Trying out a used 24-105, but it's not as sharp as my 85 1.8. Is that normal?

[ijespah]

Hi,

 

I bought a used 24-105L from B&H for $899 and am trying to decide whether to

keep it or return it. I noticed that, even with IS on, it is no sharper indoors than

my 85 1.8. Does that seem right? I guess I expected more sharpness for the

money. I am worried because I have read about people getting bad copies of

this lens. And, do you think $899 is a good price? (I noticed it's only $1039 at

Amazon right now.) It appears to be in perfect condition, and I like the focal

length for my purposes.

 

I did notice that the date code is UU. Anyone know what that means? (I believe

it is after the 24-105 flare problem was addressed.) I am guessing it means it

was manufactured around 2006, but I am not sure. I called Canon and they

were no help.

 

If anyone has input, I appreciate it. I am neurotic about spending this much

money on a lens! Thanks so much.

 

Isabel

[jim r]

Primes are typically sharper than zooms, 'nuff said.

[bryantan]

No sharper or not as sharp?

 

Either way, you'd be hard pressed to find any zoom (at any price) to outperform a quality prime such as the 85 1.8.

 

Without examples, I doubt anyone would be able to tell you anymore.

[bobatkins]

The 85/1.8 is one of Canon's sharpest lenses. I'm not in the least surprised that the 24-105 isn't sharper. In fact I'd be surprised if it was as sharp at f4. If it is. it says a lot for the quality of the zoom.

 

I doubt you'll find anything that's sharper than your 85/1.8 once it's stopped down a stop or two, no matter how much you pay for it.

 

This sounds like a case of UE (unreasonable expectations), a common cause of sharpness complaints.

 

With a digital body, you're pretty much limited by the sensor anyway, even with a perfect lens you wouldn't see much improvement over the stopped down 85/1.8.

[zml]

If you could post some comparative samples (with EXIF) data, you'd probably get a more meaningful answer...<br>

How to age Canon lenses, for instance here:http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Canon-Lens-Aging.aspx

[John Crowe]

Half the price of the 24-105 is in the IS system. You are not paying for the best glass with this particular lens. Two zooms that stand a chance at beating the 85/1.8, but they are much slower of course, are the 24-70/2.8 L and the 70-200/4 L. They also do not have IS.

 

 

To really see where the IS pays off try taking a handheld indoors shot at 1/15 second with each lens and then see which one is sharper.

 

 

B&H and Adorama generally do not have very good used pricing. If keh.com has the lens you need it is generally quite a bit cheaper. They are just as reliable to deal with.

[beauh44]

Hi Isabel, Chances are, nothing's wrong with your 24-105mm. The 85mm f/1.8 is one

of Canon's best prime lenses - especially for the money. But the 24-105mm, imho,

is one of their best zooms for the money, too.

 

When I first got mine I wasn't completely knocked-over, but it's grown on me. And at

some focal lengths (mine seems best about 50mm) it's very close in sharpness to

some primes. It's relatively light-weight, so it's great for a daytime walk-around lens

and can keep you from carrying a small bag of primes.

 

You were able to get sharp, low-light shots with your 85mm because it opens up so

much wider than the f/4 of the zoom. The light that passes through the zoom must

go through a lot more glass than the prime, and while Image Stabilization can pull off

minor miracles, it can't quite beat a really (good) fast lens, like the 85mm, so I

wouldn't say the 24-105 is the first choice for *low light* photography.

 

If you want a fast, sharp, telephoto zoom like the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS, then you'll pay

much more than what you did for your 24-104mm. If you have a relatively recent

DSLR body, you can always crank the ISO up and use anti-noise software if

necessary.

[bueh]

When both lenses are used wide open, the prime is noticeably <b><a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=355&Camera=9&Sample=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=106&CameraComp=9&SampleComp=0&FLI=5&API=0">sharper</a></b>, especially at the edges and corners. Despite the two stop difference this is not surprising.

[jason_hall4]

Like most of the folks that have already responded, while the 24-105 is a great zoom, it will not be as sharp as the 85 f1.8. I have and use both.

 

Jason

[robin_sibson1]

When I got my first 24~105 (heavenly rays model, although I never succeeded in provoking them) I did an admittedly rather rough-and-ready test against my 50/1.4 and 85/1.8, all lenses at f/4. The zoom was almost indistinguishable from the 50/1.4, and fairly close to the 85/1.8. I was delighted, and if that's what you are seeing, then so should you be.

 

All lenses are compromises of some kind, and that's certainly true of the 24~105. Sharpness is best in the 28~85 range, although, at least on all three of the examples I have used, still very good outside that range. At 24mm there is significant distortion, and quite heavy vignetting at 24/4, but both of these are totally fixed in the latest version of DPP.

 

Date code U (second of the two letters) is indeed 2006 and you are clear of the heavenly rays problem.

[photo_dark]

I doubt you are having soft-copy issues unless you have done repeatability tests comparing it to a similar zoom lens under identical conditions.

 

My 24-70L 2.8 is amazingly sharp. An absolutely fantastic lens. However, at F2.8, my $80 50 1.8 still has an edge when it comes to sharpness.

[surfidaho]

Howdy!

 

If you examine the reviews, you will find that the 85mm f1.8 is one of Canon's sharpest lenses:

 

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Canon%20EOS%20Lens%20Tests/45-canon-eos-aps-c/164-canon-ef-85mm-f18-usm-test-report--review

 

However, now that I have the 70-200mm F2.8 IS, the 85mm never leaves my camera bag. The 85mm is sharper, but I love the flexibility of a zoom.

 

Later,

 

Paulsky

[ben_quinn1]

The prime will be sharper and also easier to shoot with as it is lighter and smaller, and

shorter which will result in a better results. On the copy issue - if you have a doubt

return it or it will remain a nagging doubt and drive you nuts. You could get a refurb

from adorama for that money.

[keith_lubow]

It's entirely normal. I have not used a zoom that I consider to be *tack* sharp...EVER. 24-70L, 70-200L, 16-35L (the worst of the three by far), etc. All are great tools, but not if *true* sharpness is your number one priority.

[carbon_dragon]

I can say for my copies, the 50/1.4 is just a touch sharper than the 24-105. I posted a comparison on these two lenses and some lenses from my Sony DSLR in the Sony forum:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00PRrX

[ijespah]

Thank you all for your answers. You are very nice to take the time to answer my pedestrian questions. It is so helpful to a nuerotic novice like me. I really do appreciate it.

Cheers,

Isabel