It is a little smaller and lighter than the 24-70 L, and a little longer on the tele side. It feels like it was made for the 5D. A very nice combination for walking around as a tourist.
I agree with your assessment re: bokeh also. And the IS just WORKS.
The 24-105 and the 20D were my weapons of choice for my recent Disneyland visit in December 2005.
Here is a shot at 1/15 sec at 24 mm - handheld.
And a Japanese drummer at 60mm 1/30 sec - Her arms are moving, but her eyes are sharp!!:): Handheld again.
I took one to Vietnam & Cambodia and absolutely LOVE the results it produced.
The weight is resonable given it's stats and the images are gorgeous. In fact, since using this lens, I realize how much a great lens can reduce your photoshop time...the images just don't need much.
So there's nothing about this lens that you don't like? The review reads like an ad.
Right. There's NOTHING I don't like about it. This lens is fantastic, and I call it like I see it. Great focal range, extremely useful I.S., sharp, great color, contrast. Light, easy to use, feels great in hand.
The point of "Reviews You Can Use" is to give practical viewpoints - with examples. There are plenty of places on the 'net to get all the geeky stuff.
Jim, I love these two shots. If you posted them somewhere else, I missed it.
I made a stink about this lens as a partner for the 70-200. If you are going to take two zoom, I argued, why not take the 24-70 and have two fast lenses instead of one slow lens and one fast lens. And, indeed, the 5D and both these lenses fit in a modest sized shoulder bag, like the Lowpro Reporter 300 AW. There's even enough room left for a flash and another lens, perhaps a medium range prime or the 16-35 f/2.8L. I still think I'm right about that.
But the idea of taking just this one lens and getting that range is pretty appealing, I have to admit, say just for an outing, or for skiing. The only thing that stops me is the relatively slow speed. I guess I'm pretty spoiled. But PF's night shots and Andy's bokeh demos have me thinking...
Camera shake isn't the only reason to have big apertures.
Faster autofocus
Better depth of field control
Lower ISO
Faster shutter speed at same ISO
Plus, there's the argument that you have to stop down a lens to get its best performance. The 24-70 is not wide open at f4. But I've read that some owners find the two lenses comparable at this setting.
So there's nothing about this lens that you don't like? The review reads like an ad.
Sid I thought the exact same thing. Then I thought "even though he loves everything about this lens, it'll be on the Flea Market Forum before the year is out" :lol :lol
Nice job Andy ^5
Steve
PS; Hey PF, I agree with Rutt. Those 2 shots of yours are outstanding ^5 Just as convincing as Andy's review, IMO. Nice lens and a nice job :-)
Camera shake isn't the only reason to have big apertures.
Faster autofocus
Better depth of field control
Lower ISO
Faster shutter speed at same ISO
Plus, there's the argument that you have to stop down a lens to get its best performance. The 24-70 is not wide open at f4. But I've read that some owners find the two lenses comparable at this setting.
Sid, you and I are on the same wavelength here. But Andy just digs it.
Of course I dig it. But then again, I have my cake and eat it, too. I have fast primes, and this nice zoom. They serve different purposes. But any day of the week, and twice on Sundays, I'll take the 24-105L over the 24-70L. It's just a more useful, for me, lens
But the idea of taking just this one lens and getting that range is pretty appealing, I have to admit, say just for an outing, or for skiing. The only thing that stops me is the relatively slow speed. I guess I'm pretty spoiled. But PF's night shots and Andy's bokeh demos have me thinking...
The IS way MORE than makes up for the difference between f/2.8 and f/4. I.S. allows me to go really really slow shutter. That's a big plus. Is this an indoor sports lens? :nah
I'm glad you noticed the bokeh shot - I put that there JUST FOR YOU, Rutt
Jim, I love these two shots. If you posted them somewhere else, I missed it.
I made a stink about this lens as a partner for the 70-200. If you are going to take two zoom, I argued, why not take the 24-70 and have two fast lenses instead of one slow lens and one fast lens. And, indeed, the 5D and both these lenses fit in a modest sized shoulder bag, like the Lowpro Reporter 300 AW. There's even enough room left for a flash and another lens, perhaps a medium range prime or the 16-35 f/2.8L. I still think I'm right about that.
But the idea of taking just this one lens and getting that range is pretty appealing, I have to admit, say just for an outing, or for skiing. The only thing that stops me is the relatively slow speed. I guess I'm pretty spoiled. But PF's night shots and Andy's bokeh demos have me thinking...
I posted the night shot with others from my recent trip to Disneyland.
I think the 24-105 L IS is a very handy lens for a tourist, especially if you do not really expect a lot of dim lighting. It is at its best on a full frame camera I think. I am sure it will be as sharp on a 20D, but not nearly as wide of course. We walked 15 miles that day at Disneyland (Nightigale had a pedometer!!) - Consequently, I didn't want to carry a bag on the rides - just a 5D and the 24-105 L. If I was taking several lenses, then I might reconsider.
It really comes down to how often are you shooting the 24-70 f2.8 L at f2.8. And I find I rarely shoot the 24-70f2.8 L wide open. Either I need more DOF or I don't need that wide an aperature - so then the 24-105 L would work just as well and is lighter to carry and has a longer reach unless the light is dim.
IF I KNOW I will be indoors, I probably would opt for the 24-70L - Like waxy said, better focusing ability in dimmer lighting, and the availability of that bigger aperature if needed. Like Andy said, it is not an indoor sporting event lens.
Your comment about one lens for skiing is also pertinent. I love shooting images on ski slopes - some of the best scenery in the country, but I hate draging heavy, delicate expensive gear along in a backpack on skis - But a 5D with a 24-105 is a very nice compromise. The skiing shots I posted earlier were with that combo as is this shot of my son and Nightingale.
I'm one of those people that's happy with the 24-70. However, if I had to
do it again, this looks like a solid choice for something in the mid range
traveling lens.
Ian
Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
I've bought and sold and tried out a lot of lenses and have found no other lens as useful, versatile, and satisfying as the 24-105L. No other lens remains in my bag no matter where I'm going and what I'm shooting. Love it!!
Some shots from a trip back east earlier this month:
And some from a boat ride on Lake Texoma in Texas:
But any day of the week, and twice on Sundays, I'll take the 24-105L over the 24-70L. It's just a more useful, for me, lens
I thougtht the 24-70L was one of the very the very few Canon lenses you never had. Yet you seem to have very strong views about it.
I have to admit, that I've been sort of the same about the 24-105L. But it's beginning to dawn on me that having an IS mid range could open up some possibilities. PF's shots really show that.
So I have a ski trip coming up and I think I'll give the 24-105L a try. Then I'll join PF in the ranks of people actually qualified to make a comparison.
I thougtht the 24-70L was one of the very the very few Canon lenses you never had. Yet you seem to have very strong views about it.
[Don't miss the invisible smiliey.]
Fair enough. But I *have* shot with one, several times -- four, that I can count. No, I've not ever owned it. Nothing wrong with the 24-70L! I just really dig all the extras, with the 24-105L. That's all
OK, Andy, now for some buying advice. I seem to remember that there were some issues with early versions of this lens. Is there a reason not to shop for a used one, perhaps from Troy (actually, not, but you get the idea?) Are there lemons?
PF, did you get yours from a discount place or FotoCare?
OK, Andy, now for some buying advice. I seem to remember that there were some issues with early versions of this lens. Is there a reason not to shop for a used one, perhaps from Troy (actually, not, but you get the idea?) Are there lemons?
PF, did you get yours from a discount place or FotoCare?
I would buy new. The repair, as I noted in my review, is for UT999 or less. But, what if there's a problem being the 2nd owner? I wouldn't try and save $150 or $200 by buying used on this one - not unless you knew the seller personally or got really good provenance. Just my .02. Buy from B&H, you get a no-questions asked 14 day return period, with no restocking fee.
What about the question about lemons? There are these pictures of you choose one from many at B&H. What are you looking for?
Andy, why not write a tutorial about selecting a particular lens after you already know the model you want? This seems like total black magic to me, and I'm sure to many. Even if you just dispell the myth that you do it, that would be pretty good. And if it isn't a myth, then it would be really interesting.
What about the question about lemons? There are these pictures of you choose one from many at B&H. What are you looking for?
Andy, why not write a tutorial about selecting a particular lens after you already know the model you want? This seems like total black magic to me, and I'm sure to many. Even if you just dispell the myth that you do it, that would be pretty good. And if it isn't a myth, then it would be really interesting.
Hehe I'll see about the tute.
But basically, when I'm at the counter at B&H, I'm looking for the following:
* is it UNTOUCHED? I inspect the packaging - I want to be the FIRST one to touch the lens. I won't buy one that's been opened or handled, period.
* I inspect for dust inside:
I have turned back several copies before getting one that I was happy with.
Comments
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
great review andy
if i had 1000 bucks to throw around i would definitely buy this lense
smugmug: www.StandOutphoto.smugmug.com
It is a little smaller and lighter than the 24-70 L, and a little longer on the tele side. It feels like it was made for the 5D. A very nice combination for walking around as a tourist.
I agree with your assessment re: bokeh also. And the IS just WORKS.
The 24-105 and the 20D were my weapons of choice for my recent Disneyland visit in December 2005.
Here is a shot at 1/15 sec at 24 mm - handheld.
And a Japanese drummer at 60mm 1/30 sec - Her arms are moving, but her eyes are sharp!!:): Handheld again.
[imgl]http://pathfinder.smugmug.com/photos/49275624-L.jpg[/imgl]
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
I took one to Vietnam & Cambodia and absolutely LOVE the results it produced.
The weight is resonable given it's stats and the images are gorgeous. In fact, since using this lens, I realize how much a great lens can reduce your photoshop time...the images just don't need much.
Here are some favorites...
http://pix.berley.com/gallery/1160098/1/54209555
http://pix.berley.com/gallery/1160098/2
http://pix.berley.com/gallery/1160098/3/54215676
http://pix.berley.com/gallery/1160012/1/49437689
You can see the whole gallery at
http://pix.berley.com/Vietnam%20&%20Cambodia
Enjoy...
Steve
Right. There's NOTHING I don't like about it. This lens is fantastic, and I call it like I see it. Great focal range, extremely useful I.S., sharp, great color, contrast. Light, easy to use, feels great in hand.
The point of "Reviews You Can Use" is to give practical viewpoints - with examples. There are plenty of places on the 'net to get all the geeky stuff.
I hope this helps!
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
Speaking of that - you're gonna give us your review of Pelican cases, eh?
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
But hey, my 75 word jargon list got done last week.
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
Yeah - that's on my to-do, DavidTO is on my case abt this daily
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
28 years of trying to capture emotion...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/allanmichael/
Oops. It's been at least a day.
Get on it, Andy!
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
I made a stink about this lens as a partner for the 70-200. If you are going to take two zoom, I argued, why not take the 24-70 and have two fast lenses instead of one slow lens and one fast lens. And, indeed, the 5D and both these lenses fit in a modest sized shoulder bag, like the Lowpro Reporter 300 AW. There's even enough room left for a flash and another lens, perhaps a medium range prime or the 16-35 f/2.8L. I still think I'm right about that.
But the idea of taking just this one lens and getting that range is pretty appealing, I have to admit, say just for an outing, or for skiing. The only thing that stops me is the relatively slow speed. I guess I'm pretty spoiled. But PF's night shots and Andy's bokeh demos have me thinking...
Doesn't the IS make up for that?
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
20D | 300D-IR | EF-S 10-22 | EF-S 18-55 | 50 f/1.8 II | 70-200 f/4L | 17-40L | Lensbaby 2.0 | 250D | 550ex | Gitzo 1257 | RRS BH-40 | RRS L-plates
The Blog | The Photos
Faster autofocus
Better depth of field control
Lower ISO
Faster shutter speed at same ISO
Plus, there's the argument that you have to stop down a lens to get its best performance. The 24-70 is not wide open at f4. But I've read that some owners find the two lenses comparable at this setting.
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
Yes
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Nice job Andy ^5
Steve
PS; Hey PF, I agree with Rutt. Those 2 shots of yours are outstanding ^5 Just as convincing as Andy's review, IMO. Nice lens and a nice job :-)
Of course I dig it. But then again, I have my cake and eat it, too. I have fast primes, and this nice zoom. They serve different purposes. But any day of the week, and twice on Sundays, I'll take the 24-105L over the 24-70L. It's just a more useful, for me, lens
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
The IS way MORE than makes up for the difference between f/2.8 and f/4. I.S. allows me to go really really slow shutter. That's a big plus. Is this an indoor sports lens? :nah
I'm glad you noticed the bokeh shot - I put that there JUST FOR YOU, Rutt
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
I posted the night shot with others from my recent trip to Disneyland.
I think the 24-105 L IS is a very handy lens for a tourist, especially if you do not really expect a lot of dim lighting. It is at its best on a full frame camera I think. I am sure it will be as sharp on a 20D, but not nearly as wide of course. We walked 15 miles that day at Disneyland (Nightigale had a pedometer!!) - Consequently, I didn't want to carry a bag on the rides - just a 5D and the 24-105 L. If I was taking several lenses, then I might reconsider.
It really comes down to how often are you shooting the 24-70 f2.8 L at f2.8. And I find I rarely shoot the 24-70f2.8 L wide open. Either I need more DOF or I don't need that wide an aperature - so then the 24-105 L would work just as well and is lighter to carry and has a longer reach unless the light is dim.
IF I KNOW I will be indoors, I probably would opt for the 24-70L - Like waxy said, better focusing ability in dimmer lighting, and the availability of that bigger aperature if needed. Like Andy said, it is not an indoor sporting event lens.
Your comment about one lens for skiing is also pertinent. I love shooting images on ski slopes - some of the best scenery in the country, but I hate draging heavy, delicate expensive gear along in a backpack on skis - But a 5D with a 24-105 is a very nice compromise. The skiing shots I posted earlier were with that combo as is this shot of my son and Nightingale.
[imgl]http://pathfinder.smugmug.com/photos/53540880-L.jpg[/imgl]
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
do it again, this looks like a solid choice for something in the mid range
traveling lens.
Ian
Some shots from a trip back east earlier this month:
And some from a boat ride on Lake Texoma in Texas:
Olga
I thougtht the 24-70L was one of the very the very few Canon lenses you never had. Yet you seem to have very strong views about it.
I have to admit, that I've been sort of the same about the 24-105L. But it's beginning to dawn on me that having an IS mid range could open up some possibilities. PF's shots really show that.
So I have a ski trip coming up and I think I'll give the 24-105L a try. Then I'll join PF in the ranks of people actually qualified to make a comparison.
[Don't miss the invisible smiliey.]
Fair enough. But I *have* shot with one, several times -- four, that I can count. No, I've not ever owned it. Nothing wrong with the 24-70L! I just really dig all the extras, with the 24-105L. That's all
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
PF, did you get yours from a discount place or FotoCare?
I would buy new. The repair, as I noted in my review, is for UT999 or less. But, what if there's a problem being the 2nd owner? I wouldn't try and save $150 or $200 by buying used on this one - not unless you knew the seller personally or got really good provenance. Just my .02. Buy from B&H, you get a no-questions asked 14 day return period, with no restocking fee.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Andy, why not write a tutorial about selecting a particular lens after you already know the model you want? This seems like total black magic to me, and I'm sure to many. Even if you just dispell the myth that you do it, that would be pretty good. And if it isn't a myth, then it would be really interesting.
Hehe I'll see about the tute.
But basically, when I'm at the counter at B&H, I'm looking for the following:
* is it UNTOUCHED? I inspect the packaging - I want to be the FIRST one to touch the lens. I won't buy one that's been opened or handled, period.
* I inspect for dust inside:
I have turned back several copies before getting one that I was happy with.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter