Help with a lens test!!

[the_milkman]

Hi All

I was wondering if someone could give me some advice on a lens test I did a few weeks ago.

I have a Canon 50D and a 18-135mm lens (One of Canons newest lenses) I wanted to buy the Canon 24-105mm L lens - because of the expensive price - I rented the lens to test before making my mind up.

I was amazed to see the results were close.. Could this be right or was am i missing something?? I am a noob so I may not be testing correctly due to my lack of knowledge. I took shots with one lens the took the exact same shots straight afterwards to compare the pictures.

I think that both colour and sharpness are good. The only thing that I did not do was to change the F-stop on the L lens.. It stayed at F-4 and I used the lowest equivalent on the other lens,

I would be greatful for any help of advice.

Many thanks in advance

Ernie

Here are the pics!!

18-135mm



24-105mm L



18-135mm



24-105mm L

[the_milkman]

18-135mm



24-105mm L



18-135mm



24-105mm L

[the_milkman]

24-105mm L



18-135mm

[the_milkman]

This is the location of the actual images - this has all the EXIF data attatched!!

Thanks

Digital-Photography-School - ernies' Photos

[sk66]

Originally Posted by the_milkman

Could this be right or was am i missing something??

Yes, it could be right. Funny, but in many instances (most) I prefered the pics from the non-L lens.

I would not consider it correct empirical testing, but sufficient to decide whether it's worth purchasing the lens to you.

[the_milkman]

Thanks sk66...

Glad to know that there is someone else out there who thinks that way too!!

[OsmosisStudios]

At these sizes of course youre not going to see MASSIVE differences, but they're there. the 24-70 has better micro-contrast which is generally what makes things "pop".

The other differences are useability: yes the 18-135 has a longer range, btu the f/2.8 constant aperture of the 24-70 makes it much more versatile.

Without full-size crops to judge, it's hard to get a good handle on the actual quality of the lens.

[the_milkman]

Thanks Osmosis..

I suppose it makes sense... The better the quality at 100% the better the picture will be when reduced in size to fit the appropriate media.

When I saw the results my initial thoughts were "why spend lots of money on an expensive lens when my current lens produces the same results!!"

Amature mistake.. thanks for the info!!

Ernie

[smc1377]

You probably should have tested at different apertures as well. When you read lens reviews, you find that chromatic abberations and vignetting vary depending on aperture as well as blurriness at the edges.

[inkista]

I've said it before, I'll say it again. A lot of the gold-ringed USM lenses (and EF-S lenses) can actually rival the Ls in sharpness. But sharpness isn't everything. It's clear to me even at web sizes that the top image of each pair was taken with the L. The color alone tells me that. But for many shooters, the difference is very subtle and not worth the money. And you're certainly not going to get three times the sharpness just because it's three times the price.

Add on top of that that the 24-105 is not one of the best Ls out there. Its large zoom range has compromised it compared to other Ls. There's barrel distortion. There's CA. And corner performance is weaker than most folks want in a $1200 L lens. It actually looks better on a crop body than on a full-frame, even though it's designed for full frame.

I love the hell out of mine. But that doesn't mean I don't know its weaknesses.