Agreed this is a good walk around lens but bear in mind that 500D is using 1.6x crop sensor so instead of 24-105mm it will become 38-168mm may not be wide enough for shooting landscape or indoor group photo.
Canon 24-105L Lens
- Thread starter MetalBird
- Start date
- Status
Agreed this is a good walk around lens but bear in mind that 500D is using 1.6x crop sensor so instead of 24-105mm it will become 38-168mm may not be wide enough for shooting landscape or indoor group photo.
most lens is suppose to be sharp @ f/8 aint i right? why not test it wide open again?
Of all the L lenses that I have 24-105 is of the lowest quality in comparison. I am comparing it to 16-35M2, 85F1.2M2, 135F2, 300F4. I only use this lens for outdoor under bright sunlight and for fun fun situation. For serious stuff I usually avoid it.
If you love shooting wide at 24 and using FF, barrel distortion is quite obvious... It is also quite obvious at 24 on a 1.6x. I feel that optically, 24-70 is much better. But from a practical point of view, 24-105 is awesome!
24-105mm L is the first L lens I bought initially to go with my 50D, I like it so much subsequently I added quick a few L lenses to my collection. The 24-105mm is still my favourite walk about lens and is permanently attached to 5D MK2 now
Thought it is 1 stop shy of 24-70mm f2.8 but the IS and size actually handle itself better then 24-70mm. If bokeh is what you looking for I would suggest adding a prime lens down the road, I actually added a 1.4L 35mm which have excellent IQ and beautiful bokeh.
So, I think the 24-105mm f4 is definitely a keeper and I said go for it, you will not regret it. BUY BUY BUY
Last edited:
Hi lightning -
I think a more fair comparison would be to ZOOM lenses rather than (arguably) specialized primes, since the original poster said "walkabout". It's hardly valid to compare the 85 and 135 primes you mention to a 4x zoom!
The 85 and 135 L primes in Canon's lineup are some of the finest optical machines on the plant. The 300 f/4 is too. You are quite correct in pointing out that they are sharper than the 24-105 at every focal length, and basically every aperture. But do you mean that for "walkabout", except for bright sunny days for fun fun situations, you'll carry a bag of primes around?
I have compared the 24-105 to the 24-70 fairly rigorously and find that at f4 and f8 there is no practical difference in sharpness at most focal lengths, and further that the 24-105 is acceptably sharp throughout its focal range at all aperture settings (i.e. worth of the "L" badge). I'm on a full-frame body, and since most 1.6 bodies are higher resolution (not pixel count, but pixels per inch) than my 5D2 or 1DS2, it's possible you'd perceive slightly more difference between the lenses on a 1.6x. But, I'd argue they are generally equivalent in sharpness. At least my two copies.
Eric
I think a more fair comparison would be to ZOOM lenses rather than (arguably) specialized primes, since the original poster said "walkabout". It's hardly valid to compare the 85 and 135 primes you mention to a 4x zoom!
The 85 and 135 L primes in Canon's lineup are some of the finest optical machines on the plant. The 300 f/4 is too. You are quite correct in pointing out that they are sharper than the 24-105 at every focal length, and basically every aperture. But do you mean that for "walkabout", except for bright sunny days for fun fun situations, you'll carry a bag of primes around?
I have compared the 24-105 to the 24-70 fairly rigorously and find that at f4 and f8 there is no practical difference in sharpness at most focal lengths, and further that the 24-105 is acceptably sharp throughout its focal range at all aperture settings (i.e. worth of the "L" badge). I'm on a full-frame body, and since most 1.6 bodies are higher resolution (not pixel count, but pixels per inch) than my 5D2 or 1DS2, it's possible you'd perceive slightly more difference between the lenses on a 1.6x. But, I'd argue they are generally equivalent in sharpness. At least my two copies.
Eric
Agreed! I forgot about that. I did notice that barrel and pincushion is quite pronounced on this lens compared with the 24-70. Shooting on the beach is particularly bothersome, with horizon often coming out noticeably curved. Even my wife, who rarely notices "details" in images asked my "why is the water curved?"
Agreed! I forgot about that. I did notice that barrel and pincushion is quite pronounced on this lens compared with the 24-70. Shooting on the beach is particularly bothersome, with horizon often coming out noticeably curved. Even my wife, who rarely notices "details" in images asked my "why is the water curved?"
there are many occasions that you would luv the slight distortion! end of the day it really boils down to individual's style. Canon is definitely able to satisfy most ppl's needs with such a large variety of lenses =) spoiled for choices
2470 is nonetheless is the best choice under controlled shooting environment! hehe
Last edited:
... alamak... there is this 1.6 times "Focal Length Multiplier" effect on 500D that causes 24-105mm to become 38.4-168mm (found this info from dpreview.com). My film SLR lens goes from 28-85mm... no wonder 500D kit lens starts from 18mm... If buy 24-105mm, may have problem taking scenaries or gathering parties like wedding dinner where many people must go into the frame. Hope I understood the "problem" correctly...
Really thanks for all the reply.. Greatly Appreciated.. People here is really helpful.. I did try doing some search (browsing through pages as i'm not good with forum stuff and couldn't do a quick search on the exact topic) on it but couldn't find it, probably it's an old thread..
I've got the opinion from the friends here and will probably get it after saving up...
Presently, i'm using a 40D and pretty happy with this DSLR as it is good enough for a hobbyist.. so i wish to try out on some L lens.. hehe..
I've got the opinion from the friends here and will probably get it after saving up...
Presently, i'm using a 40D and pretty happy with this DSLR as it is good enough for a hobbyist.. so i wish to try out on some L lens.. hehe..
... alamak... there is this 1.6 times "Focal Length Multiplier" effect on 500D that causes 24-105mm to become 38.4-168mm (found this info from dpreview.com). My film SLR lens goes from 28-85mm... no wonder 500D kit lens starts from 18mm... If buy 24-105mm, may have problem taking scenaries or gathering parties like wedding dinner where many people must go into the frame. Hope I understood the "problem" correctly...
You are right. The lens effective focal length will be greater if you use a 1.6 cropped sensor. For a 24-105mm lens on a cropped sensor, your effective zoom will be 38.4-168mm. TBH, I think the 38.4mm is still wide enough for alot of party gathering and landscape scenery shots. I don't see any problem there.
Yeah, If I know that the situation requires top image quality, the 24-105 would be the last choice. I would normally carry 2 bodies, one wide and one tele on important assignments / expensive overseas trips (non-professional). I use to use many canon L zooms....but they are slowly getting out of my collection :bsmilie:. 16-35 will soon be replaced with 14F2.8 and 35F1.4. I will still keep the 24-105 for it's range and for "fun fun" outdoor shoot with friends.
In school I often pass this lens to my student to use too. I think the IS does helps for beginner's shaky hands such as my students.
*actually the primes are quite light compared to say 70-200mm/24-105/24-70. (Exception for 85F1.2 which weights 1.1kg
) I don't mind carrying some primes to ensure quality.
Last edited:
I think Lightning may have reach a stage where he knows his lenses so well and knows which he likes and dislikes. But for TS, this may be his first L lens and to start with this would be perfect for all but the taxing photography assignments. I am starting out with L lens too and haven't reach the SIFU stage yet but maybe one day my bags will be filled with prime lenses too (already looking at the 85 1.2L) but for now this zoom is a good choice and the images compared to most lenses are very good. I don't think this lens is the perfect choice. I think 24-70 would have gotten that trophy but it is a heavy zoom lens. As it is 24-105 weighs in at 1.65kg with my 5D2. Its like lugging around a heavy brick. But a fun brick.
but maybe one day my bags will be filled with prime lenses too (already looking at the 85 1.2L) but for now this zoom is a good choice and the images compared to most lenses are very good. I don't think this lens is the perfect choice. I think 24-70 would have gotten that trophy but it is a heavy zoom lens. As it is 24-105 weighs in at 1.65kg with my 5D2. Its like lugging around a heavy brick. But a fun brick.
Last edited:
I went from 24-105 to 24-70 back to 24-105!!
24-70 @ f2.8 was soft for me whereas the 24-104 is quite sharp from f4.
comparing aperature for aperature from f4 onwards, 24-70 is very slightly sharper. But that's when you pixel peep. If not it will be hard to find difference.
As for the distortion and vignetting issues. Both can be easily and effective solved throught software like DPP or Dx0.
And personally, I find 24-105's low light focusing to be faster and more accurate than 24-70. I don't find the f2.8 helping much on my 5D2 when it is suppose to.
Now, here's the real difference for me
1) almost 300g lighter... making it a joy to use and carry around all day.
2) IS, if you intend to shoot video, you will DEFINITELY need this! It also increases your chances of getting a sharp photo. I had much better success rate with 24-105 than 24-70
So the trade off may just be slight sharpness disadvantage which frankly you will not notice even if you pixel peep!
My two cents worth.
24-70 @ f2.8 was soft for me whereas the 24-104 is quite sharp from f4.
comparing aperature for aperature from f4 onwards, 24-70 is very slightly sharper. But that's when you pixel peep. If not it will be hard to find difference.
As for the distortion and vignetting issues. Both can be easily and effective solved throught software like DPP or Dx0.
And personally, I find 24-105's low light focusing to be faster and more accurate than 24-70. I don't find the f2.8 helping much on my 5D2 when it is suppose to.
Now, here's the real difference for me
1) almost 300g lighter... making it a joy to use and carry around all day.
2) IS, if you intend to shoot video, you will DEFINITELY need this! It also increases your chances of getting a sharp photo. I had much better success rate with 24-105 than 24-70
So the trade off may just be slight sharpness disadvantage which frankly you will not notice even if you pixel peep!
My two cents worth.
on crop, the best option is the 17-55mm f2.8.
i would gladly trade the 24-105mm f4 IS option for a 28-85mm f2.8 IS (ie. 17-55mm x1.6) anytime on a FF.
i dont understand people on crop taking the 24-105L just for the sake of the L when a far better lens is available to pair it with... 28-85mm is simply a great range to work with, especially with f2.8.
i would gladly trade the 24-105mm f4 IS option for a 28-85mm f2.8 IS (ie. 17-55mm x1.6) anytime on a FF.
i dont understand people on crop taking the 24-105L just for the sake of the L when a far better lens is available to pair it with... 28-85mm is simply a great range to work with, especially with f2.8.
everybody has a different need. THEY don't need your understanding really. :nono::thumbsd:
i choose the 24-105 over the 17-55 cuz of the longer reach lol... it has better built quality and feels much better when in use. though i would love to have the 17-55 as well cuz of the constant f2.8 aperture. the extra reach with the 24-105 more than makes up for the higher fstop. and if you plan to get a FF in the future easier to get the 24-105 first than to switch.
"far better lens?"
well that's subjective, so it really depends on what the person is looking out for and what he needs=p
hope I changed your view! and if not please don't laugh at me if you see me carrying a crop body and the L lens haha..
Yeah, If I know that the situation requires top image quality, the 24-105 would be the last choice. I would normally carry 2 bodies, one wide and one tele on important assignments / expensive overseas trips (non-professional). I use to use many canon L zooms....but they are slowly getting out of my collection :bsmilie:. 16-35 will soon be replaced with 14F2.8 and 35F1.4. I will still keep the 24-105 for it's range and for "fun fun" outdoor shoot with friends.
In school I often pass this lens to my student to use too. I think the IS does helps for beginner's shaky hands such as my students.
*actually the primes are quite light compared to say 70-200mm/24-105/24-70. (Exception for 85F1.2 which weights 1.1kg
I feel envious of your prime lens collection! I think for most situations I'd be much happier with a single mid-range zoom. In fact, the only prime I own is the lowly 50mm f/1.8). But if you have the patience to manage multiple lenses, and change them when the situation calls for it, you'll certainly get the (technically) best images. Sounds like you've got it figured out pretty well though.
I guess my original point, though, was that the original posted wanted a walkabout lens, and I'd further argue that the vast majority of photographs, when walking about, would prefer a single versatile zoom, even at the expense of sharpness. If you're a casual photography, and you miss the shot of your kid blowing bubbles/laughing/running because you're busy changing from one lens to another, then it doesn't really matter how sharp the prime "would have been".
Anyway, good feedback.
Take Care,
Eric
i choose the 24-105 over the 17-55 cuz of the longer reach lol... it has better built quality and feels much better when in use. though i would love to have the 17-55 as well cuz of the constant f2.8 aperture. the extra reach with the 24-105 more than makes up for the higher fstop. and if you plan to get a FF in the future easier to get the 24-105 first than to switch.
"far better lens?"
well that's subjective, so it really depends on what the person is looking out for and what he needs=p
hope I changed your view! and if not please don't laugh at me if you see me carrying a crop body and the L lens haha..
true n agree with your points, but i think in this case the 24mm on a crop would really limit shots on the wide angle side of things.
If the TS is using a kit lens (I'm assuming they are), they could try limiting their zoom to 24 mm and above and seeing if that would be wide enough for them. If they find that 24 mm (38.4 on 1.6 body) is not wide enough, they'll know that the 24-105 would not fit their needs.
- Status
Similar threads
