Your points are valid. However, if you look at the 24-105mm zoom, sometimes your legs might be able to do that zoom for you. Walk about lens has many definition, some people uses the 50mm, the 35mm, the 85mm and etc. So it depends. Just hope TS will make informed decision for his purchased.
Canon 24-105L Lens
- Thread starter MetalBird
- Start date
- Status
Your points are valid. However, if you look at the 24-105mm zoom, sometimes your legs might be able to do that zoom for you. Walk about lens has many definition, some people uses the 50mm, the 35mm, the 85mm and etc. So it depends. Just hope TS will make informed decision for his purchased.
Hi,
Am thinking of getting a 24-105 to "somewhat" replace my kit lens and 55-250, and to complement my 10-22 in terms of focal range. For those who use this lens (especially together with the 10-22 and on a 1.6x crop body), I'd just like your opinions...
1. When you're using your 24-105 at the widest end, do you feel that it isn't wide enough and you need to step back to get your shot properly?
2. How often do you need to switch to your 10-22 at the longest end just to get things into frame?
3. Have you ever found the 105mm too short?
I'm thinking of getting the 24-105 mainly for the offered focal range, rather than the fact that it has constand max aperture or it is an L lens. With my currently available focal range, I've only used 250mm for moon shots and a few random sniping shots. The majority of my outdoor (non-landscape) shots were taken with my kit lens or the 55-250 up to around 100+mm.
I'm more or less satisfied with any lens at least as sharp as the 18-55IS or 55-250. The other Canon lenses with similar range (28-105 and 28-135) are too tele at the wide end (I think). I also know I need IS, so the only remaining option is the 24-105. Or is it?
Other than for improvements in image quality, build quality, USM, etc. do you think it's worth paying ~$1.3k (2nd hand price) for the 24-105 if I'm just getting it for the focal range? While I'm not averse to spending around that price for the highly "useful" focal range for my needs, I also don't want to spend un-necessarily when other lenses can do the job cheaper (as in not any worse than kit lens or 55-250 in terms of sharpness).
4. For those who used other lenses (of similar focal length) before getting the 24-105, what are your reasons for doing so?
5. For those who sold their 24-105 (except those who upgraded to 24-70/f2.8), why did you sell?
Would appreciate some advice here.
Thanks!
Am thinking of getting a 24-105 to "somewhat" replace my kit lens and 55-250, and to complement my 10-22 in terms of focal range. For those who use this lens (especially together with the 10-22 and on a 1.6x crop body), I'd just like your opinions...
1. When you're using your 24-105 at the widest end, do you feel that it isn't wide enough and you need to step back to get your shot properly?
2. How often do you need to switch to your 10-22 at the longest end just to get things into frame?
3. Have you ever found the 105mm too short?
I'm thinking of getting the 24-105 mainly for the offered focal range, rather than the fact that it has constand max aperture or it is an L lens. With my currently available focal range, I've only used 250mm for moon shots and a few random sniping shots. The majority of my outdoor (non-landscape) shots were taken with my kit lens or the 55-250 up to around 100+mm.
I'm more or less satisfied with any lens at least as sharp as the 18-55IS or 55-250. The other Canon lenses with similar range (28-105 and 28-135) are too tele at the wide end (I think). I also know I need IS, so the only remaining option is the 24-105. Or is it?
Other than for improvements in image quality, build quality, USM, etc. do you think it's worth paying ~$1.3k (2nd hand price) for the 24-105 if I'm just getting it for the focal range? While I'm not averse to spending around that price for the highly "useful" focal range for my needs, I also don't want to spend un-necessarily when other lenses can do the job cheaper (as in not any worse than kit lens or 55-250 in terms of sharpness).
4. For those who used other lenses (of similar focal length) before getting the 24-105, what are your reasons for doing so?
5. For those who sold their 24-105 (except those who upgraded to 24-70/f2.8), why did you sell?
Would appreciate some advice here.
Thanks!
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2566/3675488734_f478ee3b93.jpg?v=0
This was taken on a 1.6x body with the 24-105mm at 24mm. Roughly 15 steps away from the group. Roughly.
This was taken on a 1.6x body with the 24-105mm at 24mm. Roughly 15 steps away from the group. Roughly.
Hey,
i thought about this lens alot before deciding to get the 5dmkii kit with this lens.
The 24-105 focal length makes it an awesome walkabout lens in the day. At F4 its really hard to use in low light unless you really abuse the ISO.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/chanmination/sets/72157620762726250/
All pictures in the day were by the 24-105 F4L , night shots were 50mm F1.4. Camera is a 5Dmk2
i thought about this lens alot before deciding to get the 5dmkii kit with this lens.
The 24-105 focal length makes it an awesome walkabout lens in the day. At F4 its really hard to use in low light unless you really abuse the ISO.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/chanmination/sets/72157620762726250/
All pictures in the day were by the 24-105 F4L , night shots were 50mm F1.4. Camera is a 5Dmk2
... 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...
simple, just go for full frame DSLR :heart:
Since you mentioned that you only looking at focal length and you got the 10-22, you can sell the kit & 55-250 to get the 18-200. Price wise is less than $1k.
Ooo... price diff between 500D and 5DM2 is around 3k leh!!! 3k for getting over that 1.6X effect?! Rather stay with me film till I strike TOTO ;p Thinking of getting 24-104mm because I always find 28mm not wide enough especially during birthday parties in chalet or stage shots with many chairs blocking in front, there is insufficient space to move back. On the tele range, I found that 85mm is difficult to take candid shots without the subject knowing and usually when trying to minimise background distraction, I found myself changing to a 100mm lens. Changing lenses is very troublesome... need to carry two lenses around, risk dropping/dirting them and worst, it takes about 30 sec to change lens... pretty bird already flown away by the time I am ready with 100mm
I think my best choice will be 500D with EFS 17-85mm. The downside is spending so much on EFS yet cannot be used on my film camera and if I really strike TOTO for 5DM2, EFS will become a garbage in the dry cabinate :dunno:Ooo... price diff between 500D and 5DM2 is around 3k leh!!! 3k for getting over that 1.6X effect?! Rather stay with me film till I strike TOTO ;p Thinking of getting 24-104mm because I always find 28mm not wide enough especially during birthday parties in chalet or stage shots with many chairs blocking in front, there is insufficient space to move back. On the tele range, I found that 85mm is difficult to take candid shots without the subject knowing and usually when trying to minimise background distraction, I found myself changing to a 100mm lens. Changing lenses is very troublesome... need to carry two lenses around, risk dropping/dirting them and worst, it takes about 30 sec to change lens... pretty bird already flown away by the time I am ready with 100mm
Who says you have to get a 5D MkII. 28mm and 24mm is not a great deal of difference anyway. A secondhand 5D can be had for 2k or thereabouts. Not a great difference between that and a new 50D, if you ask me.
i used 24-105 with crop body before.
the range is perfect for general outdoor and it is very sharp.
24mm on crop body is not wide enough indoor/landscape.
i complemented it with 10-22 and primes for a good setup that worked for me.
now that i am on FF, 24mm is wide enough. the same lens has been with me for 2+ year and it is my most often used lens for travel/general photography.
the range is perfect for general outdoor and it is very sharp.
24mm on crop body is not wide enough indoor/landscape.
i complemented it with 10-22 and primes for a good setup that worked for me.
now that i am on FF, 24mm is wide enough. the same lens has been with me for 2+ year and it is my most often used lens for travel/general photography.
Last edited:
Thanks for the links. I've already seen numerous shots taken using this lens on flickr and at the POTN forums, so that wasn't really my issue. I was interested in knowing how that focal range was in use when shooting.
While I know I can restrict use of my kit lens to beyond 24mm and my 55-250 below 105mm, but then again, that isn't really indicative of usage across the available focal range of the 24-105. I will also be going down to a store to try out the lenses soon.
I have considered the 18-200 (and similar 3rd party options) but it doesn't even match up with the 18-55 or the 55-250 in terms of sharpness (at centre and at the corners). While I'm not all that particular about sharpness (I don't pixel peep all that much), I'm using the kit lens as the absolute minimum standard.
Thanks for your comments. Going full-frame would be ideal as I tend to prefer wider focal lengths as opposed to the tele end, but my skills still leave much to be desired and a full-frame would be pretty much wasted on me right now. Will definitely consider it a few years down the road.
I know 24mm on crop will not be wide enough for indoor shots or landscape (which is why I have my 10-22), but did you ever feel it was lacking and had to move backwards to capture a shot when shooting outside? I'm also considering the 28-135 IS USM lens, but I'm worried that it will be too tele at its widest, and that I'll be losing out on the 22-28mm focal range which I shoot more frequently than the 105-135mm range.
Would really appreciate more comments from others who have switched to/from the 24-105 lens.
Thanks!
Hi Ramian, I 'm using a 450D with 24-105L lens. I feel the range is pretty good for SG walkaround.
For landscape in SG, I feel 24mm on crop is sufficient enough for me. Too wide and all the buildings and infrastructure and stuff will come into the frame.
I seldom use 105mm when doing walkaround shots, unless I wanna take photos of animals, which even 105mm is not enough.
It's a greats lens for me. No regrets. i got it brand new for $1500 :thumbsup:
For landscape in SG, I feel 24mm on crop is sufficient enough for me. Too wide and all the buildings and infrastructure and stuff will come into the frame.
I seldom use 105mm when doing walkaround shots, unless I wanna take photos of animals, which even 105mm is not enough.
It's a greats lens for me. No regrets. i got it brand new for $1500 :thumbsup:
This Lens is a very good walk about lens.
I use it for my 50D and is almost 90% mounted on my camera.
I'm very happy with it. But in low light condition you have to pump up your ISO.
another than that I dont see any problem with this lens.
Most of my pix below link is taken from my 24-105mm
I use it for my 50D and is almost 90% mounted on my camera.
I'm very happy with it. But in low light condition you have to pump up your ISO.
another than that I dont see any problem with this lens.
Most of my pix below link is taken from my 24-105mm
I had this lens when it was going for around $1K. For that price it produces serious barrel distortion and has terrible CA control.
Hi,
I've been using it together with another UWA (Toki 12-24). It's truely a great walkabout lens, all the time in the day and sometimes in the night (push the ISO if nec). Complemented with your choice of UWA, it's a great combo. Bring along a Prime or two and you're set. No real need to go bonkers and go FF if you haven't got the dosh. Better to get a good set of lenses and max the potential of your current body first. Then buy Toto like some of the folks say, but I recommend during CNY. Better winnings!
Have fun, it's a good buy. Do check for a sharp copy though. Not all lens are built equal. Go to the store to try out before handing over your dosh. If they don't allow you to do it, then better go to a different store.
Good luck.
I've been using it together with another UWA (Toki 12-24). It's truely a great walkabout lens, all the time in the day and sometimes in the night (push the ISO if nec). Complemented with your choice of UWA, it's a great combo. Bring along a Prime or two and you're set. No real need to go bonkers and go FF if you haven't got the dosh. Better to get a good set of lenses and max the potential of your current body first. Then buy Toto like some of the folks say, but I recommend during CNY. Better winnings!
Have fun, it's a good buy. Do check for a sharp copy though. Not all lens are built equal. Go to the store to try out before handing over your dosh. If they don't allow you to do it, then better go to a different store. Good luck.
Yeah, actually the 24mm constraint on crop body for me was more on indoor shoot especially if the room is small. The f4 limitation can still be compensated by using flash. I cannot recall if I had ever needed to step backward to have wider coverage on general shooting. When I intended to shoot ultra wide, I would have had changed the lens to 10-22.
Hi,
I've been using it together with another UWA (Toki 12-24). It's truely a great walkabout lens, all the time in the day and sometimes in the night (push the ISO if nec). Complemented with your choice of UWA, it's a great combo. Bring along a Prime or two and you're set. No real need to go bonkers and go FF if you haven't got the dosh. Better to get a good set of lenses and max the potential of your current body first. Then buy Toto like some of the folks say, but I recommend during CNY. Better winnings!
Good luck.
I've been asking around for comments elsewhere, and many can't seem to understand why someone would want a lens just based on focal range rather than aperture. When I say I want a useful focal range, they suggest 70-200/f2.8; when I say I prefer something wider, it's 17-55/f2.8... So many can't seem to understand that a useful focal range can actually be preferred to "better" technical specifications.
Anyway, thanks for all the comments. It's good to hear opinions about the 24-105 being used rather than talk about how UN-SHARP the lens is (compared to the 24-70/f2.8) or how "limiting" the constant f4 is. While I've already decided to go with it, I still wish that Canon had a consumer lens like the Nikkor 18-135 lens which they used to bundle with their D80.
I'll be buying 2nd hand, so is there really a need to be on the lookout for copies which are not that sharp? Reviews on FM, POTN, Photo.net forums don't really mention too much about variability between copies, and about buyers (in the states) having to exchange "lemons" multiple times to get a good copy. I have bought 2nd hand lenses before, and have been pretty lucky so far without having done any extensive testing before handing over cash. Is there a need to do so for the 24-105, or since this is an L lens, I wouldn't need to bother?
Thanks!
- Status
Similar threads
