# How sharp should pics from 5D3 +24-105 be?



## eyeland (Mar 3, 2013)

Sorry for posting this again, but I figured that this is the right place for the question rather than in "technical support".
I finally took the plunge and got a 5Dmk3 kit and suffice to say, I am LOVING it. The handling is amazing  (on a side note, on my second day of ownership, I learned the hard way that there is a difference between a splash of water, a bit of dust and then the cursed sand of the desert wind alas, a grain of sand got under the focusing ring of the 24-105 which now makes a grinding sound that even gets picked up by an off-camera mic )Anyways, apart from this unfortunate occurrence, I need to make sure that I got an ok copy today, seeing as the 14 days of "no questions asked in case of a malfunction-return policy" ends tomorrow. I am no pixel peeper, and I am not the type to buy a box of lenses and only keep the best one. That said, given the substantial size of this investment (for me at least) I'd like to make sure that neither camera nor lens has any obvious faults.So, if anyone would lend me they eyes, it would be greatly appreciated.The "test" shots are with the proper test settings I think (neutral, no NR, tripod, tethered, no monkey business and straight out-of-camera)





---
http://500px.com/photo/27294037
http://500px.com/photo/27294035
http://500px.com/photo/27294033
http://500px.com/photo/27294031
different apertures at 105mm
http://500px.com/RuneAbro (different apertures at 24mm)

Files:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/legz9yp3c72x49s/r14nC5VsKa?m
(might take another 20min before they're all uploaded there  


I apologize for the messy links, trying to tidy it up


----------



## candyman (Mar 3, 2013)

Difficult to give an opinion.


The area on and around the chart seems to be rather "dark". Exposure is neutral?
EDIT: downloaded one of the files from the dropbox. Read the Exif-data. Exposure bias = 0 step.


I would suggest to test again but with more light


----------



## florianbieler.de (Mar 3, 2013)

This is how sharp they should be:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=355&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=355&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0

So, quite sharp in the center and above average around. The 24-105 is not one of their best lenses, but still a nice workhorse considering range, IS and above all the price.


----------



## eyeland (Mar 3, 2013)

Thanks, I will get a hold of a better test chart (this one was printed at home on an old laser printer and came out a bit dodgy I guess) and also with proper lighting.


florianbieler.de said:


> This is how sharp they should be:
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=355&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=355&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0


Are these pictures straight out of the camera ?


----------



## eyeland (Mar 3, 2013)

Here is a quick snapshot from the first few days of ownership.
A little processed and with the various "enhancements" that are enabled on the camera out-of-the-box.
I think the af was on the center point, so I guess it might need a bit of AFMA, but overall, I am quite happy with the amount of detail (coming from Aps-c, micro4/3 and P&S)





Full size jpg @ https://www.dropbox.com/s/j6s5ihacmse84pb/YOTA1768.jpg?m


----------



## Fleetie (Mar 3, 2013)

I had the 24-105L back when I had the 7D. I wasn't that impressed with it then, despite the camera being APS-C, so that it should've been using the "best" part of the image circle. There was quite a bit of red fringing towards the edges.

I was expecting it to be worse when I got the 5D3, because of the larger sensor using even-more-peripheral parts of the image circle.

Instead I was surprised to find that the lens came alive with the 5D3 and seems sharper. Some of this will be because of the larger pixel size of the 5D3, and some may be thanks to the in-camera lens aberration correction.

As it is now, I am much more pleased with the 24-105L. I have selected best shots printed at 18"x12", and those taken with the 24-105L are plenty sharp enough for me, and the red-fringing problem seems to have gone away. It does what I need it to do just fine!

So I am happy! So I would now really struggle to justify splashing out for the 24-70mm f/2.8 L II. To lose reach and lose IS just for a sharper and faster lens... And to have to lay out nearly £2k for it... I'd really struggle.

Anyway, next in my sights is the 85/1.2L II, so that'll keep my savings account busy for a couple of months yet.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Mar 3, 2013)

It's not one of the sharpest zooms out there. Its main strengths are size and a decent range.

However, if as you say you are not pixel peeping, and if you aren't printing huge enlargements or cropping the majority of the frame, it's a great lens. I used mine trustingly for 8 years before the aperture mechanism died. Traveling, it's often the only lens I took.
Wide open it's a little soft even at the center, but for walkaround photography I used it often.

5.6 is great for landscape work.


----------



## RGF (Mar 3, 2013)

I like to look at my images 100% in lightroom. I have not looked at test images, but I can easily tell when an image is sharp versus almost sharp.

You will know it when you see it. In my hands I get great results from the 5DM3 + 24-105 combination. Easily print 16x24 and probably could print 24x36 (if only I had an Epson 7890 or 7900).


----------



## digital paradise (Mar 3, 2013)

I owned one for about 5 years. A very capable lens but it does not sharpen up until F5.6. I did not like the distortion and CA at 24mm on a FF.


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 3, 2013)

Between f5.6 and 8 add unsharp mask at about 0.2 pixels/100% and it's as sharp as anything else. At f11 and above all these lenses are the same anyway. f4 it's still useable, below f4 - well you'll need something else anyway.


----------



## YuengLinger (Mar 3, 2013)

It should be VERY sharp in most situations where L zooms would normally be sharp, that is, with the right lighting, aperture, etc. (Of course if you shoot primarily with the ef 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II, or, from what I've heard, the new 24-70mm, you might be spoiled...) The 24-105mm is a fine little workhorse, sort of a Swiss Army knife kind of lens.

I have one that was really bugging me because mine seemed to be way underperforming compared to ones owned by two other photographers with the same combo, the 5DIII and the 24-105. A bad run of shots at an event finally prodded me to send it (under warranty) to Canon, and it came back as if it were an altogether different lens, just outstanding sharpness and all around IQ. Now I love it.

Canon reported that they swapped out a circuit board, and because the work was done so quickly, I have the feeling this is not a rare problem, but one they knew about based on my description.

One other thing: If you LOVE your camera, and you got it as part of a kit, I would strongly recommend keeping the camera that works great, but send the lens to Canon for repair. I've had the frustrating experience of having one part of a kit just perfect, sending back the whole thing because the other part was questionable, and then ending up with a new set of problems.

In fact, in the future, I'd probably pass on the kit savings to make separate purchases of camera and lens, just so I don't have to worry about this scenario again.

Good luck!


----------



## florianbieler.de (Mar 4, 2013)

Freelancer said:


> florian can you please make your signature a little bigger... i can barely see it. :



And G'day to you too sir. Don't understand your bitching about that small logo.


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 4, 2013)

It should be Ok-Good. Decently sharp @ F/5.6, Really sharp @ F/8


----------

