# Canon 6D + 24-105 L combo not that great?



## pulseimages (Sep 16, 2013)

I rented a Canon 6D with the 24-105 L lens for a shoot on Saturday from BorrowLenses.com. I went up to New England Dragway for a NHRA event and shot a ton of images but when I got home and pulled the images in photoshop they weren't tack sharp. I shot both RAW + JPEG and used just the center focus point.

I had the IS on and was shooting at good shutter speeds but the images just weren't as sharp as I thought they would be from a full frame camera. Is the 24-105 really as bad as people say it is? I noticed on on some of the images that the center would be sharp but would quickly fall off on the sides even at f11. 

With results like this I wish I hadn't rented it and just brought my old Canon 40D along. At least the results would of been better. Now I'm reconsidering if I should even buy a Canon full frame all together and instead get the 70D.


----------



## Janbo Makimbo (Sep 16, 2013)

pulseimages said:


> I rented a Canon 6D with the 24-105 L lens for a shoot on Saturday from BorrowLenses.com. I went up to New England Dragway for a NHRA event and shot a ton of images but when I got home and pulled the images in photoshop they weren't tack sharp.
> 
> I had the IS on and was shooting at good shutter speeds but the images just weren't as sharp as I thought they would be from a full frame camera. Is the 24-105 really as bad as people say it is? I noticed on on some of the images that the center would be sharp but would quickly fall off on the sides even at f11.
> 
> With results like this I wish I hadn't rented it and just brought my old Canon 40D along. At least the results would of been better. Now I'm reconsidering if I should even buy a Canon full frame all together and instead get the 70D.


A perfectly fine combinations... perhaps user error!


----------



## pulseimages (Sep 16, 2013)

Janbo Makimbo said:


> pulseimages said:
> 
> 
> > I rented a Canon 6D with the 24-105 L lens for a shoot on Saturday from BorrowLenses.com. I went up to New England Dragway for a NHRA event and shot a ton of images but when I got home and pulled the images in photoshop they weren't tack sharp.
> ...



That's all you got?


----------



## serendipidy (Sep 16, 2013)

I think you are correct. No photographer has ever gotten sharp images from the 6D and 24-105L lens. Of course, I've never tried either but I would recommend you skip the 6D and get the 70D.


----------



## Janbo Makimbo (Sep 16, 2013)

Yeah just a get a 5d mkiii I am sure it will give you all the great sharp images you desire!!!!


----------



## Frodo (Sep 16, 2013)

pulseimages said:


> That's all you got?


Perhaps if you posted some images we might be able to provide useful feedback


----------



## Pagesphotography (Sep 16, 2013)

We use a 5DMIII, and 2 6D's. One of the 6D's came with the 24-105, so the copy we received was BRAND NEW, and we were also disapointed by the image quality on all the cameras...even on the 5DMIII. Just as you said, the images were in focus, but they weren't as sharp as some of our other lenses.


Ive seen some awesome shots online from the 24-105, so I dont know if maybe the lenses we got had issues or what, but you are not alone in that regard.


----------



## pulseimages (Sep 16, 2013)

Will do and thanks for some of the pissy comments so far.


----------



## Pagesphotography (Sep 16, 2013)

Frodo said:


> pulseimages said:
> 
> 
> > That's all you got?
> ...



This would be helpful however, with exif data...or at least telling us what settings were used.


----------



## pulseimages (Sep 16, 2013)

Pagesphotography said:


> We use a 5DMIII, and 2 6D's. One of the 6D's came with the 24-105, so the copy we received was BRAND NEW, and we were also disapointed by the image quality on all the cameras...even on the 5DMIII. Just as you said, the images were in focus, but they weren't as sharp as some of our other lenses.
> 
> 
> Ive seen some awesome shots online from the 24-105, so I dont know if maybe the lenses we got had issues or what, but you are not alone in that regard.



Thanks, good to know.


----------



## Chris Jankowski (Sep 16, 2013)

Once you move to full size sensor the lens has to cover much larger image circle and inevitably it shows in the corners.

Here is what SLRgear.com says about this lens tested on FF compared with APS-C:

quote:
Full-Frame Test Notes:

As always when moving from a sub-frame camera to a full-frame one, the 24-105mm lost a little sharpness in the corners, and chromatic aberration, distortion, and shading all got somewhat worse. That said though, corner sharpness and CA were both much better than most zooms we test, and stopping down to just f/5.6 made dramatic improvements in sharpness. Worst-case chromatic aberraton did increase noticeably, but the average CA levels remained very close to those we found on the 20D body, once again suggesting that the worst CA is limited to a relatively small area around the edges and corners.

The bad news with this lens comes in the areas of distortion and shading (vignetting). At 24mm, barrel distortion increased to a very noticeable 1.2%, while the pincushion distortion from 50-105mm jumped to 0.5% (also very noticeable, we personally find pincushion much more obtrusive than barrel, although neither is exactly welcome). Light falloff took a huge jump, reaching a level of more than 1EV at 24mm and f/4, and decreasing only gradually as we stopped down. At longer focal lengths it was less, but still on the order of 1/2 EV wide open.

While this is an exceptional lens on sub-frame cameras it falls to merely "very, very good" on full-frame bodies. The good news though, is that this lens is well supported in DxO's Optics Pro software: As of this writing (in late July, 2006), profiles are available for the 124-105mm for the 1Ds, 1Ds Mark II, and EOS-5D, as well as for the EOS-20D and 1D Mark II and 1D Mark II N. We haven't run our test images through Optics Pro, but venture to guess that much of the distortion, vignetting, and CA will be handily dealt with, not to mention most of the softness in the corners.

Bottom line, the Canon 24-105mm f/4 L is a really excellent optic, but one that struggles a bit along the edges and in the corners with full-frame bodies. As such, it's an almost ideal candidate for use with DxO Optics Pro, particularly if you're shooting with a full-frame dSLR.
unquote

It is worth looking at their review and sharpness graphs for both APS-C and FF:

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/145/cat/11

http://slrgear.com/reviews/zproducts/canon24-105f4/tloader.htm

http://slrgear.com/reviews/zproducts/canon24-105f4/ff/tloader.htm

The bottom line is that if you need a lens to be tack sharp in the corners of the full frame then you should probably used a high quality prime at F5.6 or F8.

You need to tackle other issues though e.g field curvature. If you use the central AF point on an object and then recompose with the object in the corner, then the object will end up in front of the plane of sharpness assuming your lens has the correct flat plane of sharpness. Simple geometry, but people forget about it.


----------



## pulseimages (Sep 16, 2013)

Pagesphotography said:


> Frodo said:
> 
> 
> > pulseimages said:
> ...



RAW + JPEG, Aperture Priority, AWB, Center Weighted metering. ISO 100 - 400, f8-11.


----------



## rs (Sep 16, 2013)

The camera is unlikely to be the cause - if it nails focus in the critical part of the frame, the shutter speed is high enough and the aperture is small enough for the desired depth of field, the camera, AFMA and user have all done their bit. 

It sounds like a bad copy of the lens to me. Reading about others experiences with that lens, it seems to vary a lot. Some get lucky with a lens which is good even wide open, while others get quite bad copies. The one you rented sounds to be off the far end of that scale.


----------



## Janbo Makimbo (Sep 16, 2013)

rs said:


> The camera is unlikely to be the cause - if it nails focus in the critical part of the frame, the shutter speed is high enough and the aperture is small enough for the desired depth of field, the camera, AFMA and user have all done their bit.
> 
> It sounds like a bad copy of the lens to me. Reading about others experiences with that lens, it seems to vary a lot. Some get lucky with a lens which is good even wide open, while others get quite bad copies. The one you rented sounds to be off the far end of that scale.



Great point, we know that the camera takes sharp images and we know that the lens takes sharp images therefore most likely a bad copy of the lens!!!!

But to answer the title of the thread, yes it is a great combo.

And unlike others, I have used both !!


----------



## Max ☢ (Sep 16, 2013)

Hi pulseimage,

Some photo samples would indeed be very helpful in the assessment of your particular issue. I happen to have the 6D + 24-105L combo since earlier this year (i.e. the lens is of recent manufacture - december 2012) and I am satisfied with the sharpness and overall rendition obtained with this glass. 
I jumped from a cropped system (450D + EF-S lenses) so maybe I am less critical that you in terms of resolution. Nevertheless, at 100% magnification I see that my 24-105L is only a bit less sharp overall at f/4 than my 24L/1.4 at 2.8 or my EF 35 f/2 IS fully open - that's much better than I expected and a huge leap compared to the sharpness I usually obtained with my EF 17-55 f/2.8 IS. So, overall I am very happy with the performances of this 6D+24-105L combo.

Have you checked the AFMA? if so, maybe you just got a bad lens copy...

Max


----------



## cocopop05 (Sep 16, 2013)

I agree with the others here. I found the images on my 24-105 were soft when using the viewfinder, but not so when using Live View. 

I used AFMA and needed a +6 adjustment to get sharp photos when using the viewfinder. 

I am very happy with the sharpness of my photos when using that lens now.

I have attached a photo I took with the 24-105, not because it is a great photo, it's not, it is just a quick snap, but so you can see that the lens delivers quite sharp results.


----------



## Janbo Makimbo (Sep 16, 2013)

Here is one of mine that I was quite happy with!!


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Sep 16, 2013)

serendipidy said:


> I think you are correct. No photographer has ever gotten sharp images from the 6D and 24-105L lens. Of course, I've never tried either but I would recommend you skip the 6D and get the 70D.



yeah no doubt this is not a layer 8 error.. that´s impossible.


----------



## sandymandy (Sep 16, 2013)

FF = sharpness? and i always thought its about focussing and what lenses im using  time to get all my old FF analog cameras back it seems.


----------



## Max ☢ (Sep 16, 2013)

sandymandy said:


> FF = sharpness? and i always thought its about focussing and what lenses im using



If the lens' intrinsic optical characteristics are obviously independent of the properties of the camera body it is attached to, the overall rendition (including the rendered sharpness) of the captured image depends on the sensor (pixel size, low pass filter, etc.) and on the in-camera data processing applied to the recorded signal. Overall, every camera has a specific (and different) transfer function which convolves the image information passed through a given lens, and for this reason the sharpness of recorded image depends as much on the lens as on the camera system itself.

In the particular case outlined in the OP's message, where he wished he had used this 24-105L on the 40D instead of the 6D, a quick check on DxO Mark (sorry I used the D-word), shows that he certainly would not have obtained a better rendered sharpness, quite the contrary actually (check the sharpness profile curves). I also included the 70D body, which definitely provides a better picture rendition than with the 40D, but it is still not yet at the levels of the 6D.
The bottom line is that if you did not get a good image sharpness with this particular 24-105L on the 6D (assuming that all settings are optimal), then you would not have obtained any better rendition on the 40D or 70D with the same glass (I'm not considering the lens resolution degradation at the corner, although this did not even play a significant role in the present comparison) ...


----------



## ajperk (Sep 16, 2013)

I bought a 6D back in June with the 24-105, upgrading from a rebel. So far, I have been very impressed with the combo, very nice resolution and great contrast and colors. Sometimes the distortion and vignetting are noticeable, but usually not bothersome. I have found, however, that I generally get sharper images if I avoid modes such as Aperture Priority in favor of Manual or Shutter Priority where I can make sure my shutter speed stays high enough (I mention this because you had listed Aperture Priority as one of your settings). In my (admittedly limited) experience, I have found slow shutter speeds can easily rob images of sharpness, especially if you're looking for tack sharp pictures. Anyway, hope that is helpful. Maybe, as others have mentioned, you just got a bad copy.

Take care!


----------



## distant.star (Sep 16, 2013)

.
It must be frustrating to go to an event, shoot a lot of pics with what you think is good equipment and return to find disappointing results. I sympathize with you there.

The only question you ask in your post is this: "Is the 24-105 really as bad as people say it is?" In response, I have to say I never saw this as a general reputation for that lens. As far as I know, it's a solid "L" lens with a pretty good reputation. Obviously, it's a lower end zoom so you're not going to get the same results you might with a good prime or with one of the high-end zooms (new 24-70L or the newest 70-200L).

If you owned the camera and lens you used there may be fewer variables. As it is, there are too many variables to suggest why you did not get the performance you hoped for.

I don't know anything about the company you rented the equipment from. Personally, I know I can trust anything I rent from LensRentals, but I haven't dealt with other companies. I'm guessing they probably did not do AFMA on the lens/body you got. I'm also guessing you did no AFMA on the equipment.

You mentioned using AV mode at f/8 through f/11. While you said "good shutter speeds" I don't know what that might be. You've never said what the actual shutter speeds were. My experience suggests shooting a fast-moving event, even in good light, would require lower apertures with shutter speed at least 750, ideally 1000 to be safe. You seem to suggest the problem is simply OOF, but I'd check to see if there is motion blur at play here.

I've been using a 24-105 on my 5D3 this year with adequate results overall. I've found it gets too soft for my liking above 70mm, but I also haven't done AFMA. It's easier just to use it like a decent 24-70. When I want to be sure of tack sharp, I go to the Sigma 35 f/1.4 or the Canon 135L or even the 70-200L.

I suggest if you're going to rent in the future, perhaps the new 24-70L would be a better choice. And you may want to talk to your supplier about how they match bodies and lenses -- can they do AFMA for you? It's not cheap to rent such equipment, and they have a responsibility to make sure you're satisfied.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 16, 2013)

pulseimages said:


> I had the IS on and was shooting at good shutter speeds...





pulseimages said:


> RAW + JPEG, Aperture Priority, AWB, Center Weighted metering. ISO 100 - 400, f8-11.



What do you mean by 'good shutter speeds'? I was shooting in full afternoon sun yesterday, f/5.6 and ISO 400 for 1/1000 s, so in that light f/8-11 would be giving me 1/250 - 1/500 s shutter speeds - fine for static subjects, inadequate for cars in a drag race (too slow to freeze action, to fast for panning to show motion blur). 

At f/8 with a fast enough shutter speed, you should certainly be getting sharp shots from the 6D + 24-105L combo, and if your subject was reasonably distant, the deep DoF should obviate mild misfocusing (which could be corrected with AFMA).



distant.star said:


> I don't know anything about the company you rented the equipment from. Personally, I know I can trust anything I rent from LensRentals, but I haven't dealt with other companies.



I've heard of borrowlenses.com, but have no experience with them. I would be tempted to use them, because they have a depot local to me which means no shipping costs. However, I know that lensrentals.com tests gear after it's returned from a rental, and adjusts/fixes it if necessary (lenses are tested on their optical bench). I also know that many rental outfits do not test their gear, but rather allow the next renter to discover a problem (not saying that borrowlenses does so, I have no idea whether or not they test the returned lenses beyond a basic, yes the AF and IS work, and it takes a picture).


----------



## sdsr (Sep 16, 2013)

If you still have the lens, why don't you attach it to your 40D and see how it compares to whatever lenses you use on that within its range in similar conditions? It could be that the copy you rented is a dud, that it's not properly calibrated to the body you rented, etc. (lensrentals replaces its stock every two years and thoroughly tests them all when they return from a rental; I've no idea about borrowlenses). The 24-105 that came with my 5DII created excellent images on that and continues to do so on my 5DIII and 6D (and that's without any AFMA on any of them). Or maybe, as others have suggested, your speeds weren't adequate.


----------



## bholliman (Sep 16, 2013)

Max ☢ said:


> Have you checked the AFMA?



+1 An AFMA issue between the lens and body would be my guess. 

I have this camera and lens and have taken thousands of sharp pictures with the combo. This lens is best from 35-85mm. At 24mm it has noticeable barrel distortion and it is somewhat soft at the corners. But, overall its a terrific lens.


----------



## Pi (Sep 16, 2013)

pulseimages said:


> Is the 24-105 really as bad as people say it is?



Most people actually say that it is good. You are doing something wrong. Without samples , it is a guessing game.


----------



## applecider (Sep 16, 2013)

How about some sample images so we can see what you are getting. Asking us to comment otherwise is just going to get generic answers.

Include the exif information, but be prepared to have comments critical to technique at least some of them.

So sample images to get closer to an answer to your question.


----------



## J.R. (Sep 16, 2013)

Well, my signature doesn't say much but then, how do you define sharpness? My results with the same combo of 6D + 24-105 are reasonable.


----------



## JPAZ (Sep 16, 2013)

FWIW, I sympathize with your frustration. When the opportunity to capture the image has passed and then you find the shot you took is not optimal, there is little to do, even with PP.

But, I have this lens on a 5diii (not the 6d but is FF) and when I get a shot that is not sharp, it is almost always my fault, not the hardware.

JP


----------



## ForumMuppet (Sep 16, 2013)

While I do not have the exact copy of 6D and 24-105mm lens you were using to say for sure, I would guess it is more likely your settings than the camera/lens combo. It could also be track position and which focus settings you were using. The first thing I would do is _never_ go into Av at a drag race. If anything it would be Tv and keep your shutter above 1/1600 unless panning. Then 1/250-1/400 would be best for top fuel. You could go down into 1/100-1/160 for Pro Stock or some of the eliminator categories. I actually crank up the shutter to 1/4000-1/8000 for the fuel categories. Examples here.

As many others have already requested, can you provide some of your images to debug along with the exif data or camera settings? That would help out a great deal here.


----------



## drjlo (Sep 16, 2013)

Max ☢ said:


> Have you checked the AFMA? if so, maybe you just got a bad lens copy...
> 
> Max



+1. I would make sure to AFMA carefully both the wide angle and tele range of the zoom lens, as a specific body+lens combo can act unpredictably.


----------



## RAKAMRAK (Sep 16, 2013)

What is good shutter speed? You say you used center focus point, but it was a "race" type thing, so did you use AI Servo or One Shot AF? And without looking at some of the photos that you think were not good enough it is difficult to give any opinion in the air. I have never used 6D, but I have rented 24-105 from my local renting place, and it has not disappointed me. Not sure where you got the idea that people say 24-105 is bad, but hopefully you were not expecting 24-70 MKII quality from it, right?


----------



## J.R. (Sep 16, 2013)

RAKAMRAK said:


> Not sure where you got the idea that people say 24-105 is bad, but hopefully you were not expecting 24-70 MKII quality from it, right?



But f/8 ... my copy of the 24-105 is extremely sharp at f/8 and narrower ... but then when you compare to the 24-70 II, sharpness isn't everything.


----------



## Oneand0 (Sep 16, 2013)

I also have the 6D and 24-105mm combo. I have not used it to track anything really fast, but have used it for landscape at 5.6 and f11 and have been pleasantly surprised at the sharpness. It's not my sharpest lens, not as sharp as my primes, but definitely sharp enough to blow up my prints and get the job done. Time and time again when I get frustrated at something not being as sharp as I remember, I end up going out on another shoot and seeing it wasn't my equipment after all, just user error on that day. Don't make up your mind on that combo or that lens with your one experience, unless you really put it to a test with different settings. We really can't give you advice on your particular results without seeing it, or the data from exif. We can only swear by our own results on whether that lens performs well, or well enough. True sharpness will not show up until you print out your shots, or look at it on a very high resolution monitor.


----------



## RAKAMRAK (Sep 16, 2013)

J.R. said:


> RAKAMRAK said:
> 
> 
> > Not sure where you got the idea that people say 24-105 is bad, but hopefully you were not expecting 24-70 MKII quality from it, right?
> ...



Exactly right @J.R., that is why I said "quality"..... some would say there is the "look" of the image, some would say "feel" of the image .... but anyway I think we can club them all together into "quality".

And to add one more think for OP, with f/8-f/11 aperture the shutter speed becomes even more critical (than wider apertures).


----------



## CarlTN (Sep 16, 2013)

pulseimages said:


> I rented a Canon 6D with the 24-105 L lens for a shoot on Saturday from BorrowLenses.com. I went up to New England Dragway for a NHRA event and shot a ton of images but when I got home and pulled the images in photoshop they weren't tack sharp. I shot both RAW + JPEG and used just the center focus point.
> 
> I had the IS on and was shooting at good shutter speeds but the images just weren't as sharp as I thought they would be from a full frame camera. Is the 24-105 really as bad as people say it is? I noticed on on some of the images that the center would be sharp but would quickly fall off on the sides even at f11.
> 
> With results like this I wish I hadn't rented it and just brought my old Canon 40D along. At least the results would of been better. Now I'm reconsidering if I should even buy a Canon full frame all together and instead get the 70D.



There's no panning mode for the IS on that lens, you should have had it switched off. Agree with others who have asked if you adjusted AFMA.

You should post some of these shots if you haven't already.

That said, I rented the 24-105 last year with a 1D4 body, and found the lens to AF a tad slower than I liked, on it.

The 6D is fussy about its AF, also. With all points active it might grab part of the subject you don't want. With center only, mine usually works better in servo mode. The servo AF menu gives several options, and without a bit of trial and error, it's hard to say if the default settings will be better for a particular subject or event (with a particular lens)...or whether tweaking these settings would be better.

For really fast action I've found the servo tracking to work better for subjects moving toward me, rather than away. If they move away slower there is no problem, but moving away fast it can lose tracking.

Frankly, for an event like that my 70-200 f/4 (non IS) would have been far better than the 24-105. It on my 6D is the AF champ of my lenses, beating the speed of that via my favorite lens, the 135 f/2...which is no slouch.

If you used AV mode, that was also a contributing factor to your problem. You should have used TV or M modes. AV mode defaults to a shutter speed that is too slow for action shots. I would have first tried manual mode and set metering to center weighted average. 

For a bright daylit event, if you used TV mode, with ISO on automatic, you could have set shutter speed to 1/800 and you probably would have wound up with the camera setting aperture from f/7.1 to f/9. The advantage of this mode over manual is you can compensate exposure. In manual mode you can't easily compensate exposure, but can specify both aperture and shutter speed. In my aerial photography I set manual mode to 1/2500 and f/9, with my 70-200...and wind up with ISO's from 800 to 2000...which works perfectly on the 6D...as the noise at these levels is still like child's play for the 6D.


----------



## pulseimages (Sep 16, 2013)

Here is a perfect example of the lack of sharpness I am experiencing. Also I photographed the drag cars and show cars while they were parked and engines shut off. I did not photograph the cars actually racing but thanks for jumping to that conclusion anyways. 

This photo was taken at 1/250th of a second at f8. I focused on the Mooneyes fuel tank sticker.


----------



## CarlTN (Sep 16, 2013)

pulseimages said:


> Here is a perfect example of the lack of sharpness I am experiencing. Also I photographed the drag cars and show cars while they were parked and engines shut off. I did not photograph the cars actually racing but thanks for jumping to that conclusion anyways.
> 
> This photo was taken at 1/250th of a second at f8. I focused on the Mooneyes fuel tank sticker.



You're welcome! This is not the type of shot I would want to do at a drag race...haha. But maybe that's just me.

I don't see a sharpness problem in this image. Is it downscaled or a crop? If you wanted the body behind the tank to be sharper, you should have manually focused slightly deeper into the image after autofocusing on the tank...and then perhaps closed aperture a bit more.


----------



## pulseimages (Sep 16, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> pulseimages said:
> 
> 
> > Here is a perfect example of the lack of sharpness I am experiencing. Also I photographed the drag cars and show cars while they were parked and engines shut off. I did not photograph the cars actually racing but thanks for jumping to that conclusion anyways.
> ...



I had to downscale it because this site only allows images to be 4096 KB. The Mooneyes fuel sticker isn't even sharp. Download the image and see for yourself.


----------



## CarlTN (Sep 16, 2013)

pulseimages said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > pulseimages said:
> ...



I did download it and I don't see a problem. Do you own the Mooneyes company or something? Why is the sticker so important? If you were using center AF only and "focus recomposed", that could also throw the focus off. Again though, for this shot it's just not important anyway...is it?

You could have easily compressed the file a bit more and left it at full resolution, and come in way under 4MB...


----------



## pulseimages (Sep 16, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> pulseimages said:
> 
> 
> > CarlTN said:
> ...



So you think there isn't a lack of sharpness at all? Wow.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 16, 2013)

pulseimages said:


> So you think there isn't a lack of sharpness at all? Wow.



Some people think you could use a Coke bottle for a lens and still get perfect images from the 6D, a camera which can walk on water while turning that water into wine. :

But back to reality. Yes, the tank label is softer than I'd expect. Below is a 100% crop of a shot with a 24-105L at 102mm f/8 on a 5DII.


----------



## pulseimages (Sep 16, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> pulseimages said:
> 
> 
> > So you think there isn't a lack of sharpness at all? Wow.
> ...



Thank you.


----------



## CarlTN (Sep 16, 2013)

pulseimages said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > pulseimages said:
> ...



"Wow"? Dude...post a crop of the full size image and I'll look at that...and I still say why the heck is this tiny label on the rear of a car or truck's fuel tank...so important anyway? As a picture of an automobile...this is a fail in any case.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 16, 2013)

pulseimages said:


> Thank you.



You're welcome. You shot does look like it may be back focused, though. Here's the other side of her face, also 100% - notice that even at f/8, with a close subject like this, her eye is sharp but her ear is OOF because it's outside of the DoF.


----------



## pulseimages (Sep 16, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> pulseimages said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you.
> ...



Either way it's the quality of the lens or lack there of.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 16, 2013)

It does look to me as it the top of the decoration above the rear window is sharp. I'm guessing you weren't in the back of the truck when you took this, so maybe about 80mm ? Dof would be quite shallow at that focal length/distance. Could be an AF accuracy issue, not necessarily the lack of quality in the lens. Some body/lens combos are just out - see Lens Rentals blog


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 16, 2013)

Chris Jankowski said:


> Once you move to full size sensor the lens has to cover much larger image circle and inevitably it shows in the corners.
> 
> Here is what SLRgear.com says about this lens tested on FF compared with APS-C:
> 
> ...



It's not really an excellent optic for an L. Even my Tamron 28-75 which cost me 1/3rd the price (this was back then) was sharper even center frame. At the wide end the 24-70 II, 24-70 f/4 IS, 24 2.8 IS, 24 T&S II, 24 1.4 II clearly show that the 24-105 is pretty far from very, very sharp. I mean it's sharp on APS-C, just not mad sharp and it used to cost a LOT more than other aps-c options and on FF it is kind of soft near the edges and corners.

I don't what SLRGear is going on about how it does much better than most zooms on FF at the edges, when it does about the worst of any L zoom at the edges on FF and worse than some third party zooms at FF edges and it has nasty CA of both lateral and longitudinal forms. What are all of these FF L zooms that it does so much better than on FF? They also said the 70-300L (amazing) was basically worse than the tamron 70-300 VC and 70-300 non-L too remember, not that the latter two are bad but.

Maybe 1 in 25 are uber copies that are pretty good, but I've tried a few and all left me disappointed on FF (not bad on APS-C, but then again, I found even sharper for radically less back then, of course now that the 24-105 can be had for $500-650, for that price level it does perform reasonably well, especially consider the super wide range and IS and everything it brings all at once. On APS-C it's not soft at all, it's just not crazy uber mad sharp; on FF the same other than for the entire corner and edge regions where it is soft. color and contrast are not bad)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 16, 2013)

pulseimages said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > pulseimages said:
> ...



No, I think you're missing my point. If the shot is backfocused, it's not the quality of the lens that's a problem, but a mismatch between body and lens. That's exactly what AF microadjustment is meant to address. People used to send cameras+lenses to Canon for adjustment, which is part of the reason there's a CPS today. Now, users have the capability to make those adjustments on their own.


----------



## CarlTN (Sep 16, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Chris Jankowski said:
> 
> 
> > Once you move to full size sensor the lens has to cover much larger image circle and inevitably it shows in the corners.
> ...



+1! And the 24-105L I rented had tons of CA at the wide end, even on a 1.3x crop camera. That said, I'm considering buying one for my 6D. I think the overall color rendition, along with the zoom range, are the strongest points of this lens...and they're so strong that they seem to beat the competition if you consider all variables. There just is nothing else that covers this range, _that is a zoom_, with IS...that compares..._at this price level_...on a Canon mount. I also considered the Tamron 28-75, but it does not have IS, and doesn't seem to hold its value very well on the used market...where the Canon 24-105 does hold its value a bit better. For a new price in the $750 range...the 24-105 is just a terrific value. If you absolutely must have an f/2.8 zoom for the lowest price possible, then the Tamron 28-75 is the only choice.

For absolute optical performance at 24mm, it would appear from tests I've read...that the Tokina 16-28 has them all beat (at least up to f/4.0 or f/5.0, where the pricey Canon 24mm f/1.4 takes over, especially regarding resolution). The Tokina has a flare problem, but it might be worth trying anyway. It's possible the Canon 24-70 f/2.8ii has more resolution than the Tokina (at 24mm specifically)...I've not compared the tests directly yet. But price is an issue for me there...and also the Tokina would still likely have less barrel distortion than that pricey Canon...at least based on the tests.

For the wide end, I'm still torn between the Tokina and the Sigma 24mm f/1.8, because I want to do low light shots that have a lot more color than f/2.8 can provide. The Sigma is quite soft towards the borders and corners, but it's not much softer than the manual-only Rokinon, yet costs $50 less than the Rokinon.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 16, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Chris Jankowski said:
> ...



Yeah the color from the 24-105 isn't bad at all, it is a bit better than from the tamron 28-75 although the latter is sharper. It also as much faster AF, the tamron 28-75 has the slowest AF I've ever come across and it also adds IS and more range. Tamron is much smaller and lighter, used to cost a ton less but that doesn't count too much at this point, somewhat sharper/biting micro-contrast, has f/2.8 but doesn't have quite as strong large-scale color, IS, fast AF as much range. Before when the L was $900-1200 and the tamron was $325 but now that they are like $500 vs $650 or something it becomes a call as to what aspects matter more.

I'd say the tamron 24-70 VC is also definitely better but now that the 24-105 dropped way in price they no longer compete in the same price class.

BTW if you do go for a 24-105, I wouldn't pay $750 new, you can definitely find them split from kits for $650 new, even $600 with a lot of effort (and $500 kitted with body) plus $750 is getting dangerously close to the $1000 that the 24-70 f/4 IS sometimes sells for (unless you really love the 71-105mm more than anything else).


----------



## CarlTN (Sep 16, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



Good advice, although I don't see any new or even slightly used for much less than $719 right now. $600 would be like winning the lotto. I could have bought it as a kit, but at the time it wasn't $500 + the body, it was more like $750 to $800 plus the body, so I bought the body only along with the 40mm pancake, which _was_ on sale at that time. $500 + body, would put the combo around $1950 or less, would it not? Because you can certainly buy the body for $1550 or less.

I didn't gather the 24-70 ii f/4 was that much better of a lens than the 24-105. If it is, why do they even make the 24-105 anymore? I recall a bunch of negative posts on here when the 24-70 f/4 was released.

I agree the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 at the current $1199 sale price would be awesome...but I'd rather not spend that much money...and would also like to wait and see what the Sigma gods gift us with in the future. A 24-70 f/2, even without IS, would likely be a better lens optically overall...but even if it's "only" an f/2.8 and does have IS, it would be interesting to see if it's any better than the Tamron...since it would likely be priced similarly to the Tamron. And a 24-70 f/2 _with_ IS, for most any price...would likely be worth that price! Maybe not $3000, but who knows?


----------



## Halfrack (Sep 16, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> pulseimages said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



To help explain what Neuro is getting at, what you may be expecting at f/5.6 or f/8 on a crop camera is different with a FF camera. The area that is in focus gets a lot thinner. With auto-focus, your AF is figuring out the 'distance' to the spot wide open, then closing down to get more depth of field. If you focus on the item closest to you, and the AF under-calculates the distance, the DoF will be off, and you won't get the shots you want.

In most cases, it's better to link to photos on flickr/google+/etc than to post directly as attachments.


----------



## Pi (Sep 16, 2013)

pulseimages said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > pulseimages said:
> ...


I agree that it looks bit backfocused. In any case, I do not see sharpness problems. I have done comparisons with the 50L, the 85L and the 35L at f/8. You need to pixelpeep very hard to see differences unless you get closer to the borders.


----------



## RAKAMRAK (Sep 17, 2013)

Yes, to my eyes also it lacks sharpness. Though I do not know where exactly the focus point was or whether you focused or recomposed but still there is no place in the photo where once I go for 100% crop that looks tack sharp. There was some problem with lens IMO (back focus, or front focus or something of that sort).


----------



## pulseimages (Sep 17, 2013)

Halfrack said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > pulseimages said:
> ...



Sorry I don't use flickr or google+.


----------



## Janbo Makimbo (Sep 17, 2013)

To cut a very long post short.... Most likely user error!!


----------



## cocopop05 (Sep 17, 2013)

Janbo Makimbo said:


> To cut a very long post short.... Most likely user error!!



User error or genuinely faulty product.


----------



## Maven (Sep 17, 2013)

There is an error in some newer copies when aperture motor is affecting IS system and 24-105 is sharp at f/4 and gets blurred if closed. It could be faulty lense.
Do you have shots at f/4 to check that?


----------



## CarlTN (Sep 17, 2013)

Maven said:


> There is an error in some newer copies when aperture motor is affecting IS system and 24-105 is sharp at f/4 and gets blurred if closed. It could be faulty lense.
> Do you have shots at f/4 to check that?



He has a problem posting his pictures...


----------



## Ruined (Sep 17, 2013)

Personally, I do not think full frame is worth it if the primary lens you are going to use is the 24-105L f/4 IS.

Before you release the dogs on me, here is the rationale:

Even the cheapest full frame camera, the 6d missing some features, is more expensive than the top of the line APS-C camera. So you are talking about paying around $2599 for a 6D + 24-105L f/4 IS vs $2299 for a 7D + 17-55mm f/2.8 IS (these prices will of course be reflected in the rental price). In order to come closest to matching that aperature speed using the 6D w/ a zoom, you need to spend an additional $2000+ on a 24-70 f/2.8 (which actually does not have the IS that the 17-55mm has). 

So, I would say you are somewhat defeating the purpose of full frame by primarily using an f/4 zoom lens with it as much of the APS-C noise can be compensated with an f/2.8 zoom - especially with the new 20.2 sensor.'

Thus in summary, I would have instead purchase/rent a 6D + 24-70 f/2.8 to really see a massive improvement over APS-C 17-55mm f/2.8, but you might spend twice as much doing so.


----------



## ashmadux (Sep 17, 2013)

Ive found that once i stepped up from rebels, lenses that have worked spectacularly all of a sudden had different souls.

Hey, when you guys post samples, can you please..

NOT POST DOWNSIZED IMAGES TO SHOW SHARPNESS 

sorry for yelling, but there's no way to accurately judge a file if its downsized. Everyone does it and i dont understand why.

thx for listening


----------



## Woody (Sep 18, 2013)

Ruined said:


> So, I would say you are somewhat defeating the purpose of full frame by primarily using an f/4 zoom lens with it as much of the APS-C noise can be compensated with an f/2.8 zoom - especially with the new 20.2 sensor.'
> 
> Thus in summary, I would have instead purchase/rent a 6D + 24-70 f/2.8 to really see a massive improvement over APS-C 17-55mm f/2.8, but you might spend twice as much doing so.



Please note (i) the resolution of 24-105 f/4 IS on 6D far outperforms that of 17-55 f/2.8 IS on APS-C camera (ii) FF cameras offer DOF flexibility that is not easy to match from the APS-C line. You can easily verify (i) by using the comparison tool on the-digital-picture.


----------



## Frodo (Sep 18, 2013)

Woody said:


> Please note (i) the resolution of 24-105 f/4 IS on 6D far outperforms that of 17-55 f/2.8 IS on APS-C camera (ii) FF cameras offer DOF flexibility that is not easy to match from the APS-C line. You can easily verify (i) by using the comparison tool on the-digital-picture.



Having both a 7D and 5Dii, I agree. My 5D classic produced sharper images than the 7D.
DXOmark rates the 7D/17-55 at 9MPix sharpness compared to the 6D/24-105 at 14MPix. That is half as much again.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 18, 2013)

Woody said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > So, I would say you are somewhat defeating the purpose of full frame by primarily using an f/4 zoom lens with it as much of the APS-C noise can be compensated with an f/2.8 zoom - especially with the new 20.2 sensor.'
> ...



yeah, probably so, in the center area at least, but even at the edges the difference probably helps bring it somewhat closer to even, although I still think a good lens on an aps-c body delivers more detail at the edges than a 24-105 does on FF, at least on the wide side. But yeah it is something to keep in mind.

although I wouldn't use the comparison tool to compare on TDP in that manner

Anyway, yeah the main thing isn't that he is doing worse moving to FF and using that lens. It is more that using that lens he is not fully maximizing the best that can be gotten out of the FF sensor the way using a 17-50 maximizes what you can get out of an aps-c sensor. But that is a very different matter than claiming you are doing worse than on aps-c.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 18, 2013)

oh and yeah doing micro focus adjustment can be realllly important, even a 300 2.8 IS can look a mess if the MFA is off


----------



## bholliman (Sep 18, 2013)

Ruined said:


> I would have instead purchase/rent a 6D + 24-70 f/2.8 to really see a massive improvement over APS-C 17-55mm f/2.8, but you might spend twice as much doing so.



f/2.8 on APS-C is equivalent to f/4.5 on full frame, so, you would not have to invest in a 24-70 2.8 lens to equal the APS-C + EF-S 17-55 2.8 combo. The 24-105 f/4.0 IS would be a reasonable FF match to this lens (but slightly faster and with added focal range).


----------



## Pi (Sep 18, 2013)

bholliman said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > I would have instead purchase/rent a 6D + 24-70 f/2.8 to really see a massive improvement over APS-C 17-55mm f/2.8, but you might spend twice as much doing so.
> ...



Having used the 17-55 on crop and the 24-105 on FF,; the latter beats the former in every possible way: resolution, borders included, color, and light gathering.


----------



## CarlTN (Sep 18, 2013)

ashmadux said:


> Ive found that once i stepped up from rebels, lenses that have worked spectacularly all of a sudden had different souls.
> 
> Hey, when you guys post samples, can you please..
> 
> ...



+1 !!!!!!


----------



## CarlTN (Sep 18, 2013)

bholliman said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > I would have instead purchase/rent a 6D + 24-70 f/2.8 to really see a massive improvement over APS-C 17-55mm f/2.8, but you might spend twice as much doing so.
> ...



+1 !


----------



## CarlTN (Sep 18, 2013)

Pi said:


> bholliman said:
> 
> 
> > Ruined said:
> ...



Agreed. I owned a Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 with IS, used it on my 50D for about 5 months. I was not all that impressed with the "sharpness"...at all. The IS just worked ok...the IS on the Canon 24-105 works a bit better. Neither of these lenses is perfect though, far from it...but the 6D is pretty close to perfect on its own, _for what it is_. The same can NOT be said for the 70D...no matter what lens is on it.


----------



## Janbo Makimbo (Sep 18, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > bholliman said:
> ...



+1 !!!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 18, 2013)

Pi said:


> bholliman said:
> 
> 
> > Ruined said:
> ...



Minor technical correction: every possible way except that the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS allows use of the more accurate high-precision f/2.8 AF points on APS-C bodies which have them, whereas the 24-105mm f/4L IS does not allow use of the high-precision points (except on a few 1-series bodies prior to the 1D X). But I'd still choose the 24-105 on FF (and in fact, I did).


----------



## Pi (Sep 18, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Minor technical correction: every possible way except that the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS allows use of the more accurate high-precision f/2.8 AF points on APS-C bodies which have them, whereas the 24-105mm f/4L IS does not allow use of the high-precision points (except on a few 1-series bodies prior to the 1D X). But I'd still choose the 24-105 on FF (and in fact, I did).



But f/2.8 on crop is like f/4.5 on FF, so...


----------



## Valvebounce (Sep 19, 2013)

Hi folks.
I think that was perhaps a bit harsh unless by user error you mean not setting up AFMA. Perhaps these things don't come from rental houses as an AFMA correct pair, just grab a body and the next lens in the rack, body and lens may never have met before. It would only take a lens and body from the wrong ends of the tolerance range to foul up a days shooting, Just a thought! 
Coming from a 40D and probably not getting a manual for the camera (due to some people selling them off on eBay) OP may not have known where to find it.
Apologies if this has already been covered, I am working my way through the thread reading each post in turn. 

Cheers Graham.



Janbo Makimbo said:


> pulseimages said:
> 
> 
> > I rented a Canon 6D with the 24-105 L lens for a shoot on Saturday from BorrowLenses.com. I went up to New England Dragway for a NHRA event and shot a ton of images but when I got home and pulled the images in photoshop they weren't tack sharp.
> ...


----------



## sanj (Sep 19, 2013)

Frodo said:


> pulseimages said:
> 
> 
> > That's all you got?
> ...



Hahahaha! Well said.


----------



## sanj (Sep 19, 2013)

This combo will certainly make great, sharp photos if Afma, focus and shutter are in place.

You need to figure out where you going wrong, not the gear.


----------



## Janbo Makimbo (Sep 19, 2013)

sanj said:


> This combo will certainly make great, sharp photos if Afma, focus and shutter are in place.
> 
> You need to figure out where you going wrong, not the gear.


+1 !!!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 19, 2013)

sanj said:


> This combo will certainly make great, sharp photos if Afma, focus and shutter are in place.
> 
> You need to figure out where you going wrong, not the gear.



Do please keep in mind the OP is talking about rented equipment, and while I know lensrentals.com thoroughly tests everything before it's sent out, and while most rental houses claim to do so, probably not all of them do so. 

For those commenting about renting a body+lens and expecting the lens to be AFMA'd to that body, I really doubt a rental house would do that, it's up to the renter (which is why it's always a good idea to be sure you have the equipment in hand a day or two before you need it).


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 19, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> For those commenting about renting a body+lens and expecting the lens to be AFMA'd to that body, I really doubt a rental house would do that, it's up to the renter (which is why it's always a good idea to be sure you have the equipment in hand a day or two before you need it).



I can see the AFMA facility on modern bodies opening a whole can of worms for rental. I believe only the 1Dx recognises lenses by serial number, so with a lesser body AFMA'd for say one 24-105 would inevitably make it inaccurate on another. Also you would have the issue of hirers playing with the AFMA and possibly getting it wrong.

It would be an unviable task for rentals companies to continually check.

I guess the moral of the story is when renting a body check the AF accuracy yourself straight away.


----------



## serendipidy (Sep 19, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > For those commenting about renting a body+lens and expecting the lens to be AFMA'd to that body, I really doubt a rental house would do that, it's up to the renter (which is why it's always a good idea to be sure you have the equipment in hand a day or two before you need it).
> ...



I have never done AFMA 
Couldn't the OP have checked this by also doing a Live View focus and comparing it with the same shot using AF? If everything else is the same but the AF view is much less sharp, then would that indicate the AF needs AFMA?


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 19, 2013)

Yes, that would be the way to check, and something that can be done easily with a hired body. I suppose another thing to do is first check that when you put _your_ lens on a hired body it doesn't give a AFMA reading in the menu. 

Regarding AFMA, so far I've only really found it crucial on larger, faster teles. Maybe I've been lucky so far.


----------



## bholliman (Sep 19, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> For those commenting about renting a body+lens and expecting the lens to be AFMA'd to that body, I really doubt a rental house would do that, it's up to the renter (which is why it's always a good idea to be sure you have the equipment in hand a day or two before you need it).



+1

I rent lenses from time to time and always perform AFMA adjustment with Reikan Focal prior to use.


----------



## pulseimages (Nov 5, 2013)

Well I finally received an e-mail today from Borrow Lenses stating that the lens I complained as having soft focus was indeed defective. Strange that they had to test the lens 3 times to come to the conclusion that it is defective. They will be sending me a refund ASAP almost 2 months after I returned the equipment. Better than never I guess.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Nov 12, 2013)

I have the 6d with the 24-105mm f4 L and have found the sharpness to be fine generally and normally if it is off its me not the equipment. 
At my day job we rent high performance cinematography lenses and I use the same test methods we use to check my Canon lenses so I can do mirco adjustments if needed (although this works best for very fast lenses). Ive only ever had one lens out from Canon a EF-S 15-85mm I use on the 7d. It was quite a lot out so in the end I returned it to Canon for adjustment now works fine.


----------



## CarlTN (Nov 21, 2013)

My 24-105 thanffully needs no AFMA. Neither did the one I rented from Lensrentals last year. But I can see how some would need it.


----------



## ashmadux (Dec 28, 2013)

I feel this guys pain. I haven't worked this hard to get consistent sharp pics since my 7d debacle.

Im on my second 6d body, and its performing much better then the junk canon first sent me. Its not 'there' yet though...i still feel like its not as sharp as its supposed to be, buti haven't AFMA yet. It is however showing much better baseline sharpness with my reference 24-105. Reminds me of my Eos M images with the 22/f2. 

Im still looking for how these images will ultimately better than what my t2i can produce at iso 100. Ive seen plenty examples from others online, but as of yet i haven't experienced them with the 6d.

Here's some cropped, 1:1 eyes from my t2i. Can i realistically expect "better" from full frame?


----------

