morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Our OP still has not clarified
not sharp
not parfocal (sharp after a zoom)
S
not sharp
not parfocal (sharp after a zoom)
S
C100: Canon 24-105 EF IS USM, NOT IMPRESSED AT ALL WITH IT
- Thread starter nedcam
- Start date
nedcam
Well-known member
I'm Back (OP).
Did another two days with it. No way it's acting parfocal. Is it suppose to be parfocal? The B&H description does not use the word.
But here's what's really bothering me. Supposedly, according to B&H, there's not suppose to be the transmission loss I am experiencing going to telephoto. Here's what it says on the B&H page:
Fixed Aperture
With no change in aperture over the full focal length range, photographers can set exposure at the widest aperture and zoom through to 105mm without slowing shutter speed.
What I am experiencing, besides it being soft on the tele end, is I am losing about a stop at 105. I think I will have to send it into my dealer and they put it on a collimater. I had no idea Canon could send out a "bad copy". That's why I didn't buy used!
But presently I do not consider it sharp in it's tele range. The only way around this would be to bring two cameras, which besides being expensive, half the time there's not enough room. I appreciate everyone's input and will report back (in a few weeks) what the verdict is.
Did another two days with it. No way it's acting parfocal. Is it suppose to be parfocal? The B&H description does not use the word.
But here's what's really bothering me. Supposedly, according to B&H, there's not suppose to be the transmission loss I am experiencing going to telephoto. Here's what it says on the B&H page:
Fixed Aperture
With no change in aperture over the full focal length range, photographers can set exposure at the widest aperture and zoom through to 105mm without slowing shutter speed.
What I am experiencing, besides it being soft on the tele end, is I am losing about a stop at 105. I think I will have to send it into my dealer and they put it on a collimater. I had no idea Canon could send out a "bad copy". That's why I didn't buy used!
But presently I do not consider it sharp in it's tele range. The only way around this would be to bring two cameras, which besides being expensive, half the time there's not enough room. I appreciate everyone's input and will report back (in a few weeks) what the verdict is.
Last edited:
Matt Gottshalk
Resident Preditor
Are you shooting wide open?
I find the lens sharpest at f/5.6
I find the lens sharpest at f/5.6
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
My copy - which I consider to be functioning - ie not broken or faulty has both transmission loss - it darkens about a stop
(remember t stop and f stop are different - canon never called it t4)
it is also no way parfocal - again canon never said it is - and why would it be - it is designed as an af stills lens - which is refocused before every frame.
Also I would agree it is not that sharp until 5.6
I doubt you lens is broken/faulty
As for what b and h say - well in photography you don't need to change stop - your raw exposure latitude will gobble such a difference - so another true but disingenuous statement.
(remember t stop and f stop are different - canon never called it t4)
it is also no way parfocal - again canon never said it is - and why would it be - it is designed as an af stills lens - which is refocused before every frame.
Also I would agree it is not that sharp until 5.6
I doubt you lens is broken/faulty
As for what b and h say - well in photography you don't need to change stop - your raw exposure latitude will gobble such a difference - so another true but disingenuous statement.
Last edited:
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
It is interesting to see how manufacturers have widdled specs over time.
my ancient nikkor 28-85 3.5-4.5 functions exactly as described - the modern canon does not.
Im sure both lenses have the same transmission values.
my ancient nikkor 28-85 3.5-4.5 functions exactly as described - the modern canon does not.
Im sure both lenses have the same transmission values.
Last edited:
Jon Roemer
Well-known member
The 24-105 has a loss on the long end. No doubt about it. Don't know if it's a full stop but definitely at least a ½-stop.
FWIW, not 100% applicable to video but as someone coming from stills. I shoot with two stills bodies (currently 1D X) and I have found that all of the AF lenses need to be checked at least once per year. Running AF vs MF and each body vs. the other I can quickly tell what is working correctly and what needs a fix. It's not uncommon for lenses that were 100% okay to all of sudden need a tweak to get them back to factory condition.
Nature of the beast especially with lenses designed for AF stills (Canon, Nikon, etc. - it doesn't matter.)
dustylense
Veteran
I think some need to keep in mind that this lens is and was designed as a stills zoom. It outdates canons ability to shoot video capture on Hdslrs. You want parfocal? Then slap down some money on a lens that is in fact designed to do so. They exist. But they don't cost $800.
greenheron
Well-known member
I just want to weigh in here and say that I have this lens and use it for stills (5D III) and video (C100). I bought the lens knowing it was a stills lens with IS and that it was limited to f4. Now I have shot stills at f4 and it does a great job, nice and sharp. I also use it for video when moving very quickly and needing a little more reach. As far as parafocal, I don't know anyone who expects a still lens with no backfocus adjustment to be perfectly parafocal. Just luck if it works.
Nature Shooter
Well-known member
Ned,
I have a 24-105 and C100 and am in the Chicago area. Shoot me a PM and we can arrange to meet up if you want to check out another copy of the 24-105 on your camera or try your lens on another C100.
I have a 24-105 and C100 and am in the Chicago area. Shoot me a PM and we can arrange to meet up if you want to check out another copy of the 24-105 on your camera or try your lens on another C100.
Darren Levine
Veteran
worth mentioning again, that for ALL still lenses, and any lens for that matter, if not spec'ed as parfocal, then should not be expected to be parfocal. my 24-105 seems about 15% not parfocal, if i were to put a percent on it. i've used it successfully stopped down to probably f/8-16 and hyperfocal will basically make it technically parfocal so long as your focus distance is at least a dozen or so feet away.
and yea, it's not constant aperture, total false advertising.
and yea, it's not constant aperture, total false advertising.
chappelldigital
Well-known member
Very weird that Canon would give it their "L" branding or "class" when it really doesn't seem it lives up to what "their best" is.
It certainly has its uses, but doesn't seem to be in the same league as others IMO
cowpunk52
Veteran
Technically, the lens aperture is a constant f4, although there is always a little "wiggle" in the exact aperture & focal length vs what a company publishes. Anyway, a constant aperture doesn't always translate to a constant transmittance, or T-stop. This is especially true for lenses that have extending barrels. The Canon 24-105 loses about 2/3 stop of transmittance at the long end.
That being said, the transmittance of the Sigma being a half stop faster is good news to me. I will definitely look again at this lens once my 24-105 burns out (which is surely will eventually because I use it a lot in very harsh conditions) if Canon doesn't introduce a better version or something else more interesting.
That being said, the transmittance of the Sigma being a half stop faster is good news to me. I will definitely look again at this lens once my 24-105 burns out (which is surely will eventually because I use it a lot in very harsh conditions) if Canon doesn't introduce a better version or something else more interesting.
Last edited:
Darren Levine
Veteran
F vs T stops is another layer of confusion for the average consumer, and never really gets applied to any sort of advertising and marketing of photo lenses. and when something is labeled as 1 aperture, people expect 1 aperture, and like someone already posted, they specifically mention how you can maintain your shutter even when you zoom in.
and while some wiggle room in transmittance could be within the realm of acceptable, with the 24-105, 2/3-1 stop of loss really doesn't look like a negligible difference. they could have just labeled it an f/4-4.5 and even if 4.5 were off, at least it tells the consumer to expect some sort of light loss at the far end.
and supposedly the rumours are that 2014 will be a big year of lenses for canon. im hoping for power zoom.
and while some wiggle room in transmittance could be within the realm of acceptable, with the 24-105, 2/3-1 stop of loss really doesn't look like a negligible difference. they could have just labeled it an f/4-4.5 and even if 4.5 were off, at least it tells the consumer to expect some sort of light loss at the far end.
and supposedly the rumours are that 2014 will be a big year of lenses for canon. im hoping for power zoom.
I'm late to this thread... but coming from the still shooter side, I was never interested in this lens. I even owned one when I bought my 7D for video (part of the kit) and was able to trade it at the dealer for a 135/2 L. I finally took ownership of it again when I bought my C100, thinking it would be a great match for this, letting me set up my rig w follow focus and not have to change glass. After three or four shoots, my editor is complaining that she hates the footage from the C100... this being captured in ProRezHQ on the Ninja2. I sit and review, and compare some stuff shot on my primes, or my 24-70/2.8 II... and in my opinion the 24-105 /4 is a poor performer... contrast is low, resolution appears to be lower... I have relegated it to the 'backup' bin... I'll use my primes, or if the range covers, my 24-70/2.8 II which I think is the singular best piece of glass I have ever owned. Amazing contrast & color... I had some 'off-line' conversations with Canon reps at the CPS booth in NYC this October (PhotoExpo) and the consensus was that my findings were not unusual... There's a reason they toss it into kits for an extra $600...
Kevin Brusie
Still & Motion Images
Portland, Maine & NYC
kevinbrusie.com
Kevin Brusie
Still & Motion Images
Portland, Maine & NYC
kevinbrusie.com
chappelldigital
Well-known member
Exactly I was feeling about this lens to be honest, and why they made it an "L" lens so its worth getting the "kit lens"
cowpunk52
Veteran
I know we've really been beating this dead horse for a while now, but just tonight I thought it would be fun to bring out my 24-105 and put it up against my CN-E 24, 50, & 85 cinema primes on the C300. I love my 24-105, and use it quite often. I'm often tempted by it's convenience factor, but this test really opened my eyes, & the results were quite telling. I shot everything at F4 on the zoom, and T4 on the primes. I don't have time just now to post up the results, but here are my findings:
At 24mm, my 24-105 is quite sharp and resolves very, very close to what the 24mm prime gets. I think the increased micro-contrast of the prime gives it more perceived sharpness, but the actual resolved detail between the two is nearly the same (remember, we're talking HD resolution here). The 24mm prime has a noticeable 'zing' compared to the zoom. Color is more vivid with the prime and better contrast.
At 50mm, we see the resolved detail of the zoom lens start to wane just a bit. Micro-contrast is playing a big role here, but in the finest details, you can see a definite difference. Again, the 'zing' factor is there. Color and contrast is in a different league.
At 85mm, there's a different story. The prime is considerably 'crisper' and whereas you might be able to add post sharpness to make them close, there's no denying that the prime is flat-out eating the zoom lens for lunch. Color and contrast between the two lenses aren't even existing in the same dimension at this point.
In all three focal length samples, the prime lenses give a far snappier image, with much more vivid color and very crisp details. The 24-105 looks a quite dull next to the cinema primes, but for the price, it really should, I suppose
The more you look at comparing images, the duller the 24-105 starts to seem.
Transmittance - now here's where things get really weird. The transmission of the zoom is just a hair more than 2/3 of a stop darker than it's advertised aperture through these three focal lengths when aperture is wide open at F4. Oddly enough, at F4, there is ZERO transmission loss through the entire zoom range. If you stop down, though - even to just F4.5 - you'll begin to lose almost half a stop from widest to telephoto. By the time you stop down to F5.6, you'll be losing almost a whole stop by zooming from 24mm to 105mm! It's the weirdest thing, and I can't figure out what's going on to make that happen. By all means, go test this for yourself with a white card - set your in-cam waveform for spot and watch what happens to that little red area. I nearly fell off my chair when I saw it happening.
Anyway, there's always a price to pay for convenience - and I must say that the 24-105 has that in spades. If you're in a situation where you need to be as versatile as possible and have no time for lens changes, this is a very strong choice and I'll continue to use mine for a long time to come. However, if you want the best image quality, and to save yourself some time in post, you can't beat prime lenses - and especially the Canon Cinema primes! The difference in quality is really palpable, and placing these lenses up against each other really made me see that three dimensional quality that great primes bring to the table. Images from the primes have a pop that is not easy to replicate with anything less than the absolute best zoom lenses, in camera or in post. Trying to get a 24-105 to look as good as prime in color grading would be like chasing the dragon, and I think it would ultimately never be possible to catch it.
Some of my notes for those that use and enjoy the 24-105: it's strongest at the wide end, losing detail and lustre toward the long end (this could possibly be beneficial for close-up shots in docs where there is often less than flattering lighting and no make-up on the subject.) If you want to avoid losing transmittance when you zoom, stay at F4 and ride the ISO for your exposure. As soon as you stop down, you'll get varying exposures as you zoom. Color and contrast is the biggest sacrifice in using this lens, but it's a beast of a doc lens for it's range and IS. It's a poor choice for narrative shoots, pre-set interviews, and any shoot where you have the luxury of changing lenses when necessary.
I'll try to post up some of my test images when I get the chance. Happy Holidays, everyone!
At 24mm, my 24-105 is quite sharp and resolves very, very close to what the 24mm prime gets. I think the increased micro-contrast of the prime gives it more perceived sharpness, but the actual resolved detail between the two is nearly the same (remember, we're talking HD resolution here). The 24mm prime has a noticeable 'zing' compared to the zoom. Color is more vivid with the prime and better contrast.
At 50mm, we see the resolved detail of the zoom lens start to wane just a bit. Micro-contrast is playing a big role here, but in the finest details, you can see a definite difference. Again, the 'zing' factor is there. Color and contrast is in a different league.
At 85mm, there's a different story. The prime is considerably 'crisper' and whereas you might be able to add post sharpness to make them close, there's no denying that the prime is flat-out eating the zoom lens for lunch. Color and contrast between the two lenses aren't even existing in the same dimension at this point.
In all three focal length samples, the prime lenses give a far snappier image, with much more vivid color and very crisp details. The 24-105 looks a quite dull next to the cinema primes, but for the price, it really should, I suppose
The more you look at comparing images, the duller the 24-105 starts to seem.Transmittance - now here's where things get really weird. The transmission of the zoom is just a hair more than 2/3 of a stop darker than it's advertised aperture through these three focal lengths when aperture is wide open at F4. Oddly enough, at F4, there is ZERO transmission loss through the entire zoom range. If you stop down, though - even to just F4.5 - you'll begin to lose almost half a stop from widest to telephoto. By the time you stop down to F5.6, you'll be losing almost a whole stop by zooming from 24mm to 105mm! It's the weirdest thing, and I can't figure out what's going on to make that happen. By all means, go test this for yourself with a white card - set your in-cam waveform for spot and watch what happens to that little red area. I nearly fell off my chair when I saw it happening.
Anyway, there's always a price to pay for convenience - and I must say that the 24-105 has that in spades. If you're in a situation where you need to be as versatile as possible and have no time for lens changes, this is a very strong choice and I'll continue to use mine for a long time to come. However, if you want the best image quality, and to save yourself some time in post, you can't beat prime lenses - and especially the Canon Cinema primes! The difference in quality is really palpable, and placing these lenses up against each other really made me see that three dimensional quality that great primes bring to the table. Images from the primes have a pop that is not easy to replicate with anything less than the absolute best zoom lenses, in camera or in post. Trying to get a 24-105 to look as good as prime in color grading would be like chasing the dragon, and I think it would ultimately never be possible to catch it.
Some of my notes for those that use and enjoy the 24-105: it's strongest at the wide end, losing detail and lustre toward the long end (this could possibly be beneficial for close-up shots in docs where there is often less than flattering lighting and no make-up on the subject.) If you want to avoid losing transmittance when you zoom, stay at F4 and ride the ISO for your exposure. As soon as you stop down, you'll get varying exposures as you zoom. Color and contrast is the biggest sacrifice in using this lens, but it's a beast of a doc lens for it's range and IS. It's a poor choice for narrative shoots, pre-set interviews, and any shoot where you have the luxury of changing lenses when necessary.
I'll try to post up some of my test images when I get the chance. Happy Holidays, everyone!
Last edited:
AndreeOnline
Veteran
Great info here Brian, thanks.
I've done something similar in comparing my 24-105mm against a few of my other lenses: Sigma 35mm 1.4, Sigma 50mm 1.4, Canon 16-35mm 2.8 II and Canon 70-200mm 2.8 IS II. I was looking primarily at sharpness (resolving power for 4k with my 1Dc).
The question I asked was this: assuming that I have the 24-105mm on, in what scenario within that focal range is it worth the trouble of changing lens to one of my other ones in order to improve IQ?
My findings were similar to yours. Even at 4k, looking at still frames very carefully, to difference in perceived sharpness is very small. I think the actual perceived difference is more down to contrast than the lenses ability to focus light. And honestly, after that test I was a bit discouraged going after real cine glass.
But since then, I've swung around again starting to appreciate what I see as the real benefit to cine lenses, namely:
Usability: consistent design and feel, equidistant gears for aperture and focus and same diameter front element.
Color Matching: consistant color, contrast and flare as far as applicable.
Handling: predictable focus pulling ability with enough margin of error even at longer focal lengths.
Finish and Quality: durable and long lasting without serious depreciation.