Why I love the 24-105

[M_Six]

This pic is comprised of three sections each shot in a 5-shot HDR spread (-2, -1, 0, +1, +2). The first section is the base of the building and some of the tower. The second section is the center of the tower with a healthy overlap of the first. The last section is the top of the spire, again with a healthy overlap. Each section was HDR processed and geometrically corrected prior to merging.

The result is a ~30MP image, resized here to 1024px tall. Below is a 600px square 100% crop from the full resolution image. The new 24-105 has its work cut out for it if it's going to prod me into buying it. That said, I can't believe Canon would go through the trouble of launching an updated lens unless it was worth it. We'll see.

[apexlocator]

I think the new 24-105 f4 main draw is its couple stops improved IS, not necessarily big glass improvements.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by apexlocator

I think the new 24-105 f4 main draw is its couple stops improved IS, not necessarily big glass improvements.

When they come out with the Series II, I'll be all over it. I love my Series I, but two more stops of IS is huge, particularly shooting street at night.

[GoHokiesGo]

I'll caveat my whole response by first saying that my 24-105 is my most used lens. It's the most versatile lens out there covering a broad, useful focal range.

However - it is definitely one of the weaker lenses in my line-up in regards to sharpness, vignetting and light fall-off, and particularly corner sharpness. I'm not sure that this is the best example of why a lens is good - you merged multiple photos at multiple exposures, which would cover-up the flaws of nearly any lens you used to blend and HDR. My 16-35/4L is incredibly sharper at the wide end, and my 70-200/4L is better at the telephoto end.

But..... I still find my 24-105 attached to my camera the majority of the time because the convenience it offers far outweighs switching lenses so often, and it's constantly a love-hate relationship with me. I'll be curious to see how the new Mark II version performs and what improvements are made. I'll be watching the reviews and would definitely be interested if the IS, sharpness or vignetting are improved on it.

[M_Six]

I used this example because I find the 24-105 very easy to correct for distortion. I've used it many times to patch together "panos" of buildings where the initial distortion was very noticeable. My 16-35 F4 is also tack sharp, but I don't find the distortion to be as easily correctable.

Couple that ability to correct with the usefulness of the focal range and you have what is, IMHO, the best walk-around lens out there.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by GoHokiesGo

I'll caveat my whole response by first saying that my 24-105 is my most used lens. It's the most versatile lens out there covering a broad, useful focal range.

However - it is definitely one of the weaker lenses in my line-up in regards to sharpness, vignetting and light fall-off, and particularly corner sharpness. I'm not sure that this is the best example of why a lens is good - you merged multiple photos at multiple exposures, which would cover-up the flaws of nearly any lens you used to blend and HDR. My 16-35/4L is incredibly sharper at the wide end, and my 70-200/4L is better at the telephoto end.

But..... I still find my 24-105 attached to my camera the majority of the time because the convenience it offers far outweighs switching lenses so often, and it's constantly a love-hate relationship with me. I'll be curious to see how the new Mark II version performs and what improvements are made. I'll be watching the reviews and would definitely be interested if the IS, sharpness or vignetting are improved on it.

Jason, are you using some form of Digital Lens Optimization in your Raw conversion? I find that it does wonders for mine. I actually had permission from Canon to send it in for checking, back when it was new, then I started using DxO's DLO and I decided to keep it as is.

Still, I can't wait for a Series II.

[M_Six]

I've shot loads of images in low light with the 24-105, so the extra stops of IS in the new lens will be a huge benefit for sure. It's especially important when shooting a wide spread HDR shot in low light because the brighter images can be 1/8s or slower.

[GoHokiesGo]

I use the lens corrections built into Lightroom for the lens, and it does correct really well. The DLO corrections do a great job for it and look normal after correction; however, I always prefer the raw file to be cleaner from the start so that you don't need to do as much editing.

I reread my post and maybe it came across a bit too critical - sorry! The 24-105 is that one lens that I can never find myself parting with, despite all its flaws, because it's just so dang useful as a walk-around. The recent Mark II Canon lenses have been pretty awesome though, so I'm looking forward to see the improvements made with the new version.

[M_Six]

Originally Posted by GoHokiesGo

I use the lens corrections built into Lightroom for the lens, and it does correct really well. The DLO corrections do a great job for it and look normal after correction; however, I always prefer the raw file to be cleaner from the start so that you don't need to do as much editing.

I reread my post and maybe it came across a bit too critical - sorry! The 24-105 is that one lens that I can never find myself parting with, despite all its flaws, because it's just so dang useful as a walk-around. The recent Mark II Canon lenses have been pretty awesome though, so I'm looking forward to see the improvements made with the new version.

I have a 24mm TS-E and a pano rig, so I could get much better geometry in the RAW shot if I wanted to. But the series of shots for the church took me maybe 20 seconds to grab. It would have taken me that long just to get my tripod open if I were to go hardcore and use the TS-E and pano rig. The end results are so close that it just doesn't justify the extra time for me. Plus my pano above was shot at 47mm. There would have been a difference in resolution if I had used the 24mm TS-E. Would not have needed to merge any images as the entire scene and then some would have been in one frame. LOL

Here's another pano shot with the 24-105 in portrait mode. Handheld. This is 9 shots across and each frame is a 5-shot HDR.


Conwy Castle, Wales by Mark Johnson, on Flickr

[Diver]

It's a great lens. Nikon's offering, the 24-120, which I use a lot, has a bit more reach but is soft wide open around 85mm.