sacrafice of some other kind like excessive weight, more distortion, much higher expense, more light to control, etc.

Back in film days, engineers didn't create image circles 30% too big to solve edge issues (did they? maybe 10%, donno), yet on the 1.6 crop cameras we all fight to keep that - and those sacrafices.

Also; if the problem is only at wide opened aperture, the DOF bluring would often nullify the problem (except vigretting).

I'd say, don't knock the EF-S route, but appreciate the wide availability of oversized image circles at reasonable prices.

[Vich]

Tim:

Bold move. I had a contrast problem on the 24-105 for the longest time. That did make the images look flat.

I think it's fixed now. At least, it's not all wishful thinking. I'm sure that 24-70L is sweet! Howeverr; going back from having IS is pretty hard. Get that monopod out!

I've also noticed that some of the defaults on RSP seem to flatten my JPGs - changes not visible on the preview screen while in RSP. Thanks to AParmley's posts on RSP, I've started paying closer attention and not assuming the output will equal the preview.

[timmciglobal]

Oh and the bokeh is a step better, especially @ F2.8

It really is heavy though, I may have to pickup a grip to use it realistically. Low light AF is most deffinitly not as good, the 24-105 F4L AF is MUCH faster and locks in places the 24-70 racks back/forth.

Tim

[Vich]

Oh and the bokeh is a step better, especially @ F2.8

It really is heavy though, I may have to pickup a grip to use it realistically. Low light AF is most deffinitly not as good, the 24-105 F4L AF is MUCH faster and locks in places the 24-70 racks back/forth.

Tim
Yeah, the 24-105 bokeh can be awful. The 24-70 doesn't look much better, but is an improvement. At least considering it's an "L", one would have expected better.

Surprising to hear about the AF. I'd heard f2.8 has a special high-precision mode (hear-say from a POTN member). I've heard the 28-70 f2.8L is pretty amazing and a winner over the 24-70 IQ wise. Still, the 24-28 range would be tough to give up.

How's your IQ? Is it improved as you expected?

[cwphoto]

I've heard the 28-70 f2.8L is pretty amazing and a winner over the 24-70 IQ wise.

My 28-70 was crap compared to the 24 - although I had dropped it a few times.:o

[timmciglobal]

I think there is a difference between "af accuracy" and "ability to af". I've yet to get an out of focus shot on 24-70 that wasn't my fault so I'd say AF accuracy is damn good, a step above the F4L due to it focusing at 1/3 DOF over 1 dof but the AF speed isn't as fast. The focus solutions seem faster on the 24-105.

As far as AF goes, another issue, which lens to the "This damn lens is too big" is that the AF beam on 430 is blocked by the hood. (no!) Luckily for me I've got a b+W uv for those situations I can't hood.

Tim

[cwphoto]

Ho does a UV alleviate the need for a hood?:confused:

[timmciglobal]

Protection indoors :p

Don't really need the hood indoors usually, atleast I've yet to get flare off a regular light.

Tim

[cwphoto]

Protection indoors :p

Don't really need the hood indoors usually, atleast I've yet to get flare off a regular light.

Tim

Speaking of flare, check out this image from one of my students recently (look closely at the bottom right corner - appears like a poorly-coated filter allowing reflections of the outer part of the lens to form part of the image):

[cwphoto]

The above is why I don't like filters much.:(

[timmciglobal]

Amen, and when I do (which isn't often) I use B+W MRC.

Tim

[Vich]

Tim: Glad to hear AF accuracy is good. Slow speed can be a shot-killer just as well, but it's probably fine in better lighting ahe?

Let us know what solution you find for flash shadow. I hadn't realized this lens was so much bigger. It's surprising how short the 24-105L hood is, is the 24-70 bigger?

Have you posted shots comparing IQ with 24-105? Really curious to see how they measure up.

[timmciglobal]

So far not but I havn't had chance to go shoot anything since getting it of any value (except for the crap "look it AF's right" test shots.

Though from those I'd say you don't gain any sharpness over the 24-105 the big difference is the bokeh and F2.8 vs F4.

I'd say as far as sharpness goes @ F4 it seems my 24-105 had a slight edge, very very very slight, but it could be simply due to copy variation.

I'd say it really comes down to F4 + IS/reach vs F2.8 and better bokeh.

They really arn't the same lens, I think you have to decide which you value more and go with it. I do think so far the 24-70 have more of a 3d feel but thats got a lot to do with F2.8 extra seperation vs F4. It's not HUGE but it's enough to I think make stuff "stand out" and the smoother the background the faster your eye moves to the in focus areas, which probably is the reason for the "3d" feeling.

I'll see when I get some time off if there is a nice day and take some shots.

Tim

[Vich]

Speaking of flare, check out this image from one of my students recently (look closely at the bottom right corner - appears like a poorly-coated filter allowing reflections of the outer part of the lens to form part of the image):Wow, that photo has CA all over it.

I thought a UV filter was supposed to help with CA, not make it worse. Almost looks like a smear. There's CA under and in the waterfall, and it's pretty OOF by the rocks. Maybe they used a really cheap lens too. I can say I've never seen that kind of circular flaring before - and don't really expect to given my use of good equipment. I'm really surprised to hear you don't like / use filters much. You really think a good BW filter would ever do that (or a less obvious version of that)?

[timmciglobal]

Oh and yes the hood is gigantic. It's about 5 inches deep and makes the overall lens extremly long blocking the 430EX AF assist beam in part.

It's the largest hood I'ver ever seen but it's supose to be highly effective which is good, the 24-105 hood doens't protect enough.

Plus it's a bit getting used to reverse zooming. Its shortest @ 70 and longest at 24 so you store it at 70. It's something to get used to remember to "zoom out" always instead of zomming in.

One thing I've noticed is more lataral CA which has been mentioned in some reviews, it's a cyan cast often and @ F2.8.

Did I mention it weighs a ton? :p God CW how do you spend a wedding lugging this around?

Tim

[cwphoto]

Wow, that photo has CA all over it.

I thought a UV filter was supposed to help with CA, not make it worse. Almost looks like a smear. There's CA under and in the waterfall, and it's pretty OOF by the rocks. Maybe they used a really cheap lens too. I can say I've never seen that before. I'm really surprised to hear you don't like / use filters much.

EXIF for the interested:

EOS 20D equipped with EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM @ 22mm. 1.3s @ f/20(!), ISO 100.

Don't think he was using a lens hood, but had a UV filter attached.

[cwphoto]

Did I mention it weighs a ton? :p God CW how do you spend a wedding lugging this around?

Tim

I look at it as a lightweight compared to the 70-200 f/2.8...:p

Hey it's all I've ever known - been shooting with variations of that lens for fifteen years. Anything else seems too light to me, I know: I'm weird...

[timmciglobal]

Honestly, its the 17-85, you sure it's the UV filter? :p

Just kidding, but yes, crappy UV filters as per reviews done are MUCH worse for contrast lost and flare then higher quality multicoated.

It amazes me when people spend 1200 on a lens then put a 20$ filter on it for protection then complain about not seeing the "L" contrast well yea, the filter is killing is.

Tim

[cwphoto]

Tim, do you want me to chuck this into it's own thread? Didn't want to hijack.:(

[cwphoto]

Wow, that photo has CA all over it.

I thought a UV filter was supposed to help with CA, not make it worse. Almost looks like a smear. There's CA under and in the waterfall, and it's pretty OOF by the rocks. Maybe they used a really cheap lens too. I can say I've never seen that kind of circular flaring before - and don't really expect to given my use of good equipment. I'm really surprised to hear you don't like / use filters much. You really think a good BW filter would ever do that (or a less obvious version of that)?

My main point was the semi-circular reflection of what appears to be the area surrounding the front lens element in the actual image (bottom right corner) - I've never seen it so bad!

I have some B+W filters and next time I'm on the course for this field-trip I'm going to try and replicate that shot and see what the real deal is.

[Vich]

EXIF for the interested:

EOS 20D equipped with EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM. 1.3s @ f/20(!), ISO 100.

Don't think he was using a lens hood, but had a UV filter attached.
Can't say I've ever heard much good about that lens. A kit with wheels. They using a KMart special filter?

Still; I only use a filter because about 20 years ago the guy at Ritz told me to always use one "to protect the lens". I've never noticed an IQ problem. However, I never did get a filter for my nifty-fifty and I noticed I was a lot more careful with it. I'm also terrified about improperly cleaning the expensive coating. Do you really think a good UV filter could cause this?

Another thing; I get in the habbit of not using my lens cap on occassion. I'll wander around with the UV exposed. I may wipe it clean with a tee-shirt. If it had salt spray or mist, an improper wiping could be a more likely culprit.

[timmciglobal]

Derail all you like, I just reserve the right to derail one of your wonderfull wedding shot threads into one of my poor outdoor junk shot threads :p

Tim

[cwphoto]

Derail all you like, I just reserve the right to derail one of your wonderfull wedding shot threads into one of my poor outdoor junk shot threads :p

Tim

Only with pleasure.:D

[cwphoto]

Do you really think a good UV filter could cause this?

I dunno, but I will suggest that a good UV filter may still suffer some slight flare/reflection issues under extreme conditions like this.

[timmciglobal]

That's one situation I'll use a filter in no matter what, salt, sand and water.

I'm not exposing the front elemtn of any lens to sand or salt, it's truly amazing how much damage sand and/or salt can do to glass, especially if "cleaned" improperly you can actually gouge out lines into your front element... guess thats why sand blasting works so well...

Tim

[cwphoto]

Yeah those beach weddings really give me the irates.:mad:

[timmciglobal]

Here is a cookie for those begging for samples...

http://pictures.divergentservices.com/wo.jpg

Had this been shot with 24-105 F4L the main difference would of been the harsh outter "circle" of white on out of focus sphere to right.

W-O's (Offbrand Oreos at a savings of 50 cents! 2000 packages of these instead of oreo's and I'm even on the lens!)

Tim

P.S. The "cookie" is sort of a joke, the perverbial throwing people a "bone" :p

[ReF]

one thing i will give credit to the 17-85 is the flare resistance, which is excellent, much like the 17-40. seriously, the flare is usually just two specks of green which are easy to clone out (i think bluedog posted a sample somewhere on the boards). even several L's flare in large circles that can render images unrepairable.

my big beef with filters is ghosting, which sometimes cannot be prevented short of excluding the subject - of couse it wouldn't be in your shot if you didn't want it there to begin with. even B+W multi-coated filters are susceptable to ghosting.

as rarely as i use the one UV i kept, excessive sea spray is one situation where i'm pushed to using it.

[cwphoto]

ReF, is that what you call the reflected image on my example? Ghosting?

[ReF]

ReF, is that what you call the reflected image on my example? Ghosting?

don't really know about that one! it's quite an oddball. i know i've never seen the 17-85 flare like that - when i had it i tested it thoroughy for flare. to me it looks like multiple reflections of the lens AND filter, so i'm at this point i'm thinking it's the filter's fault. ghosting to me is a clear reflection of a subject in the image, like a street lamp with two heads.

[cwphoto]

Thanks for the clarification. Oddball is right (hmmm reminds of Donald Sutherland in Kelly's Heroes:p ).

[Vich]

Here is a cookie for those begging for samples...

http://pictures.divergentservices.com/wo.jpg

Had this been shot with 24-105 F4L the main difference would of been the harsh outter "circle" of white on out of focus sphere to right.

W-O's (Offbrand Oreos at a savings of 50 cents! 2000 packages of these instead of oreo's and I'm even on the lens!)

Tim

P.S. The "cookie" is sort of a joke, the perverbial throwing people a "bone" :pI agree. That bokeh is not nasty at all! Quite nice.

I saw a few 24-70 examples on PBase that had little bright dots and thought "yuck, I recognize that". Not as bad as the 24-105 dots. I'd better look further before opening my mouth against the 24-70 bokeh again. Still, macro-like shots change the bokeh look a lot (for the better) for some reason. I'd like to see some actual difficult situations where the focus point is further off and bright lights behind subject. (demanding, aren't we :) )

[cdifoto]

I'd like to see some actual difficult situations where the focus point is further off and bright lights behind subject. (demanding, aren't we :) )

Is this what you mean:

PS - Don't make fun of my poor post work. This is from that wedding from hell last year.

[24Peter]

That's one situation I'll use a filter in no matter what, salt, sand and water.Tim
Ha! - did another beach shoot yesterday evening (with Klaudia and Olivia - stay tuned for the photos ;) ) Anyway, the problem wasn't the salt or spray. The problem was as we were shooting I was too busy to notice the tide rolling in. Twice my stuff got swamped by a wave. Fortunately my camera bag was on high ground but everything else, including reflectors, towels and dry clothing got soaked. No fliter's gonna save me from that! :eek:

[JTL]

You know the saying...never turn your back on the ocean...but I can see how in this case that might have been difficult...but I guess we'll have to wait and see the pics to understand exactly why you got so distracted! :D

[Vich]

Ha! - did another beach shoot yesterday evening (with Klaudia and Olivia - stay tuned for the photos ;) ) Anyway, the problem wasn't the salt or spray. The problem was as we were shooting I was too busy to notice the tide rolling in. Twice my stuff got swamped by a wave. Fortunately my camera bag was on high ground but everything else, including reflectors, towels and dry clothing got soaked. No fliter's gonna save me from that! :eek:
Must be niced to love your work so much! "oh sorry girls, you'll have to wear wet tee shirts all the way home now". Uuuuua huuua, riiiiiight! :D ;)

Next time you need an umbrella holder, ...