# Question re: image quality 24-105 Kit lens with new 5D Mark III



## FlowerPhotog (Apr 2, 2012)

Long time lurker, first time poster. I am in a bit of a quandry what to do and thought I would solicit advice.

I received my Mark III Kit from Adorama last week and finally had time to put it thru it's paces this weekend. Love the camera, but will take quite a while to get up to speed on all the functions- coming from a t2i, it's quite a bit more complicated. I am, however, disappointed in the image quality using the kit lens as compared to several other lenses I own which I also tried on the new body. Don't own any EF lenses below 70 mm, so my comparisons on the Mark III are at the upper focal range end of the kit lens. Compared to my Sigma 70 Macro, Canon 100 2.8L Macro and my Canon 70-300 L lens shows the kit to not be sharp at all in the outer half of the frame, not just the very edges and corners. I would have suspected it to be less sharp than the two macro lenses, but am amazed at the huge difference between it and the 70-300 L. I did tripod based, self timer, multiple focus method tests (including Live view and manual focus) , at multiple apertures, and the 70-300L is razor sharp on the new 5D Mark III all the way to the edge, whereas the 24-105 is almost as sharp in the center, but rapidly drops sharpness about a 1/3rd of the way from the center towards the edge and is poor at the edges. Stopping down to f 11 or 16 improves things a little, but still nowhere near the sharpness I would expect from an L lens. I did remember to turn IS off when on the tripod, as the first tests I did I had left it on, then remembered that might be the culprit, but alas, no improvement. These tests were at two target distances, one my backyard fence at 15-20' and then distant rock outcrops, focused at near infinity. I also put the 24-105 lens on my t2i and compared it to my EF-S 15-85, and it doesn't seem as sharp as that lens either when compared at the same focal lengths, but more apparent at the upper end of the range. All of these comparisons don't jump out at normal magnification but at 100% the difference is obvious.
Also - I am aware of is the issue with DPP high res mode, so these comparisons were done in both fast mode, and also in LR 4.01 RC, which does accept the Mark III raw files. 

If anyone else has both the 24-105 and the 70-300L, I would appreciate your thoughts on how yours compare.

I have been lucky thus far in my previous lens purchases, which includes EF-S 10-22, EF-S 60 Macro, Sigma 150 Macro (non-IS), all of which met or exceeded my expectations for sharpness. I've read of people having issues getting a bad lens and strugging with Canon to get it right or getting a new one. I bought this 5D Mark III kit during the fortunate window Adorama had where for the same price I received a SD card, backpack, and a Red Giant software bundle. My question is - what would be the normal process to follow - return the entire kit (ie lens and body), or just the lens, and is Adorama responsible for the lens or do I deal with Canon? I'm at work, so can't attached images showing the problem, but if I get a chance this evening will try to figure out how to post examples, so you can see if the lack of sharpness is normal for this len. 

Thanks in advance for your advice.


----------



## akclimber (Apr 2, 2012)

I have a 24-105 & use it on a 5D2. It sounds to me like you've got a subpar 24-104. I think your expectation that it not be as sharp as your macros is realistic but my version of the lens doesn't suffer from the issues you describe. I'm expecting a 5D3 in a couple days and I'll certainly be testing the 24-105 on it. Hopefully the new gapless microlenses & ever so slight bump in MPs haven't combined to accentuate any weaknesses of the 24-105.

Sorry - can't comment on the 24-105 vs 70-300 comparison but I'd be happy to report back on my 5D3 + 24-105 tests.


----------



## ejenner (Apr 3, 2012)

The 24-105 is not a particularly sharp lens compared to primes or any other L glass. I don't have the 70-300 or the other lenses you have either, but you description fits what I would expect from someone used to shooting with decent/good primes. The 24-105 does start to lose sharpness quickly away from the center although it should be considerably sharper at f5.6 than f4. I'm not sure the 10-22 is worlds better (I have that), but even that is likely sharper (certainly at f5.6-f8). I must admit I never really compared those.

I've mostly tested it at the other end (wide) of the zoom range though because I know it won't even hold a candle to my 70-400 f4 IS so I've never even bothered to try to compare with that. It is definitely less sharp than the 17-40 once you get to f8 and probably even at f5.6. It must be the softest L lens Canon makes (except maybe the 17-40 at 24mm f4).

I suspect that unless there is some difference from one corner to another your copy is not wildly off. Shows how hard it is to make a FF 4x zoom in that range (wide to medium telephoto).

Having said all that though, you could certainly send it to a Canon service center and see what they say - it will cost you the shipping.


----------



## Orion (Apr 3, 2012)

When I first got my mkIII I was a little shyocekd using the new AF sytem . . COMPARED to the 30D haha! But now I am TOTALLY amazed at what this camera can do! My images are tack sharp using center pioint AF on the 24-105, for example! I may go out to night and do some night shots of the city, and later in the day at the park for some blossoms using my 100mm macro. . . . .

Still doing some AF tests to see, but I did alter the sensitivity of the AF (general purpose setting): I upped the sensitivity from both the "0" on the scales to 1. . . . So try something like that yourself, and see. . .

See you in the shaper image catalogue . . . .


----------



## iMagic (Apr 3, 2012)

I would send the lens to canon for a free calibration. Every new lens I buy is not sharp and I send every one to canon. They always come back much better.


----------



## EvilTed (Apr 3, 2012)

Buy yourself a 50mm F/1.8 for $100, sell the 24-105 and put the $700+ on another prime.
I met a guy in a bar yesterday shooting a 5d MK2 with the 50 and like me, he loves the lens.
He told me he has an 85 F/1.2 but the nifty fifty is never off his camera.

I could show you examples of the nifty fifty vs a 70-200 F/2.8 II and you would be amazed how good this lens is.
personally, I think the 24-105 is a horrible lens.
It's too heavy and it's way too soft.

ET


----------



## takoman46 (Apr 3, 2012)

The 24-105 didn't meet my expectations in regards to sharpness either. I have had 2 copies of 24-105's in the past and both delivered the same lack of sharpness in details. If you want a sharper zoom in a similar range, get a 24-70. You'll lose the 70-105 focal range but it's not a big deal IMO. Especially if you already have a 70-300.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 3, 2012)

I have found the 24-105mm L to be very sharp. I've had mine for a few years now. If yours is not sharp, send it to Canon for adjusting. I've had five 24-70 lenses, and the 24-105mm L beat them all.

The weakness of the lens is at 24mm, but Lightroom, DXO, and DPP correct the distortion at 24mm just fine.

Do not expect a zoom to match a Macro lens. Macro lenses are generally the sharpest lenses available.

I would also not expect a $800 kit lens to be as good to a $1500 or $2500 lens. However, for the price, its a bargain, and beats hands down the Nikon 24-120mm lens.

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/420-canon_24105_4_5d?start=1


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 3, 2012)

My 5D III & 24-105 are currently with Canon Service Center, Irvine CA. I posted the softness issues last week - some peeps were making joke of the post  

"hey my 5D III doesn't make coffee" etc.... 

Anyway, I should have the body & lens back soon - stay tune for update. I think you should give Canon another shot before return it.


----------



## JR (Apr 3, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> My 5D III & 24-105 are currently with Canon Service Center, Irvine CA. I posted the softness issues last week - some peeps were making joke of the post
> 
> "hey my 5D III doesn't make coffee" etc....
> 
> Anyway, I should have the body & lens back soon - stay tune for update. I think you should give Canon another shot before return it.



Looking forward to the update Dylan. Everytime I tried the 24-105 myself (2 copies) I always found it much less sharp then my prime lenses. DOnt know if the lens itself is at fault, or simply the fact that primes are just better then zoom! The only zoom I can live with currently is the 70-200 2.8 II IS. I hope the new 24-70 II is as good!


----------



## Bentley2012 (Apr 3, 2012)

I'm new to be able to comment on this form but have been checking it out for quite some time. I can't really compare mine and my wife's copy of the 24-105 lens since we both use them on 7D's. The one thing I can say is you must have a bad copy because my wife won't shoot with any other lens until she can get a better one. Hers has to be the sharpest of any lens I have seen. Mine is extremely good but not as sharp as hers. If I didn't tell anybody that is was a zoom they would think her pictures were taken with a macro, they are that sharp. I would either send it back to Adorama or just for the heck of it go to your local camera store and try one of their copies.


----------



## Invertalon (Apr 3, 2012)

I must have been lucky with two extremely sharp 24-105L's... I sold the one I have been using the past two years with the new one I got with my 5D3 kit, just as sharp... Wide open from 24mm to 105mm is very sharp. It may not be prime sharpness, but it damn good for such a versatile zoom. I never had any gripes about the sharpness.


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 3, 2012)

JR said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > My 5D III & 24-105 are currently with Canon Service Center, Irvine CA. I posted the softness issues last week - some peeps were making joke of the post
> ...



Will do JR,
Just FYI my 24-105 is sharp with 60D and 5D II. 

Can't go wrong with 70-200 II IS  - tack sharp even at 2.8. My next lens will be 35mm L - will see


----------



## cpsico (Apr 3, 2012)

I never really like the 24-105, to much lens flare not super sharp. It's a good light walk around lens that cost to much


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 3, 2012)

cpsico said:


> I never really like the 24-105, to much lens flare not super sharp. It's a good light walk around lens that cost to much



- the 24-104 is a low cost L lens
- looks pretty sharp to me
- the low weight makes it suitable for fast moving sports
- fast af makes Servo mode work well

Here is one from the weekend - on a low tech 1Ds3, should be better on the 5DIII, high speed panning with a heavy lens is VERY difficult







Camera Maker: Canon
Camera Model: Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III
Image Date: 2012-04-01 13:01:25 +0100
Focal Length: 45.0mm
Aperture: f/13.0
Exposure Time: 0.010 s (1/100)
ISO equiv: 100
Exposure Bias: +0.33 EV


----------



## FlowerPhotog (Apr 3, 2012)

Thanks for all the feedback. 

Yochanan- I'm sure it's just the lens, as every other lens I've tested on the Mark III is superbly sharp. My Sigma 70 2.8 macro is the sharpest lens I own (one of the sharpest lens anywhere) and it is incredible on the new camera, so I have no issues with the body.

I think I have figured out that my 24-105 has a resolution characteristic very similar to the tests depicted on the SLR Gear website. http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/145/cat/11

If you look at their 3D blur plots, both on the crop sensor and the full frame sensor tests, it shows the lens to have it's worst performance at the 70 and 105 end, which is where I was comparing it with my 70-300L lens. It looks much better at 24, 35 and 50 on those plots. The edges at the higher focal lengths look pretty poor on their plots, but the centers are OK. I think this is the only lens I've seen on their plots where the best image is at f11 (on their 70mm test). Usually the sharpest margins are at 5.6 or 8.

I will do some more tests of the lens at the lower focal lengths on my T2i to compare it to my 15-85, but I suspect there won't be as much difference at the wide end as there is at the tele end. I do at some point need to consider getting a prime or two at the wide end, but if the 24-105 is acceptable at those focal lengths, I guess there is no hurry. May start with the cheapie 50 1.8 before I take the plunge into a 35L or a Zeiss.

I tend to shoot two types of things, landscape/scenery, where I'd like better full frame sharpness than I'm seeing at the tele end, and I also do a lot of flower photography, where the margins are usually not as important. The first day or two I had the new camera, that is what I was shooting mostly around the house and was fairly pleased with the results for flowers, even at the tele end of the range. It wasn't until I did the tests a few days later I realized the problems away from the center. For the time being I've decided to live with the lens, and do some more tests next weekend before deciding if I want to send it to Canon for calibration.


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 4, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> My 5D III & 24-105 are currently with Canon Service Center, Irvine CA. I posted the softness issues last week - some peeps were making joke of the post
> 
> "hey my 5D III doesn't make coffee" etc....
> 
> Anyway, I should have the body & lens back soon - stay tune for update. I think you should give Canon another shot before return it.



Got 5D III & Lens back today...No issues with the body. According to Canon Tech, they calibrated the 24-105 lens. They showed me pictures before & after calibration, It's huge different.

I will take some shots after work, so far so good 

Best of all, it was completely FREE. The front desk people VERY NICE and FRIENDLY


----------



## JR (Apr 4, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > My 5D III & 24-105 are currently with Canon Service Center, Irvine CA. I posted the softness issues last week - some peeps were making joke of the post
> ...



By calibrated they mean micro adjustment i suppose Dylan?


----------



## Tracy Pinto (Apr 4, 2012)

I have the24-105 and suggest you send yours to the mother ship. Mine is very sharp.


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 4, 2012)

JR said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



JR, Stay tune...I emailed Canon and requested for the repair info on my 5D III & 24-105 lens. I'll let you know the detail. Dylan


----------



## Random Orbits (Apr 4, 2012)

JR said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



No, usually they adjust the autofocus circuitry on the lens. I sent a fast prime that was blurry at f/4 and they adusted the lens and it was fine afterwards. If you send the body, they'll check that the lens is "matched" to your body.


----------



## amgc32 (Apr 4, 2012)

post some pics taken with the calibrated 24-105mm. So does all lens need to be calibrated or microadjusted?


----------



## scottkinfw (Apr 5, 2012)

Wait too long and they will stick you with a refurb.

Not good when you pay for new.

sek



Dylan777 said:


> My 5D III & 24-105 are currently with Canon Service Center, Irvine CA. I posted the softness issues last week - some peeps were making joke of the post
> 
> "hey my 5D III doesn't make coffee" etc....
> 
> Anyway, I should have the body & lens back soon - stay tune for update. I think you should give Canon another shot before return it.


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 5, 2012)

JR said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



Hi JR...here is a reply from Canon:

"Although your camera was found to be working properly, the image sensor assembly was cleaned. *Your lens required electrical adjustments in order to perform according to standard Canon specifications.*
Please let us know if we can be of any further assistance with your EOS 5D Mark III and EF 24-105 4L IS USM lens. Thank you for choosing Canon."


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 5, 2012)

scottkinfw said:


> Wait too long and they will stick you with a refurb.
> 
> Not good when you pay for new.
> 
> ...



I didn't buy the kit. I bought the 24-105 used 2years ago. It works fine with my 5d II & 60D, but not with 5D III - kinda soft. After Canon did an "electrical adjustment", pictures are must sharper now


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 5, 2012)

amgc32 said:


> post some pics taken with the calibrated 24-105mm. So does all lens need to be calibrated or microadjusted?



I'm not sure all lens need to be calibrated. Instead of Micro Adjustment - Canon did "eletrical adjustment" on my 24-105...pictures are much sharper now. I will post some pics after work.

my 70-200 f2.8 II IS is sharp before and after 5d III visisted Canon Service Center


----------



## cpsico (Apr 5, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> cpsico said:
> 
> 
> > I never really like the 24-105, to much lens flare not super sharp. It's a good light walk around lens that cost to much
> ...


I don't totally hate the lens, its no where near the image quality of the 24-70 but it's much lighter. My 24-70 can handle lens flare nicely that would make the same image from the 24-105 unusable. ESP at a reception using strobe lights


----------



## JR (Apr 5, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> JR said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



Thanks dylan. This is very interesting since I personally never had to send a lens for calibration. I may send use that service in the future then, seem to be working well!


----------



## dadgummit (Apr 6, 2012)

I just upgraded from a 7D to the 5d3 so I am in the same situation as you. 

I am happy to report that the 24-105 seems just as sharp as my old workhorse the 17-55 f2.8. Very sharp. Better build quality. Cool red ring!!! 

I also have the excellent 70-300L and I would say it is even sharper on the 5d3. I shot a picture of a car 100+ feet away across the street and you can zoom in on the camera's lcd to actually read the temperature rating of the tire (tiny black letters on a black tire)!!!!

Man, I love this camera!!


----------

