 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / 35 mm / December 2006ANNI'S LATEST LENS TESTS !
I just finished looking at full-sized comparisons from my latest lens testing. I did the "brick wall" test shooting the house across the street from my driveway. I shot with the following lenses at the following focal lengths: 24-105 f/4L IS (28mm, 50mm, 70mm, 105mm) 28-135 IS USM (28mm, 50mm, 70mm, 105mm) 70-200 f/2.8L (70mm, 105mm) 50 f/1.8 (50mm) I shot two pics with each lens and focal length, one pic at f/5.6 and one at f/11. The shots taken at f/5.6 were usually the sharpest. Perhaps I should've just shot everything at f/8? I used a tripod, shutter release cable, and mirror lockup for all the shots. RESULTS: The 70-200 f/2.8L was about equal to both the zooms at the 70mm setting. However, at 105mm it was clearly superior to both of them. That makes sense since that lens is designed to have maximum sharpness at the long end of its range. The 28-135 IS was at least the equal of the much more expensive 24-105 f/4L in all cases. In some situations the 28-135 IS actually beat the expensive lens. This matches my earlier testing of these two lenses. Perhaps the 24-105 f/4L that I rented from www.rentglass.com is just a bad sample. I've rented it twice now with the same results. Regardless, I am still unimpressed by this lens. Save your money. The real good news is that in the 50mm tests, the cheapo $80 50mm f/1.8 blew both the zooms away. So my adivce is that if you get the more expensive 24-105 f/4L for Christmas, take it back for the much cheaper 28-135 IS. Use the price difference for either a 50 f/1.8 or save up your money for pet surgeries. > I just finished looking at full-sized comparisons from my latest lens > testing. [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > difference for either a 50 f/1.8 or save up your money for pet > surgeries. Are we just supposed to take your word for it? Where are the images?  SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > Are we just supposed to take your word for it? > Where are the images? You owned both lenses. Where are your tests? >> Are we just supposed to take your word for it? >> Where are the images? > > You owned both lenses. Where are your tests? Note the past tense there... I ownED both. I've never owned both at the same time... SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >> I just finished looking at full-sized comparisons from my latest lens >> testing. > Are we just supposed to take your word for it? > Where are the images? Pfffffst .... ! Who cares? >I just finished looking at full-sized comparisons from my latest lens > testing. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > unimpressed by this lens. > Save your money. Now you've got my curiosity up. I'll have to take my 28-135 IS and 24-105 IS out and compare them. My sense has been that the 24-105 is sharper, but I've never compared them side to side. SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm "Annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message > the sharpest. Perhaps I should've just shot everything at f/8? ... The result of my testing was that f8 is the highest resolution aperture for lenses for 35mm film. Surprisingly, focal length had little effect on the results. Results were +/- 1/2 stop: sometimes f5.6 and f8 tied, sometimes f8 and fll tied. TechPan, tripod, AirForce target at ~50ft, microscope. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters http://www.nolindan.com/da/index.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com sa-nip... OK, one test does not a proper sample make, but the 28-135 is, optically, a very good lens. Mine was not quite the equal of my 24-105, but very close, and did match it in many cases. However, there's more to the story: build quality. I ditched the 28-135 because of the damned dust issue. It's a freakin' hoover when it comes to sucking in dust! Within a week of getting that lens the front element has dozens of dust specs, and after 6 months I had to send it in for cleaning because the dust affected the quality of the image. The 24-105 has no such issue. I'll keep the L. > sa-nip... > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > send it in for cleaning because the dust affected the quality of the > image. The 24-105 has no such issue. I'll keep the L. My 28-135 performed well on my 10D, but the sharpness of my 24-105 stands up extremely well--even under the greater lens scrutiny enabled by the 5D sensor. -Not to mention...a constant f4.The 28-135 would have to be EXTREMELY sharp to keep up with my 24-105...and it was never THAT sharp. But alas...I sold the 28- and can't do a head-to-head. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > My 28-135 performed well on my 10D, but the sharpness of my 24-105 stands up > extremely well--even under the greater lens scrutiny enabled by the 5D > sensor. -Not to mention...a constant f4.The 28-135 would have to be > EXTREMELY sharp to keep up with my 24-105...and it was never THAT sharp. > But alas...I sold the 28- and can't do a head-to-head. You could do like I did and rent or borrow one. And you'd be better equipped to do more proper testing with your 5D. Or better yet, buy me a 5D and I'll test them. I'd be interested in knowing if the 24-105 sample I rented was less than optimum. I'm not saying there was anything wrong with it, however. Just that the 28-135 performed just as well. Only under close inspection of full sized images could the minor differences be seen. And I never thought the 28-135 IS was all that sharp. I remember seeing the first pics from my 70-200 f/2.8L and thinking, "Damn!" You could see the difference right away. >> My 28-135 performed well on my 10D, but the sharpness of my 24-105 >> stands up extremely well--even under the greater lens scrutiny [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > And you'd be better equipped to do more proper testing with your 5D. > Or better yet, buy me a 5D and I'll test them. I have very little motivation to do so, because I've already determined which I prefer...and I already own the superior of the two (based on my experience with both). > I'd be interested in knowing if the 24-105 sample I rented was less > than optimum. Maybe you could post the test of YOUR 24-105. Then I could post similar shots with mine, and you could compare. Only trouble is that you don't have a 5D, and I don't have a 20D. > I'm not saying there was anything wrong with it, however. Just that > the 28-135 performed just as well. Only under close inspection of > full sized images could the minor differences be seen. And I never > thought the 28-135 IS was all that sharp. I remember seeing the > first pics from my 70-200 f/2.8L and thinking, "Damn!" You could see > the difference right away. Ya, that's always been my impression with my 70-200 2.8 too... I've been very impressed with the 24-105 also, though I don't think any zoom can touch the 70-200. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson Bret, I'll take mine out next week and check it out. I have a favorite brick wall, too! ;-) SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm > I just finished looking at full-sized comparisons from my latest lens > testing. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > The shots taken at f/5.6 were usually the sharpest. Perhaps I should've > just shot everything at f/8? Assuming you did this with your 20D, there's no surprises that F5.6 was sharper than F11 - the 20D reaches it's diffraction limit between F8 and F11. I would be curious to see how the lenses would perform wide open. While all lenses will be sharper stopped down than wide open, it's when they are wide open that good and/or bad characteristics really stand out. And lets face it, one of the reasons to get a nice fast lens, is so you can use it wide open - either for limited DOF or to get a faster shutter speed. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the 24-105L shines over the 28-135 when used wide open. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.