Disappointing L lenses

[JSH]

Hello Im new to the forum, so apologies for asking questions so soon.

I have a Canon 7D and upgraded the 17-85 kit lens for a 24-105 L, and Im very disappointed with the results colour fringing is very noticable and over all image quality is no better if not as good as the kit lens. I also invested in a Sandisk 32 Gb Extreme III CF card only to get an Error message when I insert it to the camera. Could someone confirm this lens and card compatible with this camera?

Best wishes John

[dlambert]

Wow - that's surprising. If you've still got the 17-85 lens, it might be helpful to shoot a side-by-side comparison (if you haven't done that already) and post a crop showing the fringing.

There's no compatibility problem -- L lenses should be fine on any EOS-mount Canon, and they should be a great choice for the 7D.

I don't have any wisdom on the card, other than to format it in the camera if possible. This is always preferable to a format in a card reader-etc. It's also good to format it in-camera before each use. I had a 30D that wouldn't recognize deleted space on a card until I'd format it in the camera, so I got in the habit of checking the card for photos, and if empty, formatting it.

[inkista]

Yup, the 24-105 can be disappointing for some. There is indeed C/A and distortion at the 24mm end of the lens, but it should be better controlled than your description would suggest. I'd say try swapping copies and seeing if that helps, or possibly trying out the EF-S 15-85 that replaced the 17-85 and fixed its C/A distortion issues at the wide end. I love my 24-105 to pieces, but I'm using it on a 5Dii, where its character is substantially different; and the 15-85 is probably the closest analog to being on a crop what the 24-105 is on full-frame.

Remember, the 24-105 was designed for film; not for digital. The EF-S lenses were all designed for crop.

I have a friend who got a 17-85 IS the same time I got my 24-105L. He never liked my lens as much as he liked his and had difficulty focusing it. Ls often raise unreasonable expectations of perfection in folks who've never used one. A lens is still just a lens, and Ls are no exception. And the 17-85 was a better lens than most people gave it credit for being.

To me, the good USM gold-ringed lenses are generally as sharp as the Ls. Where the Ls tend to win out is in contrast/color and lateral CA control (the two-different colors on either side type of CA).

Color fringing, otoh, is more an issue of shooting something backlit and blown and possibly the microlenses on the sensor as well as the lens itself exhibiting longitudinal CA. Much harder to fix. Try stopping down and avoid backlit subjects and blown highlights is pretty much all you can do with any lens. I have Zeiss lenses that do the "bokeh CA."

Still glass. Not magic air.

[JSH]

Many thanks for the helpfull comments and advice Dlambert & Inkista, , I will post some examples of the fringing when I return from hols.

Maybe my expectations are too high from the L series.

Once again many thanks John

[OsmosisStudios]

L lenses != magic.

Not trying to be an ass, merely stating.

[inkista]

Originally Posted by JSH

...Maybe my expectations are too high from the L series.

Don't sweat it. Everyone's are, especially for their first L lens. Just keep in mind that the 24-105 if the L version of a kit lens. It's the kit lens for the 5D. It's a 4x zoom, and it's not particularly fast. It's made to be more of a compact travel/walkaround lens.

Just because you're paying three times as much doesn't mean you get a lens that's three times better. For the most part, the IQ improvements may be marginal. What you generally get is a faster, hardier lens with more usability features. It's pretty much the same as going up the tiers with bodies: image quality may not be the main reason to move up, so much as something like max. aperture, weather-sealing, IS, or USM.

Everyone gets hit hard with buyer's remorse after their first L. Live with the 24-105 for a little while longer. See if you still like it. If you don't, then return it.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by inkista

Don't sweat it. Everyone's are, especially for their first L lens. Just keep in mind that the 24-105 if the L version of a kit lens. It's the kit lens for the 5D. It's a 4x zoom, and it's not particularly fast. It's made to be more of a compact travel/walkaround lens.

Just because you're paying three times as much doesn't mean you get a lens that's three times better. For the most part, the IQ improvements may be marginal. What you generally get is a faster, hardier lens with more usability features. It's pretty much the same as going up the tiers with bodies: image quality may not be the main reason to move up, so much as something like max. aperture, weather-sealing, IS, or USM.

Everyone gets hit hard with buyer's remorse after their first L. Live with the 24-105 for a little while longer. See if you still like it. If you don't, then return it.

Do you think I would have been wiser to get the 24-70 L F2.8 for the 7D, I considering this but went with the 24-105 as it had imagine stabilization.

Regards John

[inkista]

Originally Posted by JSH

Do you think I would have been wiser to get the 24-70 L F2.8 for the 7D, I considering this but went with the 24-105 as it had imagine stabilization.

Yeah, it's a hard decision to make. It's essentially f/2.8 and slightly better optics vs. IS, a larger range, and smaller size/weight. In my mind, the 24-70/2.8L is a better special-purpose lens, the 24-105/4L is a better general-purpose one.

What did you want to use the lens FOR is pretty much going to decide which way you go. As a general walkaround or travel lens, I think the 24-105 is better. As an available light or portrait lens, the 24-70 kicks the 24-105's butt.

And neither are particularly wide on a crop. If you want wide angle capability, too, then the EF-S 15-85 IS USM might be worth looking at.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by inkista

Yeah, it's a hard decision to make. It's essentially f/2.8 and slightly better optics vs. IS, a larger range, and smaller size/weight. In my mind, the 24-70/2.8L is a better special-purpose lens, the 24-105/4L is a better general-purpose one.

What did you want to use the lens FOR is pretty much going to decide which way you go. As a general walkaround or travel lens, I think the 24-105 is better. As an available light or portrait lens, the 24-70 kicks the 24-105's butt.

And neither are particularly wide on a crop. If you want wide angle capability, too, then the EF-S 15-85 IS USM might be worth looking at.

Thanks Inkista

I generally use it as a travel set up ,With a strong trend towards transport, trains, ships etc, As Im on holiday at present I've reverted back to the 17-85 kit lens. If Im happy with these pictures I will probably Ebay the L lens.

Regarding the memory card issue I have discovered that the 7 D only supports up to 32Gb cards, so a visit to the retailer that recommended the 64 Gb card is called for

Once again Thank you for you insight

Best wishes John

[ishootRAW]

One last thing. Tamron makes a 17-50 2.8. Which according to some is even sharper then the canon 17-55. Not sure how much of any upgrade for you that would be.(I have the 17-85 IS and it is indeed a great lens) As I have not actually set hands on them both.