Is the 24-105L in SG stores yet?

[+evenstar]

just put some of my test shoots on my website. they are just the test shoot from a newbie
http://www.chongqi.c9t.net/test/

Perhaps you should put in some 100% crops, easier to view...

Notices some CA for the 1st pic though..

 

[CMOS]

just put some of my test shoots on my website. they are just the test shoot from a newbie
http://www.chongqi.c9t.net/test/

May I know which cam you used to shoot those pics?

 

[F5user]

Then I guess press photographers have to work with their current equipment. Don't think the press will issue new lenses unless really necessary. 24-70+70-200 covers the 24mm to 200mm range already..

yup... bo pian lor... :cry:

For the sake of maintenance and service related issues, most of us don't have the luxury of getting new/upgrades of lenses, unless absolutely necessary.

Even for our Nikon line, almost none of the lenses there are VR equipped, with only a small portion of the Canon equipment consigned to us being the IS version.

 

[litefoot]

Perhaps you should put in some 100% crops, easier to view...

Notices some CA for the 1st pic though..

Wah.... actually quite visible for most of the pix. Look at the white containers from the distance.

Any stop down pix to about f/8?

BTW, pix shot in 350D.

 

[mpenza]

Wah, so interesting! I am enjoying the discussion on whether a faster lens at f2.8 is better or having IS.

Now, this is my personal opinion, so don't flame me hor.

I still prefer a faster lens at f2.8 compared to IS as even though I may be putting the cam on a tripod, I can't control movement of the subject. If opening up can allow me to use a faster shutter speed and freeze the subject to give details, then why not.

Am I thinking right?

:dunno:

I prefer a faster lens too IS could reduce the impact of camera shake but it doesn't help freeze moving subjects.

Anyway, I had hoped that the 24-105 F4L doesn't come with IS to make it more affordable. It's a bit expensive with the IS ;p

 

[David]

I prefer a faster lens too IS could reduce the impact of camera shake but it doesn't help freeze moving subjects.

Anyway, I had hoped that the 24-105 F4L doesn't come with IS to make it more affordable. It's a bit expensive with the IS ;p

But f/2.8 w/o IS is no fight with IS for low light, handheld still photography.

Must know the strengths and weaknesses of each lens. What do u want to shoot? That's why I think there are such strong debates and possibly flames bcos people are comparing apples with oranges.

More egs...To a nature photographer, a 400mm is less useful/less often used than say a 24mm, but to a sports/wildlife photographer, its the other way round. No point asking Should I get a 24mm or 400mm? Or which is a better lens? Rather, what do u want to shoot?

 

[mpenza]

yup, agree. I made the points in reference to the subjects I shoot often (models on a runway). that said, I generally use flash too when lighting is poor, so slower lenses without IS work fine ;p

For those shooting stationary objects under low light without flash (or wanting to achieve motion blur with moving subjects), IS would definitely be more helpful.

 

[jsbn]

Izzit my eyes or the CA is very obvious against strong contrasting backgrounds?

 

[David]

yup, agree. I made the points in reference to the subjects I shoot often (models on a runway). that said, I generally use flash too when lighting is poor, so slower lenses without IS work fine ;p

For those shooting stationary objects under low light without flash (or wanting to achieve motion blur with moving subjects), IS would definitely be more helpful.

Yah.. In that case, of cos true... IS is less attractive if u r a "moving subject" photographer.

Makes me wonder too.. Why do they include IS in the 400,500,600mm lenses? These lenses are so heavy they are prob on tripod all the time and most photogs who use these lenses are in sports, wildlife, birds... Is really IS needed?

 

[David]

Hmmm, the CA is obvious in those images...

Is CA inherent soely in the lens itself or combination of lens + camera body? If shot using a film camera, wud the CA still show as obvious as on digital?

 

[dEthANGeL]

Might be a lemon? :think:

Yes the CA is really obvious ... especially can be seen on the edges of the building, the container crane's white box at the rear as well.

 

[CMOS]

Perhaps you should put in some 100% crops, easier to view...

Notices some CA for the 1st pic though..

There are CA in all the pics and not just the 1st one. That's why I asked him what cam did he used to shoot those pics.

Perhaps he could shoot some more on the same view but with different lens and post them for comparison to see what causes the CA. My guess, its the cam sensor that causes the CA.

And look at the top surface of the white wall beside the swimming pool somewhere on the right side of the pic. The PF is very very obvious.

 

[chongqi]

the CA looks really obviously:cry: due to the strong contrast of afternoon sun? very busy this week. hope can have more image when I go melbourne and back next week.

 

[CMOS]

the CA looks really obviously:cry: due to the strong contrast of afternoon sun? very busy this week. hope can have more image when I go melbourne and back next week.

Shoot the same scene at the same time with different lens and post for us to see.

 

[limhousen]

I am surprised by the serious CA you have experienced with this lens. All the samples I have seen on the net doesn't show this. Not even with bright daylight, chrome surface and direct bare lightbulb shots wide open. Maybe you should get it checked out by Canon or do an exchange with the shop.

Here's a link: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/288286/3

 

[shinken]

I am surprised by the serious CA you have experienced with this lens. All the samples I have seen on the net doesn't show this. Not even with bright daylight, chrome surface and direct bare lightbulb shots wide open. Maybe you should get it checked out by Canon or do an exchange with the shop.

Here's a link: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/288286/3

In fact, pics on the linked FM thread also exhibited quite a number of CA occurences. Or it could be just my eyes.

 

[limhousen]

Actually you are right Shinken. If I downsize congqi's pictures to those on FM site, I also cannot see the CA anymore. Maybe the CA is normal for this lens.....which is quite a shame isn't it?

 

[mpenza]

that's not too good.... some of the elements used in L lenses are supposed to minimise or eliminate CA....

 

[shinken]

Yep. It's a shame if CA is indeed a characteristic of this lens. IS vs Aperture size aside, this lens does have it's strength in its longer focal length and its (relative) light-weight.

 

[F5user]

just to reconfirm... the pic we're talking about here, was taken with the 24-105 L???