Canon 24-105L v prime lenses test review shootout

[Ashley_Karyl]

Just about everything I need to do in 35mm can be achieved within a relatively short focal range and for years I worked exclusively with my prime lenses from the 28mm F2.8 to the 100mm Macro. More recently I purchased a 24-105L and have been generally impressed by the performance, so I decided to test it side by side against the primes to see how they compare.

The first two parts with the 28mm F2.8 and the 35mm F2.0 can be seen at the following urls and I shall add some more when the other lens tests have been prepared. Any thoughts or comments are welcome.

Canon 24-105L v Prime lenses test review shootout at 28mm | Nude Photo Pro

Canon 24-105L v prime lenses test review shootout at 35mm | Nude Photo Pro

[Martin_Doudoroff]

I think your methodology and conclusions are pretty reasonable, as far as they go. Most importantly, you don't overreach on your conclusions. Well done. I certainly agree that “L” doesn’t magically confer (or it’s absence, deny).

If money were no object and you were seeking the “best performance” in these tests you could find, I would make the following predictions:
- you would probably find the current EF 24mm ƒ1.4L II easily beats the 24-105L at 24mm at comparable apertures (and is probably the best 24mm option for Canon right now)
- you would probably find the current EF 35mm ƒ1.4L is slightly better than the 24-105L at 35mm at comparable apertures, but maybe not enough to outweigh the value of the 24-105L
- you would probably find the Zeiss ZE 35mm ƒ2 Distagon trounces any Canon offering at that focal length at comparable apertures

[Ashley_Karyl]

Those all seem like fairly reasonable assumptions and I wouldn't have huge difficulty accepting those likely outcomes if I saw the comparison tests. From what I have seen so far of the 24-105L, its comparatively weak points are at the 24mm end and then again at 105mm. It's pretty decent from about 28mm and a very worthy performer from 35mm to around 90mm.

Luckily for me 35-90 happens to cover the range that I mainly shoot at rather nicely, so I now find myself in a position of simply wanting to run some tests to see its weak and strong points just to get an idea of its true capabilities, so I'll know when I can relax and shoot with the zoom or if I really ought to reach for the prime.

[DougAxford]

I've never seen a great zoom beat a great prime. I doubt it will ever happen.

I personally refused to use a zoom until 10 years ago and I finally succumbed to the dreaded 'lazy photographer' syndrome. It's hard to go back to having to move in or move back a few feet when a quick flick of the wrist will do it for you. The honest truth is that in most cases I am thrilled to go through a wedding (or any assignment) without the constant changing of lenses or juggling of cameras. DLSRs make that an even greater problem with the added risk of dust getting onto the sensor.

It all depends upon what you are shooting. Back in my RB67 days, I left my favorite portrait lens set out to gather dust on the front element. It made a perfect 'soft focus' effect I loved. Often tack sharp is not desirable.

[Ashley_Karyl]

I think all of this comes down to a question of being pragmatic. If I can verify that the zoom is of better or similar quality to a prime and I am working in a situation where using a prime would slow me down or risk damage to the sensor then a zoom is the obvious choice.

When I look at my portfolio most of the images were done with primes on the Hasselblad, but again if we take a pragmatic point of view it's clear there are certain situations where it's better to shoot a good image using a zoom than no image or a badly composed one with a prime. I am not talking here about those cases which involve taking two steps backwards, but imagine having to shoot a moving model in a small room while changing from an 85mm to a 100mm lens every minute and you'll know it doesn't make sense if the zoom is just as good by every practical measure.

[KevinWeatherly]

I have a 24 - 105L and a 24 - 70L zoom lens and have found that both are great at some things and not so good at others. As a general purpose (albeit expensive) lens, the 24-105 is great, however it suffers badly from barrel distortion. The 24-70 on my 1dS Mk3 is frightening in it's quality! However the combination is a bit weighty and should really only be used with a tripod (in our less than bright UK climate!). If I'm just out with no specific job in mind, or on holiday, the 24-105 wins everytime, the focal lengths are near perfect for everything from landscapes to portraits and with the image stabilisation a maximum aperture of f4 isn't too limiting. But neither can beat the quality of my L200mm f2 or 100mm macro lens, so it's horses for courses and use whichever you feel comfortable with.

[aprillove20]

Well, It's pretty decent from about 28mm and a very worthy performer from 35mm to around 90mm.