C100: Canon 24-105 EF IS USM, NOT IMPRESSED AT ALL WITH IT

nedcam

nedcam

Well-known member
Today I did a talking head shoot with this lens and am very disappointed with it. Indoors, ISO around 650 - 800, 1/60th shutter on, f5.

Many of my clients want me to change focal lengths at each question. I was around 6-7 feet away doing a waist up, then when the director asks a question I'm suppose to punch into a head and shoulders shot. Well, not only do I have a major iris adjustment because of the severe transmission loss, I need to refocus because I don't trust it, I don't even think it's parfocal, but never the less it seems soft. This is a new lens that came straight from Canon.

I got this lens because when I decided to go with a C300 or C100 I read EVERY POST on this forum and many people were happy with this lens. I created a spread sheet based on the top ten lenses and then cut and pasted comments from posters who I respect. It seemed that this lens was a favorite and I wanted all to be EF besides my Tokina 11-16. I come from a Nikon, Zeiss & Tokina background but I sold all of them to get the funds for this new package. I move too fast to be changing primes.

Is this the best lens in this focal range? I do not think it is usueble if the client wants to change focal lengths in an interview. In fact, tight it looks soft. I can't post examples from today's shoot due to the subject matter.
 
If you want to zoom while recording you will need a parfocal lens (many photo lenses aren't) or go with a traditional fixed lens camcorder like the EX1 or it's newer replacements.

there aren't many lenses with this range and IS which is why it's popular for run and gun. Sigma has just released a 24-105 but I have not read much about it. Sigma killed it with their 18-35 so if the 24-105 is anything like that it will be a solid lens.

did the client want the snap zoom look or just 2 angles? I prefer to shoot 2 angles and edit together rather than zoom but some like the snap zoom look. I prefer a traditional small chip, fixes lens, servo zoom camcorder.
 
Oh no! I shot all day with the 24-105 today and it looks great! Head shots on cams delivering lines to camera mostly around 80mm at 4.5 and 5.0. Might be a bad copy. I think its a very solid lens but yes you will lose a little in the tele range. The Sigma is supposed to be true all the way in the range. Mine is parfocal if you zoom all the way in first like an ENG lens then pull out.
 
Do you think I should send it in because it is definitely soft unless I'm wide. It does not act parfocal. I have never had a brand new lens from a manufacturer that was bad. ugh
 
nedcam said:
Do you think I should send it in because it is definitely soft unless I'm wide. It does not act parfocal. I have never had a brand new lens from a manufacturer that was bad. ugh
Click to expand...
It shouldn't be soft at all. Know anyone close by that has one you can compare it to? Heck even a retail store in town.
 
I use mine all of the time wide-open, and it's very sharp, so my guess is that you've got a bad copy. Take (or ship) it back to the retailer.
 
I may have used a "bad copy" as well at some point if that's the case.
I could be crazy, and I have only been "professionally" doing video for the past 12 months (although have been shooting my entire life almost), I got used to using my Zeiss 28mm. I started on a T3i, and used (almost exclusively) Zeiss lenses (my 28mm and rented CP.2s), and then upgraded to my C100.
I regularly rent the Canon 70-200 II f2.8 and love it.

The first time I was given a 24-105 f4, for whatever reason, I was almost disgusted. I HATED how it looked, at any f-stop, and thought "my god, I would NEVER buy this lens... EVER". I hated the sharpness, the colour, and how "plastic" the L-series lenses are compared to the Zeiss lenses.

I recently shot at a restaurant using almost only a 24-70 f2.8 L lens. It was pretty good, but again, I don't think nearly as good as what could have been done using Zeiss primes. The look and feel don't seem even on the same level to me.

But back to the original post, when I read the title, I wasn't surprised at all. The 5 times I've used a 24-105 f4 lens (almost always weddings), I've HATED it. Not a lens I would ever want to buy to be honest.
 
It's a great run-and-gun lens for the reasons mentioned above (constant f/4.0, light, IS) but for sit-down interviews it doesn't have a lot of charm. The difference of look between shooting with a f/4.0 lens and f/2.8 is huge in my eyes. I've never had a problem with footage looking soft with the 24-105 lens at f/4.0 but I did notice just overall the image not "popping." When shooting interviews with my Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC the image does seem to pop more because of the slightly more shallow depth of field and focus on the subject. I know I'm not saying anything new, but in practice it becomes much more evident.
 
chappelldigital said:
I may have used a "bad copy" as well at some point if that's the case.
I could be crazy, and I have only been "professionally" doing video for the past 12 months (although have been shooting my entire life almost), I got used to using my Zeiss 28mm. I started on a T3i, and used (almost exclusively) Zeiss lenses (my 28mm and rented CP.2s), and then upgraded to my C100.
I regularly rent the Canon 70-200 II f2.8 and love it.

The first time I was given a 24-105 f4, for whatever reason, I was almost disgusted. I HATED how it looked, at any f-stop, and thought "my god, I would NEVER buy this lens... EVER". I hated the sharpness, the colour, and how "plastic" the L-series lenses are compared to the Zeiss lenses.

I recently shot at a restaurant using almost only a 24-70 f2.8 L lens. It was pretty good, but again, I don't think nearly as good as what could have been done using Zeiss primes. The look and feel don't seem even on the same level to me.

But back to the original post, when I read the title, I wasn't surprised at all. The 5 times I've used a 24-105 f4 lens (almost always weddings), I've HATED it. Not a lens I would ever want to buy to be honest.
Click to expand...

Did you expect a zoom to be as good as a Zeiss prime? I get what you're saying but the range and IS of the 24-105 has a special purpose. Trade offs have to be made and that doesn't only apply to the Canon 24-105.
 
here is a comparison between the canon vs sigma 24-105mm

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

as far as sharpness id call it a wash. the sigma is marginally sharper @ 24mm while the canon is marginally sharper @ 105mm with both shooting @ f4.0.

i want to see if he sigma gets darker as you zoom in like the canon does. i suspect that it probably won't. also I'm wondering how the IS compares between the C & S. the IS on the canon is a huge bonus vs not. wish the sigma 18-35mm 1.8 had IS although its still amazing for other reasons and competes with no other lens.

i was hoping for more out of the 24-105 sigma in wanting it to clearly better than the canon but with this negligible difference in sharpness it almost doesn't seem worth it to get the sigma while i own the canon now.

the canon 24-105 is not the sexiest lens out there but its the most versatile zoom range with "IS" with good optics although not exceptional but still satisfies me the vast majority of the time. i find myself using it almost 75% of the time unless i need wide then i use the sigma new 8-16mm and for ultimate low light and vibe the new sigma 18-35mm 1.8 which is very special on the C100. I've got bundles of killer nikon and canon glass yet i find myself wanting and needing the versatility of zoom lenses over primes.

david
 
You are not clear if your lens is not sharp .. in which case send it back.. or not parfocal (doesnt hold focus across a zoom).. in which case welcome to the normal behaviour of stills zooms.

Overall I think the lens is..

Horrid; crappy focus throw, poor build, darkening at long end.

Great: Most useful range ever.. on a full-frame camera

Personally I use a 1990 nikkor 35-70, way better IMO!

S
 
I have a love/hate relationship with 24-105. I absolutely hate it for stills on a full-frame camera. Distortion, chromatic aberration. To me, on a stills camera (e.g. 1DsM3, 5DM3, 1DX), it doesn't quite seem "L" class. BUT -> it is great on a C300. The distortion is far less apparent with the Super35 crop and I have not noticed CA issues with it. Nice range, too, the 70-105 add-on is nice and useful compared to a 24-70, and of course the IS is very helpful for handheld or monopod work.

In terms of filming interviews. I'm not crazy about the f/4. I think I read somewhere that f/4 on Super35 is comparable to ~f/5.6 & a half on full-frame 35mm (stills) but I think it feels closer to f/8. I much prefer a prime or the new 24-70 II lens for interviews so that I can keep the aperture closer to f/2.8 or 3.2. With an interviewee at a slight angle and with f/2.8 or 3.2 you will get some fall-off on their far shoulder. It keeps things looking organic, not too sharp or too video.
 
My tests say it's not parafocal in that you can tweak a bit more sharpness out of it once the zoom changes (even if starting from 105mm and clean focus).

Our copy is nice and sharp (sometimes too sharp on the C100).
 
Personally i find the 24-105 f4 way to sharp with the C100/300 for interviews. I dont find the sharpness flattering for peoples skin as it shows up every little pore.
(I have my camera sharpness -8 to -10 and i still find this lens too sharp)

My Sigma 17 -50 f2.8 is my go to lens for interviews.
 
As may have been mentioned before, 'parfocalness' (for want of a better term) requires very accurate setting of back focus. ENG lenses have a ring to do this. You can get lucky with the 24-105, you can find your example slightly off and it could - in theory - be tweaked with the addition of shims. I think the original intention was there in the design, but price/performance ratios got in the way.

FWIW, I find 5.6 perfect for self-op interviews - not too scary in the DoF side, plenty of sharpness. If you wind down the detail enhancement in the CP (I'm thinking of the WDR base setting), there's less problems with the... erm... complexion thing. :)
 
BeeHop said:
Personally i find the 24-105 f4 way to sharp with the C100/300 for interviews. I dont find the sharpness flattering for peoples skin as it shows up every little pore.
Click to expand...

I personally don't think that a lens' resolving power can be too great. There are ways to soften skin—and that might be appropriate at times—but you can't really add detail later to a soft image. Increasing edge contrast in PP or Post doesn't count as added detail.
 
nedcam said:
Do you think I should send it in because it is definitely soft unless I'm wide. It does not act parfocal. I have never had a brand new lens from a manufacturer that was bad. ugh
Click to expand...
The lens is definitely not par focal, so you will have to refocus when you zoom in. You may get away with it when you move from close to wide, but only because your DoF is increasing as the focal length reduces.

However if it just looks soft on close even after refocusing, then I'd send it back... I've had one for a few years, my go to lens for all round work, whether I'm shooting stills on the 5D or video on the NEX-FS700
 
Just for the record, my lens seems fine. While I love the look of primes I can't complain with any of my Canon glass. I do test my lens with a chart when they arrive. Always could have a problem in mfg. it would be tough to punch in like that with any non parfocal lens, unless you were looking for that Indie zoom look. I would likely grab my xf305 if a director told me to shoot that way. But no problem on sharpness. Are you sure it's not a matter of prefence? Zeiss and Nikon does have a different look to them. Can you provide an example?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top