Is the 24-105L in SG stores yet?

[litefoot]

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?

CA is bad and it is not "normal" especially in L. Lets not jump into conclusion until we see more pix.

 

[litefoot]

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

Which pix? Rather hard to see as they are downsized for web use unlike the ones posted by CQ.

 

[litefoot]

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

Yah, apparently CQ already has this lens checked-in.

 

[shinken]

Which pix? Rather hard to see as they are downsized for web use unlike the ones posted by CQ.

There's one with the huge signage (pg 4), right side of the signage shows bad CA, left side of the pic not as obvious, but still visible. The rest, like you said, quite hard to tell.

 

[litefoot]

There's one with the huge signage (pg 4), right side of the signage shows bad CA, left side of the pic not as obvious, but still visible. The rest, like you said, quite hard to tell.

Little Italy? Looks ok, on the right looks out of focus due to shallow DOF rather than CA.

Check CQ's pix taken near Cantoment, there are some stacked containers in the distance. Look at those which is white/grey in colour.

 

[shinken]

Little Italy? Looks ok, on the right looks out of focus due to shallow DOF rather than CA.

Check CQ's pix taken near Cantoment, there are some stacked containers in the distance. Look at those which is white/grey in colour.

Yep the one tht says Welcome to blah blah blah.

Hmm... if that's the case, at least it's obvious that barrel distortion is bad?

 

[litefoot]

Yep the one tht says Welcome to blah blah blah.

Hmm... if that's the case, at least it's obvious that barrel distortion is bad?

Its just the focused point. I believe the photographer is trying to shoot the sign under available light. Most likely taken wide open with IS. You get shorter hyper focal distance on foreground compared to background on the focused point. He should had taken the pix from the front rather than slightly on the right of the sign.

 

[djork]

Try shooting and comparing 10 sets of images at 1/8s@f/4 with the 24-105L IS turned on and 1/15s@f/2.8 with the 24-70L, both at 70mm focal length, handheld, same ISO, and you will get the answer!

hey i second this. the IS/VR/whatever really helps

 

[chongqi]

yes, taken by 24-105L and 350D. will try to take some pics tonight. anyone knows if I take pics indoor, will the pic has CA also?

 

[limhousen]

Try shooting a chromed surface under bright light. Set lens to f/4.0 and then slowly stop down to f/8.0 for the same shot. CA should decrease as you stop down. If you use av mode, maybe can overexpose 1 stop to make sure the CA is more obvious.

 

[djork]

Just pointing out the usual factors of F4 (is) vs 2.8... never mind if u don't catch on....

OK lah, there'll always be people who prefer 2.8, people who prefer IS. of course both has its advantages. of course if your work requires a very shallow DOF, go ahead, your priority is 2.8. but there are people who would like a wide angle L lens with IS and don't really have a use for a 2.8 lens, so ... let them buy it then.

 

[chongqi]

I tried different raw converter just now, ACR, DDP and Silkpix. it seems ACR give the worse CA and DDP is the best.

 

[CMOS]

Seems to me that DPP basically soften the overall pic and so CA is less obvious but it also suffer lost of details. Compare ACR and DPP on the car window. On ACR you can clearly see the line between the front and rear window but on DPP that line is almost lost.

The tree at the right of the container is also a good subject to compare. ACR clearly shows more details.

 

[snappynappy]

so basically if you want speed, go for f2.8. if you want 2+ stop down and extra 35mm, go for f4. and if you have a tighter budget, go for f4.

 

[meng]

Between F2.8 and F4 lens, the viewfinder would be brighter using the f2.8 lens (especially useful when focusing in dim lighting using non-pro DSLRs with small viewfinders). And the AF would be faster too(if both are USM).

 

[F5user]

so basically if you want speed, go for f2.8. if you want 2+ stop down and extra 35mm, go for f4. and if you have a tighter budget, go for f4.

Not in this f4, for those with a tighter budget...

 

[mpenza]

if you have a tight budget, go for the 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 ;p

 

[shinken]

if you have a tight budget, go for the 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 ;p

I second that. I'm really surprised why the cyber-photographers are not looking at this lens. Been comparing this lens with my 24/8-70Ls, and apart from being slower, this lens is such a joy to use.

Sorry to digress

 

[F5user]

if you have a tight budget, go for the 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 ;p

:thumbsup:

 

[litefoot]

Seems to me that DPP basically soften the overall pic and so CA is less obvious but it also suffer lost of details. Compare ACR and DPP on the car window. On ACR you can clearly see the line between the front and rear window but on DPP that line is almost lost.

The tree at the right of the container is also a good subject to compare. ACR clearly shows more details.

Yah loss in sharpness. Any pix on the lens stop down to about f/8?