C100: Canon 24-105 is a Horrible Documentary Lens in Very Low Light

Tamron 24 - 70 f2.8 with VC super great lens. The canon version doesn't have IS. At 70mm on a Super 35mm this equates to 105mm on a full frame.
 
OP HERE:

Got lens back from Canon. They said "within specs". They had given me a loaner and that lens also had a very noticeable trans loss at 105mm. So, as my thread tile states, this lens is not good for low light doc shooting in that I cannot get a quick tight shot at f4. I will look for an alternate lens and thanks everyone for their input.
 
You'll probably want a Sigma 24-105 (discontinued, not parfocal at all) or aforementioned Tamron 24-70 (focus ring looks quite poor, but I've never used it).
 
wgtwo said:
You'll probably want a Sigma 24-105 (discontinued, not parfocal at all) or aforementioned Tamron 24-70 (focus ring looks quite poor, but I've never used it).
Click to expand...


I have had the Tamron since the release. The quality of optics are good...but if you plan on doing any zooming shoots....its one sticky lens. Mine is a few years old now...and still very sticky. Slow zooms are not possible.
 
BeeHop said:
Tamron 24 - 70 f2.8 with VC super great lens. The canon version doesn't have IS. At 70mm on a Super 35mm this equates to 105mm on a full frame.
Click to expand...

The Canon version does have VC (which is the Tamron version of IS).

+1 to ReelWorksMedia
Mine is about a year old or so, and I've used another one which was a few years old. Very difficult to get any kind of 'nice slow zoom' if thats your thing.
 
Ah sorry I read that entirely wrong - I've been looking at too many different mount lenses etc. I read it as the Canon mount version of the Tamron lens... haha
Yes the Canon brand 24-70 2.8 would be nice if it had IS!
 
nedcam said:
Or, turn down offers to shoot low light level documentaries?
Click to expand...
For run-n-gun documentary, there is no other lens like the 24-105 f4 L IS. Canon has introduced a 24-105 STM lens. It is variable aperture. I read in the specs that you can't shoot while zooming in. The Canon CN-E 30-105 f2.8 cine zoom is close to 24k USD. The documentaries that I shoot don't have the budget for this cine zoom lens. May be you can have a look at this lens. Ofcourse, this lens is without IS, so on shoulder or a three axis gimbal this may be better.

Like Ned, I use the 24-105 f4 IS with apertures other than f4. I prefer deep depth of field in lot of work. It does darken at narrow apertures like f8. I don't like riding the iris. So the challenge is there. However, the 24-105 focal length is such that I often use the lens and my 24-70 f2.8 hardly get used, unless it is on a tripod.
 
chappelldigital said:
Ah sorry I read that entirely wrong - I've been looking at too many different mount lenses etc. I read it as the Canon mount version of the Tamron lens... haha
Yes the Canon brand 24-70 2.8 would be nice if it had IS!
Click to expand...

Ha ha!:engel017: I thought so! It was too good to be true!
 
Dunno if the people had their lenses fashioned by God himself but I've used tons of copies and this a persistent issue on all of them. It's noticeable and like you say makes it unusable for a fast zoom. I still use the lens for the range and adjust the exposure, but give me a break, there is clearly large transmission loss.
 
remsyatassi said:
Dunno if the people had their lenses fashioned by God himself but I've used tons of copies and this a persistent issue on all of them. It's noticeable and like you say makes it unusable for a fast zoom. I still use the lens for the range and adjust the exposure, but give me a break, there is clearly large transmission loss.
Click to expand...
There is, but not at F4.
 
There is a menu setting called Peripheral Illumination Correction. I'm not a good enough optical scientist to do tests but I did call EOS Canon Tech Gurus and she said that it would not cause my problem. However, in the manual it says it "compensates exposure for vignetting", or something similar. So let's say getting close to 105mm the edges start to darken, would this menu setting being ON make the whole frame darker to "compensate"? B&H, which probably gets its ad copy from Canon, says:

"Peripheral Illumination Correction improves image quality by maintaining evenness of illumination from edge to edge"

Hmmmm....when it says "maintaining eveness", could it be maintaining how DARKER it just got from being zoomed in? Perhaps. Maybe the problem is not optical but digital? Maybe this is why some owners of the lens say they don't experience transmission loss yet I saw it on the loaner lens? Just got my lens back today so I will play with that setting.

Love the range but now realize that at f4 on tele, in the mud, the facial close ups won't cut with the wides. Switching lenses while doing cinema verite of quickly moving special needs kids is not an option. Oh well.
 
Last edited:
PIC boosts the gain on the edges of the frame to maintain the brightness, it doesn't darken the image. Had two of these lenses on a shoot over the weekend, both kept full transmission at f4, as expected. Some shooting was in a dark comedy club, picking off crowd reaction shots where the only light was spill from the stage and that's likely a similar type "mud" you've experienced. Again, had no issues with transmission at f4.

If you could, I would love to see an example image from your copy. In my experience, every single 24-105, 24-70, & 16-35 lens works in the way I described: no transmission loss when zooming at wide open apterture, but definitely a loss with a stopped down aperture.

Of course, if the lens doesn't work for you, it doesn't work. There are other options.

edit: the sample comparison I posted a few pages back was with PIC turned off. This is why the vignetting gets stronger in the 105mm. But if you audition PIC in your monitor, you'll see the edges brighten.
 
Last edited:
Hi Cowpunk 52,

Just getting out of bed with 4 days of the flu, so I will send you two freeze frames, wide and tight, and ask your opinion. Can you please send me your email? I am at

ned AT nedmiller.com

It seems odd that the two lenses I tried had the same issue yet you and others say they don't have the problem. Maybe my bad luck?

Thanks
 
Actually I stand corrected. I tried this on my copy and found it was consistent through the zoom range at F4. Hugely helpful to know, sorry for any cheekiness!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top