Is the 24-105L in SG stores yet?

[mpenza]

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

Agree Inexpensive, lightweight, fast focussing, nice colours and pretty sharp on a 1.6 crop DSLR. I sold one and bought back another one cos I miss it too much ;p

 

[F5user]

Agree Inexpensive, lightweight, fast focussing, nice colours and pretty sharp on a 1.6 crop DSLR. I sold one and bought back another one cos I miss it too much ;p

Totally agree with u on this point... contrasty, and sharp... esp good if all u do is shoot, ps and store...

 

[arthas]

CQ, thanks for your tests

However, casting aside the issue of CA, I'm afraid I am still not too impressed with the image quality of the full sized samples. They don't look "L" quality to me. In fact, they don't seem too far off from the consumer lenses

Can you post some full sized samples taken at other focal lengths?

 

[litefoot]

CQ, thanks for your tests

However, casting aside the issue of CA, I'm afraid I am still not too impressed with the image quality of the full sized samples. They don't look "L" quality to me. In fact, they don't seem too far off from the consumer lenses

Can you post some full sized samples taken at other focal lengths?

All the pix were taken with f/4 and at best f/5.6. Almost *ALL* lenses crapped on their widest openings. I won't be too quick to say its not L quality until I see some pix which are stopped down to f/8.

 

[arthas]

All the pix were taken with f/4 and at best f/5.6. Almost *ALL* lenses crapped on their widest openings. I won't be too quick to say its not L quality until I see some pix which are stopped down to f/8.

True, but L lenses shouldn't need to stop down by so much to get the "L" quality. For many good lenses, I usually need 1/3 to 1 stop at most to get very good quality.

But then, even considering that the lens isn't stopped down, I do find the images somewhat uninspiring although admittedly I have seen better images elsewhere - but they weren't full sized pics

 

[mpenza]

yup, L lenses should be pretty sharp wide open. that's my expectation and experience so far.

 

[litefoot]

yup, L lenses should be pretty sharp wide open. that's my expectation and experience so far.

I guess its subjective to each individual.

 

[shinken]

More reference pics of the 24-105 here . Some of those are quite good, I have to say.

 

[knoxknocks]

somehow, i'm inclined to think that the 24-105 should perform better. The samples on other sites seem to indicate so, even wide open.

eagerly anticipating....

 

[F5user]

yup, L lenses should be pretty sharp wide open. that's my expectation and experience so far.

The reason why ppl pay the big $$$ is to be able to shoot wide open without any compromise in pic quality...

This is pretty evident within canon's 16-35, older 17-35, and not to mention, Nikon's 17-35 too... All these lenses when shot at 2.8, give print quality images with excellent distortion control and hardly a trace of CA . ... and yes, though subjective... i do think that other users of L lenses would agree with me on the point above. :think:

My gutt feeling on the sample pics is that the lens is either faulty, or terribly overpriced...

 

[litefoot]

Nikon's 17-35 too.....

Distortion control is acceptable. Wide open sharpness is ok but I wouldn't suggest blowing pix up for well lit, good contrast content. This lens gets real sharp noticeably from f/5.6. Extremely good contrast and VERY noticeable compared to their consumer Nikkors.

I am not saying L isn't good. So far, the results only show the tip of the iceberg. I would love to see more of it. I personally feel judging the lens from some wide open pix doesn't do any justice to it.

 

[litefoot]

More reference pics of the 24-105 here . Some of those are quite good, I have to say.

Wow! Actually it shows great results on 5D! Some pix were even taken wide open.

Ok, eyeball test. If you find the conductor is sharp enough in 78_2484_kork_slight_edge_sharp.jpg @ 100% crop which was taken wide open, I think this is the subjective "gap" we are talking about. I feel that the lens should be sharper if stopped down with lower ISO.

 

[esterp]

so anyone know how much is it selling?

 

[Voyage]

As the Canon old bird says (not me though), Don't buy now (now 2.1k+++) , buy two to 3 months later when the price is more realistic, hopefully.

eg EF 17-40mm f4L japan canon RSP is yen 120,000 ,as now street price in S'pore is S$1240

EF 24-105mm f4L japan canon RSP is yen 145,000 while S'pore is S$2100 !!!

 

[kensh09]

As the Canon old bird says (not me though), Don't buy now (now 2.1k+++) , buy two to 3 months later when the price is more realistic, hopefully.

eg EF 17-40mm f4L japan canon RSP is yen 120,000 ,as now street price in S'pore is S$1240

EF 24-105mm f4L japan canon RSP is yen 145,000 while S'pore is S$2100 !!!

24-105 definitely more exp than 17-40 bcoz it has IS.....

 

[Danntbt]

24-105 definitely more exp than 17-40 bcoz it has IS.....

You seemed to have missed the point...as highlighted by voyage.....compare the figures.....do your sums.

 

[RossChang]

24-105 definitely more exp than 17-40 bcoz it has IS.....

Incorrect statement. Having IS doesn't make it more expensive. 28-135 also have IS lor.

and yea, you did miss the whole point. convert the JPY to SGD and see the price diff.:bsmilie: