From Sony to Canon and not happy.

[Anna]

Hi All,

 

It's been a while since I've been on the forum. I was a devoted Sony user until mine blew a gasket. I've purchased a Canon 5D Mark III which seems un-nervingly complex. So different from the Sony which I could work with my eyes closed. That's not the unhappy bit. I got it with a 24-105mm lens. Everyone seems to rave about Canon and Nikon lenses but this one is the pits! It has vignetting, barrel distortion beyong belief which is lob sided so difficult to fix - also has a slight pincusioning in the middle. The edges of the pictures are soft. I have never had such a rubbish lens! I have had old Minoltas that although may have not been pristinely sharp, didn't have any of the other problems and only cost me about £80.00 and not £800.00. I had a Sony Zeiss 24-70mm for my last camera so what I want to know is what lens can I get for the Canon that's as good. All the reveiws I have read have not helped my decision. I'd have gone for the 24-70 F2.8 but it doesn't have anti shake.

Right now my view of Canon is in the toilet! Is Nikon any better?

 

Thanks

Anna   

[digi2ap]

If the lens has lop-sided distortion then it sounds like it might be de-centred. I'd suggest returning to the supplier if it was bought new recently. 

[Stokie]

Hi All,

 

It's been a while since I've been on the forum. I was a devoted Sony user until mine blew a gasket. I've purchased a Canon 5D Mark III which seems un-nervingly complex. So different from the Sony which I could work with my eyes closed. That's not the unhappy bit. I got it with a 24-105mm lens. Everyone seems to rave about Canon and Nikon lenses but this one is the pits! It has vignetting, barrel distortion beyong belief which is lob sided so difficult to fix - also has a slight pincusioning in the middle. The edges of the pictures are soft. I have never had such a rubbish lens! I have had old Minoltas that although may have not been pristinely sharp, didn't have any of the other problems and only cost me about £80.00 and not £800.00. I had a Sony Zeiss 24-70mm for my last camera so what I want to know is what lens can I get for the Canon that's as good. All the reveiws I have read have not helped my decision. I'd have gone for the 24-70 F2.8 but it doesn't have anti shake.

Right now my view of Canon is in the toilet! Is Nikon any better?

 

Thanks

Anna

Anna,

 

I use this lens for about 90% of my photos (on a Canon 5D Mk II) and I haven't had any problems with the things you mentioned.

 

One problem you will probably get eventually is that the iris will need replacing after quite a bit of use. That's a common problem.

 

As digi2ap mentions above, I would send the lens back as it sounds as if you have bad un!

 

John

[Guest]

Hi All,

 

It's been a while since I've been on the forum. I was a devoted Sony user until mine blew a gasket. I've purchased a Canon 5D Mark III which seems un-nervingly complex. So different from the Sony which I could work with my eyes closed. That's not the unhappy bit. I got it with a 24-105mm lens. Everyone seems to rave about Canon and Nikon lenses but this one is the pits! It has vignetting, barrel distortion beyong belief which is lob sided so difficult to fix - also has a slight pincusioning in the middle. The edges of the pictures are soft. I have never had such a rubbish lens! I have had old Minoltas that although may have not been pristinely sharp, didn't have any of the other problems and only cost me about £80.00 and not £800.00. I had a Sony Zeiss 24-70mm for my last camera so what I want to know is what lens can I get for the Canon that's as good. All the reveiws I have read have not helped my decision. I'd have gone for the 24-70 F2.8 but it doesn't have anti shake.

Right now my view of Canon is in the toilet! Is Nikon any better?

 

Thanks

Anna   

 

The 24-105mm is not Canon's finest moment. It has a strange plane of focus (DavidK did explain somewhere) but in general it's good enough for a lot of stock work but it isn't a great lens. I have a copy which is only used when I need IS.

 

Canon don't make and never have made good wide zooms. It's not news. They excell  in telephotos. Better to use primes or ZE primes.

 

BTW, E5P826 is Greenway Boathouse....spent many an hour on the mudflats just around the corner.

[Paul Mayall]

Canon is known to have issues with most of their zooms especially at the wide end,  in your case it dose seem you have a lemon,  quickly return it to the supplier,  if possible try another 24-105 and see if you get the same result, there could also be a problem with the camera.

 

As Geoff Kidd said Canon excell in telephotos, if you use mostly wide zooms don't mess around and go to Nikon,  at the moment offering better sharper sensors and great wide zoom lenses.

 

Paul.

[Inchiquin]

 

Hi All,

 

It's been a while since I've been on the forum. I was a devoted Sony user until mine blew a gasket. I've purchased a Canon 5D Mark III which seems un-nervingly complex. So different from the Sony which I could work with my eyes closed. That's not the unhappy bit. I got it with a 24-105mm lens. Everyone seems to rave about Canon and Nikon lenses but this one is the pits! It has vignetting, barrel distortion beyong belief which is lob sided so difficult to fix - also has a slight pincusioning in the middle. The edges of the pictures are soft. I have never had such a rubbish lens! I have had old Minoltas that although may have not been pristinely sharp, didn't have any of the other problems and only cost me about £80.00 and not £800.00. I had a Sony Zeiss 24-70mm for my last camera so what I want to know is what lens can I get for the Canon that's as good. All the reveiws I have read have not helped my decision. I'd have gone for the 24-70 F2.8 but it doesn't have anti shake.

Right now my view of Canon is in the toilet! Is Nikon any better?

I use this lens for about 90% of my photos (on a Canon 5D Mk II) and I haven't had any problems with the things you mentioned.

 

Not an attempt at one-upmanship ( ) but I use mine for about 95% of my shots. Yes, it has vignetting, distortion and CA in spades but Lightroom fixes all that with one click. Yes, it's unsharp at the edges but it's razor sharp where it matters - sharper than any other zoom lens I've ever used - and it passes QC, time and time and time again. It's lighter than the 24-70 and the extra focal length means I spend a lot less time swapping lenses. As a general purpose walk-around stock lens I think it's hard to beat. I've had mine for 5 years and its flaws have never, ever stopped me getting good pictures that sail through QC. Recently I bought a Fuji X-T1 thinking that it might be a replacement for the Canon but the picture quality is nowhere near as good and it's going on eBay before long.

 

Alan

[Stokie]

 

 

Hi All,

 

It's been a while since I've been on the forum. I was a devoted Sony user until mine blew a gasket. I've purchased a Canon 5D Mark III which seems un-nervingly complex. So different from the Sony which I could work with my eyes closed. That's not the unhappy bit. I got it with a 24-105mm lens. Everyone seems to rave about Canon and Nikon lenses but this one is the pits! It has vignetting, barrel distortion beyong belief which is lob sided so difficult to fix - also has a slight pincusioning in the middle. The edges of the pictures are soft. I have never had such a rubbish lens! I have had old Minoltas that although may have not been pristinely sharp, didn't have any of the other problems and only cost me about £80.00 and not £800.00. I had a Sony Zeiss 24-70mm for my last camera so what I want to know is what lens can I get for the Canon that's as good. All the reveiws I have read have not helped my decision. I'd have gone for the 24-70 F2.8 but it doesn't have anti shake.

Right now my view of Canon is in the toilet! Is Nikon any better?

I use this lens for about 90% of my photos (on a Canon 5D Mk II) and I haven't had any problems with the things you mentioned.

 

Not an attempt at one-upmanship ( ) but I use mine for about 95% of my shots. Yes, it has vignetting, distortion and CA in spades but Lightroom fixes all that with one click. Yes, it's unsharp at the edges but it's razor sharp where it matters - sharper than any other zoom lens I've ever used - and it passes QC, time and time and time again. It's lighter than the 24-70 and the extra focal length means I spend a lot less time swapping lenses. As a general purpose walk-around stock lens I think it's hard to beat. I've had mine for 5 years and its flaws have never, ever stopped me getting good pictures that sail through QC. Recently I bought a Fuji X-T1 thinking that it might be a replacement for the Canon but the picture quality is nowhere near as good and it's going on eBay before long.

 

Alan

 

 

You've trumped me on percentage usage I'll admit!

 

I'll also agree about the CA. Not noticed vignetting or distortion too much but, as you say, 1 click in Lightroom solves all the problems!

 

John.

[Guest]

This image was shot at 1/4 sec f5 using the lens. No tripods allowed and it's damn dark but IS saved the day. It's not as sharp as if I had used a prime like my TS-Es but it's more than good enough to be on several stock sites.

 

My bugbear is that even with profiles there will be odd bits of CA which need painting out. It's a great holiday/travel lens because of the IS and is a really good portrait/lifestyle lens because it's not that sharp....

 

[Lynn Palmer]

For what it's worth, 95% of my images posted on Alamy have been taken with a 5DM2 with an EF 24-105mm L lens. It may not be perfect but what you're describing sounds like a it needs repairs

[Ed Endicott]

I had the similar experience as you with that lens.  I've owned two copies (and sold both) for the same reasons you state.  With relation to Canon, if the lens isn't f/2.8 or faster, I generally won't buy it.  Walking around downtown Denver in the mid morning, I've found the lens is too slow mostly because of the long shadows between buildings....that's not an issue I've had with faster glass like the 24-70.

 

The only "slow" Canon lens I own is a 100-400L and I'm equally disappointed with its performance.

 

I don't know anything about Nikon.

[dustydingo]

Ha! If I had one of these lenses (and a body to suit) I'd use it for 96% of my shots!

 

dd

[TABan]

I've used two 24-105Ls over the years on all three 5D iterations. The barrel distortion at 24mm is normal as is the light falloff in the corners. But both were quite sharp in the center even wide open, but both softened up a bit in the corners. The new 18-55 IS STM IS lens on a crop body is sharper in the corners at f8 than the 24-105 is on full frame. This really isn't that surprising as it's a much newer design and it doesn't have to cover as big a frame. Of course, it's not nearly as robust as the 24-105.

 

For most stock work, full-frame is overkill and yes, the 5DIII is very complex and it ties up a lot of money needlessly, in my opinion. Better to go with a simpler and less expensive sub-frame camera if stock is all you do. I dumped my 5DIII for a 70D. It's less complex, especially the autofocus settings and it produces perfectly fine images for stock and really, almost anything else. And, the dual pixel live view autofocus with touch shutter is really useful. If I need full frame, I can rent one. I'd have considered switching brands, but I wanted to be able to use my 100mm IS L macro and my existing speedlights on a new camera. It still doesn't have quite the dynamic range of Sony sensored cameras, but there's no shadow banding and raising the shadows a couple of stops if needed isn't an issue.

[Inchiquin]

Ha! If I had one of these lenses (and a body to suit) I'd use it for 96% of my shots!

 

 

You've just got to make everyone else feel inadequate, haven't you?

 

Alan

[Stokie]

I'm upping my use to 97% as we speak  

 

John.

[Inchiquin]

I'm upping my use to 97% as we speak  

 

 

I used to dream of living in a corridor...

 

Alan

[Bryan]

Well I've jumped from Canon to Sony, and I've yet to find a Sony lens the match of my 24-105 on a 5DII. 

 

It's all been said above, the known distortion and CA can be fixed in Canon's free DPP software or Lightroom or whatever, while a good copy is wonderfully sharp in the centre and more than adequate in the corners. Unfortunately Canon's quality control is sometimes not as good as it should be (probably applies to all marques in this price range), I had a Canon 24-70 f2.8 that was as awful as my 24-105 is good.

 

Send it back.

 

p.s. when shooting with Canon used it for 83.72% of my shots. 

[Bill Brooks]

Had the Canon 24-105 f4L was displeased and realized that Canon's sample 24-105 f4L images had the same problems. Traded it for a 24-70 2.8L. It was not much better.

 

Went to Zeiss primes for focal lengths below 100mm.

 

However the 24-105 f4L cannot be beat as a walk around lens. I like punishment, so am considering a second 24-105 f4L. Maybe I will downsize or crop images from that lens, if I buy it.

[Guest]

I'm upping my use to 97% as we speak  

 

John.

 

Interesting....

 

Just looked up LR and I've got 4039 files from the 24-105mm so 4.79% of current catalog (probably equates to less than 2% for all work done). Still, it has it's moments!!

[marc]

I have the Sony 24-70.  It's the best lens zoom I have ever had, and is better than several of my fixed lenses. Anything other than the top of the range CaNikon lenses are not going to match it. 

[Linda]

I had the Canon 24-105mm L and the Nikon 24-105mm. I found a lot of distortion on both. Ok for stock but not good for people photos. Too much distortion and I sold them off.I had them several times actually.

 

Which Sony camera broke?

 

L

[dustydingo]

 

I'm upping my use to 97% as we speak  

 

 

I used to dream of living in a corridor...

 

Alan

 

 

You've just got to make everyone else feel adequate, haven't you?

 

dd

[Betty LaRue]

I have a Nikon D800, and absolutely love and use my 24-70. Very sharp. The two are made for each other.

[Anna]

Thanks for all your replies - really helpful. It was the A850 that broke. Off to London Camera Exchange to give my lens back !

[Joe Gaul]

If you shoot raw then the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 could be an alternative, especially if combined with the Canon 70-200 f4 or f2.8. All are available with IS. The Tamron does show some vignetting, similar both Canon and Nikon alternatives, and a little distortion with slightly slower autofocus at around half the price. Again testing may be necessary to find a good copy, although it really should not be at these prices.

[Paulstw]

When I read this I shouted YES!, someone with the same issues as me. I haven't rated my 24-105 & 5D3 combo since I got it. Distortion at 24mm is utterly crazy and trying to fix it is a joke. It's well seen the lens is now going for as low as £350 now. Coupled with the fact that I don't see why the 5D3 is so expensive, I'm left scratching my head. You live and learn.