24-105 f4 L IS Test

[unseen]

hmmmm anymore 100% crops to bio bio?
The two 100% crops are quite terrible IMHO.
both the photos look very soft to me.
The tree one looks like it's been usmed.. there's some funny glow at the bottom of the tree branches.. it might just be me...

LOL and the IS rocks.. pretty sharp images at 1/6s
though IS test 2 @ 105mm the 100% crop feels a tad soft too...

hmmmmm is it just me?

 

[matthewgjs]

Hi.... just got the Lens not long ago ... tested on day shoot.. had yet on night and low dim light shoot. :thumbsup:

Although its expensive but its good !

 

[CYRN]

Hi.... just got the Lens not long ago ... tested on day shoot.. had yet on night and low dim light shoot. :thumbsup:

Although its expensive but its good !

Hi,

Would love to hear of your experience using this lens too.

Do post a few photos here and your own comments about his lens.

 

[CYRN]

hmmmm anymore 100% crops to bio bio?
The two 100% crops are quite terrible IMHO.
both the photos look very soft to me.
The tree one looks like it's been usmed.. there's some funny glow at the bottom of the tree branches.. it might just be me...

LOL and the IS rocks.. pretty sharp images at 1/6s
though IS test 2 @ 105mm the 100% crop feels a tad soft too...

hmmmmm is it just me?

My pics are limited by my skills and my setup... mabbe other CSers using this lens can contribute too.

I'll post more when I get the opportunity to shoot. :sweat:

 

[unseen]

heh your skills looks good.. Love your compositions/ideas for some of your photos.. They're very nice.. awaiting to see more from you really.. I've got no experience with this lens, would like to find out more.

 

[TMC]

Cyrn, you got this lens? Nvm tell me....:complain: anyways you able to meet up this weekend?

 

[CYRN]

Cyrn, you got this lens? Nvm tell me....:complain: anyways you able to meet up this weekend?

yup to both.;p

lens use installment lah...:sweat:

 

[TMC]

ok coolio, see you then.

 

[David]

Yah, the "unprocessed" duck is not too sharp cos it should be moving. But that's not tha main point I tink.

If u look at the small little green leaves which should be fairly stationary (I believe?) they are also not sharp. At least not the kind we'd expect from an L. And the colors are disappointingly off with some brownish color cast like dat.

I dun tink it's yr fault. I dunno abt other camera brands but I feel the RAW (or even jpg) unprocessed images from Canon sucks. Happens to 20D too. If it's not the sharpness then it's the contrast or both. Even when shot with an L lens. Yes yes... they always say it's to give the photographer the freedom to do post-processing. But I find it too much. Even with L lenses, sometimes I get low contrast, dull colors (nothing to do with color calibration) and soft images. U need PS to bring in the magic again. Almost always I have to do post-processing. Can't just show my images to people like dat unprocessed, like how the small compact digicams can. Friends will commend "Wah piang.. U paid 4k for your DSLR combo but I dun see the images as good as my $600 digicam leh!"

That's why with digital, I somehow feel it matters less whether u use L lens or not as far as resolution is concerned. After post-processing, it's difficult to tell which image comes from which lens.

But I'm certainly impressed with the IS function! Especially the Clark Quay@105mm... For that kind of focal length and shutter speed, sharp man...

 

[CYRN]

Yah, the "unprocessed" duck is not too sharp cos it should be moving. But that's not tha main point I tink.

I got a feeling that this lens image is like that when shooting wide open... need to check it out again.

Anyone else have similar experience?

 

[syke]

Maybe some owners of 24-105mm lens can take a shot on a similar subject (say example a dollar bill) wide open and compare the sharpness?

I can provide some 24-70mm wide open shots at comparative focal lengths to see the difference.

How about that?

 

[djork]

to really show the quality you should include 100% crop of the lens at the centre and at the corner compared to a 100% crop of a lens of the similar focal length at the centre and at the corner. with small pictures it's really hard to tell that it's good

my 2 cents

 

[dfstan]

thought of getting one myself. been hearing ppl mentioned about the flare issue, has the flare issue resolved in this lens? if so, what is the lens code that the flaring issue resolved? thanks

 

[Canew]

dfstan, here is the link to the flaring problem announcement: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0510/05102801canon24105svc.asp

"Canon to repair some 24-105 mm F4L lenses Friday, 28 October 2005.

Canon USA has today posted a service notice relating to the new EF 24-105 mm F4L IS USM lens. The notice describes a problem which affects some early production samples of this lens where 'unacceptable levels of flare' can occur, mostly at wide angle and maximum aperture. Those lenses with a control number (a serial number beginning with UT) of 999 or less are affected. The notice goes on to offer a free repair service (including shipping) which will commence on November 14th. We haven't seen any other such notices from any other regions."

Hopefully that there are no such copies being sold here.

 

[dfstan]

many thanks canew. sigh....got to spend $ again!!

 

[inf1d3l]

Got myself this lens (a little too expensive IMHO)

Went for test shoot today... below are some of the pics I've taken.

Bokeh @ max Focal length and aperture

Added extension tubes and a 1.4x for Macro

Shot some "wild life" to test the AF speed

And some still life

nice variety of test images cyrn. what price did you pay?

PM me please if that's a sensitive topic.

thanks!

regards,
inf1d3l

 

[dfstan]

for the benefit of others. this is what they meant by flare issues for the initial batch.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Images/Other/Canon-24-105mm-L-IS-Flare-Problem.jpg