In need advise on EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM

[kira7812]

I am planning to replace my Canon EFs 17-85mm f4-5.6 IS USMf with a Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM as I need more zoom range.

Btw, I'm using 400D.

Do you think that I am making the right choice? Pls advise........

[jeff49er]

This is a good all round lens giving u a focal range of 38mm to 168mm. Depending on what u shoot, the range may be suited. Others prefer wide angle if they are shooting scenery or just love the 16 -35mm range.

I find the F4 plus IS good enough. Some prefer f2.8 and they recommend th 24-70.

The price has dropped a lot from $2100. Now is $1650.

If u like this lens the price is right.

[Nel21]

the problem is 38mm might not be wide enough for you. Although depending on what type of photography you do. Still i think i little wider wont hurt. and $1650 is not a small sum either.

[Redsun]

Best way is to try it out in the shops and see if the 24mm is wide enough for you.I bought this lens and found that the 24mm is not wide enough for me and had to sell it off

[htthach]

ya, it's quite dangerous when u find it's not wide enuf because you'll spend more money
either on 10-22mm or 5D hahaha

[user111]

get the 17-40L since you are on 1.6x. smaller, cheaper, wider, lighter, barrel doesnt extent when zoomed. you can get a good used set for about 900 bucks in the 2nd hand buy n sell section here

[satch]

Originally Posted by user111 get the 17-40L since you are on 1.6x. smaller, cheaper, wider, lighter, barrel doesnt extent when zoomed. you can get a good used set for about 900 bucks in the 2nd hand buy n sell section here

i second that.

in addition to the 17-40, u can get yourself a 70-200 F/4L and you have 17-200 coverage (40-70 can be easily covered with a 50 f1.8 prime, or just simply walk front/back if you need to "zoom" in or out). That's my current set-up by the way

[pokiemon]

i think the TS says he needs more zoom range. so yes i would recommend the upgrade! good choice.

[Russ]

24-105 has a zoom ratio of 4.4
17-85 has a zoom ration of 5.0

So the 24-105 has LESS zoom range.
17 and 24 are quite different, significantly more so that 85 and 105.

Get the 24-105 if you need the better pic quality and L build, otherwise, it is better for you to add a 70-200/4 L for about $800 second hand. Only issue is no IS. Another possibility is the 70-200/4 L IS which you have to get new but not cheap almost 2K I think.

[Redsun]

If you're planning to stay with the 1.6x crop body upgrading to a 17-55 F2.8 IS would probably be a better choice IMHO

[rexscooby]

Originally Posted by kira7812 I am planning to replace my Canon EFs 17-85mm f4-5.6 IS USMf with a Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM as I need more zoom range. Btw, I'm using 400D. Do you think that I am making the right choice? Pls advise........

hey bro ,

To me , i think its not very worth it if you are getting it just for zoom , its not really much of a difference from 85mm - 105mm . Just take 2 steps in front and you can get that range covered (that is IF you can take 2 steps in front , dont jump down the hill just to get that "zoom") . BUT if you are buying it because of the L lens , then yes , its a good investment .

Frankly speaking , I would actually recommend that you "keep" this lens (17-85mm) and get yourself a 70-200mm F4 L IS. Its about the same price as the 24-105mm L . If you get the 70-200mm , you have 2 set of lens , and effectively , your range would be covered . you got both "wide" 17mm and also "zoom" up to 200mm

Anyway , just a recommendation . Eventually the buyer decides . Happy buying

[ST1100]

Originally Posted by Russ 24-105 has a zoom ratio of 4.4 17-85 has a zoom ration of 5.0

24-105 has a range of 81mm.
17-85 has a range of 68mm.

Technically 24-105 has more zoom range while the 17-85 has a higher zoom ratio.

However, the millimetres in focal length have no real practical meaning, since they are just a convenient way of expressing a lens' angle of view with reference to 35mm film format.

The correct(meaningful) way to judge 'range' would be to compare the range of their viewing angles. 17-85 goes from 49 to 93 degrees (range 44deg), 24-105 goes from 24 to 74 (range 50deg), so the 24-105 does have (a little) more range. (i used horizontal viewing angles, figures plucked from Canon's EF Lens Work III.)

p/s i recommend staying with the 17-85 over the 24-105 on a 1.6x bcoz the wider end is a lot more useful. YMMV.

[JW73]

Originally Posted by rexscooby hey bro , To me , i think its not very worth it if you are getting it just for zoom , its not really much of a difference from 85mm - 105mm . Just take 2 steps in front and you can get that range covered (that is IF you can take 2 steps in front , dont jump down the hill just to get that "zoom") . BUT if you are buying it because of the L lens , then yes , its a good investment . Frankly speaking , I would actually recommend that you "keep" this lens (17-85mm) and get yourself a 70-200mm F4 L IS. Its about the same price as the 24-105mm L . If you get the 70-200mm , you have 2 set of lens , and effectively , your range would be covered . you got both "wide" 17mm and also "zoom" up to 200mm Anyway , just a recommendation . Eventually the buyer decides . Happy buying

I agree with this.

[Yoke]

The EFS 17-55 F2.8 IS is a better fit for your 400D.
Together with the 70-200 F4 IS as mentioned previously, it is a fantastic combo. Alternatively if you want, u can still keep the 17-85mm though, very sharp lens.

The 24-105 is NOT wide enuf for the 400D crop camera. It is designed with the FF suitable cameras in mind. It was launched with the 5D and it is the kit lens for 5D.
On the 5D the 24-105 is similar to 17-85mm lens on the crop cams.
Dun shortchange yourself by sacrificing the wide angle for a little more range (105mm).

I feel there is no "perfect" general zoom L lens for crop cams. However, I feel you be better off with a 17-55, 70-200 instead. My 2 cents

[kira7812]

Tks for all the replies!

Will seriously consider mine choice again ........maybe will get the 70-200 instead...

[jamestan]

Originally Posted by kira7812 I am planning to replace my Canon EFs 17-85mm f4-5.6 IS USMf with a Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM as I need more zoom range. Btw, I'm using 400D. Do you think that I am making the right choice? Pls advise........

I have a 17-40. Most times, my shots start at the 25mm range. Means I have effectively only 24-40 (not much). Like you, I am planning to get the 24-105. BTW, also using the 400D.

Go to a shop you are comfortable with, try the lens. Better still, rent the lens for a couple of days, shoot with it, then decide.

I have decided. 24-105 for me.

[zhikang]

Hi.... Personally i have used a borrowed 17-85 b4 for family shots and tested the 24-105 in shop. Frankly, the optics of the 17-85 aren't good. 24-105 is worlds apart. Frankly, if u have the budget, sell ur 17-85, get the 17-55 f/2.8 + 70-200 f/4L IS. Another possibility would be the Tamron 17-50 together with a 70-200 (my current setup). My 2 cents worth.

[haagen_dazs]

this link may give you some objective/subjective insight.

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/rev..._200/index.htm

[user111]

why dont you get a cheap EF 24-85 and use it as a spare

[spartacus.ret]

Originally Posted by user111 why dont you get a cheap EF 24-85 and use it as a spare

yes, but this is not answering the first question..