EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM compared to non-L primes.

[FrankieTDouglas]

Primes are a very different animal. I have gotten to like them a lot because I put more thought into my pictures and fast apertures such as f/1.4 are simply addictive. My 30 mm f/1.4 Sigma is constantly on my camera these days. And yes, this is also a superb lens.

Although putting more thought into your images doesn't mean fast aperture.

I can spend days, weeks, months plotting a photo. Lots of set creation on the day of the shoot. And, I'm usually shooting f/8 or f/11 on my 24-105L. Haven't found a reason why I'd need to swap it out.

 

[OreoCookie]

Although putting more thought into your images doesn't mean fast aperture.

No, of course not. But fast apertures are usually another differentiator between most zooms and most primes (which was what I wanted to say): there are very few fast zooms that are faster than f/2.8 (from the top of my head, I can only think of Olympus' 14-35 mm and 35-100 mm, but there may be a few others) while there are plenty of primes with apertures of f/2 and faster.

There are situations where you don't need a fast aperture, but if you are into available light, for instance, you can really make use of the faster aperture -- it all depends on what you want to do.

That's why you will have a hard time comparing a walkaround zoom (which is arguably an excellent lens) to a fast prime. The question to me is not `L vs. non-L lens,' but what kind of pictures the OP plans to take?

I can spend days, weeks, months plotting a photo. Lots of set creation on the day of the shoot. And, I'm usually shooting f/8 or f/11 on my 24-105L. Haven't found a reason why I'd need to swap it out.

I totally agree with you here, that's why I've posted

If you're using a full frame camera and you would like to have a walk-around lens, the 24-105 is indeed a very good choice.

in my first reply to this thread.

@Chris7
What do you intend to do with your next lens? Would you like a walkaround lens? Do you own a crop body or a full frame body?

 

[Edge100]

And, I'm usually shooting f/8 or f/11 on my 24-105L. Haven't found a reason why I'd need to swap it out.

At f/8 or f/11, there is no need to go with anything other than the 24-105; most lenses are sharp when stopped down by 2-3 stops. If this is the primary goal, then I'd say that the 24-105 is more than enough, provided the focal lengths are suitable.

 

[scottkifnw]

Thank you!

Can't wait to go- bringing my son, and I promise to help your economy.

The lens I was referring to is similar to yours, so I will take it under advisement.

sek.

As an Alaskan I suggest the fastest lens you can afford. Weather resistance is nice, but the main point to my post isthat your targets move fast, and lighting in not always great... These were both shot with nikor 55-200 f 4-5.6... Wish I had had a little more reach, and a bit faster lens to get a bit better IQ...
Enjoy your trip, and bring your friends, we need a good tourist season

 

[Chris7]

Many thanks to those who posted.

Some of my wedding pictures have color that it is so vivid that my breathing changes when I look at them. The primary photographer who color balanced them is known to be a “naturalist,” so the images are not just boosted in Lightroom. The flesh tones are natural. I'm even a little pale, though those with tans look like they have tans.

Both photographers were shooting with several L-series zooms.

1. I see that the EF 85mm f/1.8 USM prime delivers the sharpness of the 24-105L, but will it give that knock-you-out, Vivid color?

2. My other question is, how is this “vividness” measured? The EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM (here) I’ve used was tested to have only “relatively minor” chromatic aberrations in this review; but CA’s or not, this lens’ color is pretty dull.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Some of you wanted more detail of my situation. I hadn’t wanted to bore you with details of the “why’s” of my questions, but read on if you’re interested:

Using a friend’s Rebel XT and EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM. I own an EF 28mm f/1.8 USM, which I bought for low light work (I can use a shutter of 1/50 handheld). Recently I’ve been shooting mostly un-posed portraits of people moving slightly. I have read elsewhere that most photographers want wider than the 45mm equivalent that the 28mm provides, but I have seldom found myself wanting to go wider

I was originally asking about the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM to use primarily as another low light prime, but I realized I simply cannot control a DOF of 3-4 inches that I would get from f/1.4 (3 ft. field of view), and probably not even f/2 (6 inches) with a moving subject. And, at high ISO, I can’t just shoot wide and crop in post (to gain DOF) because this effectively increases the noise at image level.

So I am currently still toying with the idea of buying the 85mm, as this is cheaper and lighter than the 24-105L, and use it on a tripod in low light and as a leave on lens in general, and maybe buy my friend’s cheap 28-105 for fun and practice if he moves up to the 24-105L. Or I’ll just save for the 24-105L, which is what I really want.

 

[OreoCookie]

Some of my wedding pictures have color that it is so vivid that my breathing changes when I look at them. The primary photographer who color balanced them is known to be a “naturalist,” so the images are not just boosted in Lightroom. The flesh tones are natural. I'm even a little pale, though those with tans look like they have tans.

Both photographers were shooting with several L-series zooms.

… and thus you're believing that the colors are due to the lens?

By far, the most important factor in getting the colors right is the light at the scene. If you mix ambient light with flash, the flash should have the same temperature as the ambient light, for instance. Otherwise no lens or photoshop trick in the world is going to help you. Getting the light right is the first step.

Second factor: the photo needs to be properly exposed. Properly here means that it is exposed the way you want it to.

There are many other factors beyond the lens:
(1) The RAW conversion: no matter if this is done in-camera or with a tool of choice, this will have a significant impact as well.
(2) Image manipulation via Aperture/Lightroom/Photoshop/Pixelmator/whatever.
(3) ISO: the lower the ISO, the larger the dynamics (roughly speaking). If you shoot at higher ISO, your images will be flatter.

As you can see, there are quite a few other factors beyond the lens. It is true that the lens enters the game as every lens has a unique color characteristic (some colors are absorbed more strongly than others). Also if the lens has more contrast, the photo may have more pop.

I would definitely warn you against concluding that L = more vivid/more natural/whatever, you will most likely be disappointed.

Second of all, the terms `natural' and `vivid' are on opposing ends of the spectrum: more vivid colors means increased saturation of colors. Hence `less natural.'

1. I see that the EF 85mm f/1.8 USM prime delivers the sharpness of the 24-105L, but will it give that knock-you-out, Vivid color?

See above.

2. My other question is, how is this “vividness” measured? The EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM (here) I’ve used was tested to have only “relatively minor” chromatic aberrations in this review; but CA’s or not, this lens’ color is pretty dull.

It's just not a very good lens. According to the review by photozone, the lens performs poorly in low-contrast situations. More likely than not, you'll benefit from upgrading to a more suitable lens, e. g. Tamron's 17-50 mm f/2.8 or Canon's 17-55 mm f/2.8. Both have very good optics and if it weren't for Canon's marketing, optically, it could be an L-grade lens (Canon's L lenses `have to be' full frame lenses).

I was originally asking about the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM to use primarily as another low light prime, but I realized I simply cannot control a DOF of 3-4 inches that I would get from f/1.4 (3 ft. field of view), and probably not even f/2 (6 inches) with a moving subject. And, at high ISO, I can’t just shoot wide and crop in post (to gain DOF) because this effectively increases the noise at image level.

Then practice. If you are into portraits, being able to separate your subject from the background is an absolutely essential skill that takes practice to master. 50 mm on crop sensors is a nice focal length for portraits.

85 mm is already a very different story, it condenses everything much more and I have a hard time to do indoor portraits with that focal length (I don't do studio stuff).

 

[Chris7]

"Better" color with the 24-105L or these non-L primes?

Does the 24-105L have “better” color than the Canon 50mm 1.4 or the 85mm 1.8?

Second of all, the terms `natural' and `vivid' are on opposing ends of the spectrum: more vivid colors means increased saturation of colors. Hence `less natural.'

By "vivid" I did not mean "saturated," but I did not know what other word to use. What is the word that is used to mean “high color capabilities” or something to that extent? Just saying “low chromatic aberrations” does not appear to cover what I’m trying to ask about.

I have used all three lenses in real life and don't see dramatic sharpness differences (shooting weddings mainly, I haven't looked at the MTF charts). The 85 does not like to auto-focus in dim light. It is noticeably harder than the other two lenses to get it to lock onto a target. Maybe it was just the copy I used, but it stood out in my mind.

I just talked to the primary photographer who shot my wedding, and she said both the 50mm 1.4 and the 85mm 1.8 focus much more slowly than her 70-200 2.8L IS USM or her 30-70 2.8L. She said she only uses these primes when there is little light and needs the faster aperture. (She also said whatever differences in color between these primes and her zooms did not stand out to her, but did not generally use them in daylight). I thought these lenses were said to focus pretty fast, so I'm not sure if it's due to the light or what. (Also talked to a photographer who had used the 85 1.8 to shoot sports on a crop sensor body, so how slow could it be?)

Wondering if anyone else has this experience with slower focus on these primes?

… and thus you're believing that the colors are due to the lens?
…Getting the light right is the first step.
…the photo needs to be properly exposed. Properly here means that it is exposed the way you want it to…
There are many other factors beyond the lens…

Thanks for your help here and on other threads. I see there are many confounds when trying to compare the color capabilities of two more lenses without a controlled side by side test. (Or by asking someone to tell about their experience with them.)

EDIT: I see now how my last two sentences may be given to misinterpretation. I meant that, while I agree there are problems with assuming that the good color in a picture is due to the lens only, either a controlled side by side test or simply asking someone who has experiences with both lenses is sufficient to find out how the color capabilities of the lenses compare.

 

[toxic]

what you think is better color is likely contrast.

I've seen comparisons that suggest the 24-105 has slightly warmer colors than the 17-55 - whether that's "better" depends on who you ask - Zeiss and Leica colors can be pretty muted. I don't know how they compare to the primes. in any case, the 85 is not lacking in any way.

I think your photographer doesn't think the 85 focuses quickly because either she has a bum copy or she only uses it in low light. the 85/1.8 and 100/2 are barely slower than the fastest-focusing lenses, which are the 135/2 and 200/2.8, and probably the supertele primes

the 50/1.4 has a micromotor drive and is not rear-focusing. its AF is noticeably slower. whether it's slow overall depends on who uses it.

the 24-105 focuses quickly, but not that quickly. it's outdone by the 17-55 and 24-70, not to mention the 70-200's.

 

[Chris7]

Very helpful, toxic. Thanks.

 

[OreoCookie]

Does the 24-105L have “better” color than the Canon 50mm 1.4 or the 85mm 1.8?

Again, no.

By "vivid" I did not mean "saturated," but I did not know what other word to use. What is the word that is used to mean “high color capabilities” or something to that extent?

There is no such thing.
The two main factors (as explained before) are contrast (which in turn is connected to `sharpness') and to a much, much lesser degree the color characteristics, i. e. which colors are absorbed more strongly. In the film days, the latter was important. With dslrs you can forget about it.

The zoom you're interested in doesn't have `better color capabilities' than the primes. Forget about the red L in the name, L ≠ magic.

Just saying “low chromatic aberrations” does not appear to cover what I’m trying to ask about.

Chromatic aberrations have nothing to do with what you have in mind.

Wondering if anyone else has this experience with slower focus on these primes?

This crucially depends on the lenses you're comparing. In low light situations, primes will focus faster while slow zooms may not focus at all. f/4 is a lot slower than f/1.4, for instance. The lenses your photographer is using are not the one you're actually interested in.

Thanks for your help here and on other threads. I see there are many confounds when trying to compare the color capabilities of two more lenses without a controlled side by side test. (Or by asking someone to tell about their experience with them.)

You don't really need a side-by-side test to answer the questions you're interested in.

 

[funkboy]

There are other reasons for choosing any of these besides sharpness/resolution.

I own all three (or have owned; I traded the 50mm f/1.4 for the f/1.8 version).

If budget is not an issue (which it doesn't seem to be since you're considering the 24-105L), then personally I'd get all of them. (I did...)

My usual suggestion to people looking for portrait/low-light primes is get the 50mm f/1.8 AND the 85mm f/1.8.

The little 50 is very light, cheap, and is what I use when I'm at a party or club or something & have a non-zero risk of beer precipitation, or climbing so I want my camera to be as light as possible & not care if it gets banged up a bit, or in any other low-light situation where there's a chance of physical damage (not weather damage or dust of course). Often this means it's mounted on my girlfriend's lightweight 350D (which has Camera Armor), so I really have no qualms about taking it pretty much anywhere (cost to replace = cheaper than my Pana LX3).

In the automotive world we refer to this as a "beater car".

IMHO the 85 f/1.8 is Canon's best lens in terms of bang for the buck. L-grade resolution and AF at a very non-L price. I've posted here a gazillion times about it, so it won't repeat myself...

I look at the 24-105L as having 24, 28, 35, 50, 70, 85, & 105mm primes in one relatively convenient stabilized package. Not all my zoom lenses feel this way, but this one does. But the real primes are far better for portraits as this guy just won't blur the background enough, and shutter speeds are too slow for capturing anything that's even slightly moving in most indoor lighting unless you've got a camera that looks good above ISO3200.

That said, if you can handle the cost, size, & weight, it's one of Canon's best (see photozone's reviews). It's awesome on full-frame and works very nicely on a crop camera as well if you own one of the APS-C specific ultrawide zooms like my Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 or the Canon 10-22.

 

[funkboy]

1. I see that the EF 85mm f/1.8 USM prime delivers the sharpness of the 24-105L, but will it give that knock-you-out, Vivid color?

If you're asking this kind of question, then you need to learn more about color & how it relates to making photographic images.

In a nutshell:

- Do not forget that the word "photography" means "light drawing". Try to get the scene lighting as close as possible to the way you envision the finished product before you start shooting. This could mean setting up flashes (spend a while reading the Strobist and get a flash, an off-camera cord, & a reflector (or make one)), or it could mean checking weather forecasts & waiting until "sunset light" starts in the late afternoon...

- Once you've taken your shots (in RAW), process them in something that uses tone curves (Lightroom, Camera RAW, Lightzone, Aperture, etc). In Lightroom & Camera RAW (probably others as well; I use Lightroom), you can select a color profile for your image from any of a few Adobe profiles, Canon's "picture style" profiles, or even (the best way) make your own profile for the specific light in which you're shooting using DNG profile editor and a ColorChecker.

Bruce Fraser's RWCM is pretty much the definitive book on color management, and going from camera to print without understanding at least the fundamental concepts in it is pretty much a guessing game.

It's true that the output from Canon, Nikon, Zeiss, Leica, etc lenses have a certain "look" to them (especially when the optical rendering characteristics of a brand's lenses are combined with the default profile of their image processing software) but it's really a subtle thing for the most part and is usually a matter of personal preference more than anything else. Once you learn how to use RAW tone curves & camera profiles, you can really make an image look just about any way you want it to (within reasonable limits of course).

Personally I use the standard Adobe camera profile in Lightroom most of the time. I find it's got a good balance between "neutrality" and the ability to add "pop" where you need it without overdoing it. I shoot with two Canons & a Panasonic and it gives fairly consistent color across all three of them without having to fiddle with anything. That said, sometimes one of the Canon profiles can be more useful for a specific look I'm trying to get (though they're usually not very good for portraits), and I've played around with the profile editor occasionally to compensate for situations with horrible artificial lighting.