I wanted to be sure I got the newer version and waited from October to early December to get mine. I liked the idea of getting that lens from Jeff also.
I wanted to be sure I got the newer version and waited from October to early December to get mine. I liked the idea of getting that lens from Jeff also.
Yeah, I think I'll do the same unless the hit is huge.
I wanted to be sure I got the newer version and waited from October to early December to get mine. I liked the idea of getting that lens from Jeff also.
In this case, Fotocare's price was identical to everyone else's (including B&H), so it was a no-brainer.
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.
24-105
I've read this thread with interest. My wife has this lens and loves it on her 350D. The idea of extra focal length and less weight made me seriously consider it to replace my 24-70L. I never use it fully open as its for landscape work.
BUT when I tested it on the 5D I found a lot of light falloff until I closed it down to about f11. Is it our lens or am I missing something?
I have the great 24-105mm which as you say is very sharp at f4. I also
have a 24 2.8. I have a chance tomorrow to get a 24-70L for $850-
(almost tack sharp or very cvlose to it).
Quest: should i now sell the fixed to help pay for 24-70....or keep it
(as i may be doing arch in the future - b/c the dist. on the 24-105 at
the 24 end is dreadful on verticals)
just your opinion...and...
thanks
allan
I don't use the 24-70 so I've no opinion, sorry. Anyone else?
Test 'em side by side. Decide then. Unless you're so prudent with money that you don't like having a prime in the same focal length as your zooms, I'd keep 'em both.
Earlier you asked if there is anything not to like about the 24-105f4 L.
It does not like to shoot into the light as well, and you can get flare at times and sometimes I get a loss of contrast due to the flare. And yet, I can shoot sunsets with the lens just fine.
And yes, there is some vignetting at 24 mm - usually I only see this with large areas of dark blue sky.
Having said this, this is still the lens I carry all the time, because it is tack sharp, and goes from pretty wide on a FF to adequately long.
I used it in Antelope Canyon for all my shots and I can see individual grains of sand falling from above.
One other advantage I have found with it, is that the IS allows me to use a slow enough shutter speed to really blur the water in water falls shooting handheld when I neglected to bring my tripod. The ability to spontaneously shoot longer shutter speeds than typical handholding is very useful.
I am about to list my 10-22 & 135 & buy the 24-105. If i dont like it i will buy the 135 again. That 10-22 ive never been too fond of. I would like a better general lens & one wide prime.
I am still teetering on the very edge of the wall over it though.
I am about to list my 10-22 & 135 & buy the 24-105. If i dont like it i will buy the 135 again. That 10-22 ive never been too fond of. I would like a better general lens & one wide prime.
I am still teetering on the very edge of the wall over it though.
Gus,
I have the 24-105, and thinks a good all around lens on my 5D, but I wouldn't sell the 135!
Canetoads ? Man have we got canetoads ..here in the kazzillions !!! Dont need a macro for them. What on earth are the hippys going to smoke & lick if you get rid of them ??
Do i really need one of those ring flashes to get say a 100mm macro working properly ? Spose its just as any flash..stops shadows under things.
Canetoads ? Man have we got canetoads ..here in the kazzillions !!! Dont need a macro for them. What on earth are the hippys going to smoke & lick if you get rid of them ??
Do i really need one of those ring flashes to get say a 100mm macro working properly ? Spose its just as any flash..stops shadows under things.
nah. just a lot of light. a ring-flash helps but if you look through the
accessories forum, I think there's some shots of a right nice setup
using a regular flash with a softbox attachement.
I just saw a blurb on the tele talking about the invasion of canetoads in
AUS.
Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
I have become a believer in this lens if you know you are going to be shooting outdoors in daytime. Like everyone says, it's small and light, great range, very sharp. But if you know you are going to be inside or shooting early or late in the day, I much prefer something faster.
The f4 aperture will not work well indoors with moving subjects. It will work in low light for stationary subjects - think Antelope Canyon - shutter speeds of 20 second, but won't work for low light portraits indoors as well as the 24-70f2.8 or the 85 f1.8
Gus - you do not need a ring flash for macro shooting, but you will really appreciate a good ETTL flash of some sort. If you are only going to purchase one, the 580ex is my first choice. The 430ex comes close though. The Sigma EF-500 I believe is well liked by many folks also. I have never seen a direct comparision of the Sigma and the 580ex.
The 580ex pairs very nicely with a Better Beamer to give you fill flash out to 50-75 feet or so when shooting birds. Gives good light in the eyes with tele shots. I'll see if I can find a shot where I used a Better Beamer. Just Googel Better Beamer and you'll find it at the Nature Photographer site.
Comments
I wanted to be sure I got the newer version and waited from October to early December to get mine. I liked the idea of getting that lens from Jeff also.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Yeah, I think I'll do the same unless the hit is huge.
In this case, Fotocare's price was identical to everyone else's (including B&H), so it was a no-brainer.
Steve,
You captured some great shots in Vietnam and Cambodia. Excellent examples of what the lens can do with a sharp eye behind it.
Erich
Thanks for taking the time to show us what this lens can do. Perfect match for a full-frame sensor.
Erich
28 years of trying to capture emotion...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/allanmichael/
That's a great price.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
I've read this thread with interest. My wife has this lens and loves it on her 350D. The idea of extra focal length and less weight made me seriously consider it to replace my 24-70L. I never use it fully open as its for landscape work.
BUT when I tested it on the 5D I found a lot of light falloff until I closed it down to about f11. Is it our lens or am I missing something?
I don't use the 24-70 so I've no opinion, sorry. Anyone else?
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
Earlier you asked if there is anything not to like about the 24-105f4 L.
It does not like to shoot into the light as well, and you can get flare at times and sometimes I get a loss of contrast due to the flare. And yet, I can shoot sunsets with the lens just fine.
And yes, there is some vignetting at 24 mm - usually I only see this with large areas of dark blue sky.
Having said this, this is still the lens I carry all the time, because it is tack sharp, and goes from pretty wide on a FF to adequately long.
I used it in Antelope Canyon for all my shots and I can see individual grains of sand falling from above.
One other advantage I have found with it, is that the IS allows me to use a slow enough shutter speed to really blur the water in water falls shooting handheld when I neglected to bring my tripod. The ability to spontaneously shoot longer shutter speeds than typical handholding is very useful.
f14 1/25th ISO 100 Focal length 70mm
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
All the Kuwait shots on my page are taken with the 24-105L. I can't say enough about it. The IS on this model works like a charm.
My Page...
http://www.north-scapes.com
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Great lens, Gus, you'll like it
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
I am still teetering on the very edge of the wall over it though.
Gus,
I have the 24-105, and thinks a good all around lens on my 5D, but I wouldn't sell the 135!
Sam
Fair enough. Look forward to seeing the results of your
24-105.
Then I'll anxiously await your macro shots.
Maybe you can shoot some Cane Toads?
Canetoads ? Man have we got canetoads ..here in the kazzillions !!! Dont need a macro for them. What on earth are the hippys going to smoke & lick if you get rid of them ??
Do i really need one of those ring flashes to get say a 100mm macro working properly ? Spose its just as any flash..stops shadows under things.
nah. just a lot of light. a ring-flash helps but if you look through the
accessories forum, I think there's some shots of a right nice setup
using a regular flash with a softbox attachement.
I just saw a blurb on the tele talking about the invasion of canetoads in
AUS.
The f4 aperture will not work well indoors with moving subjects. It will work in low light for stationary subjects - think Antelope Canyon - shutter speeds of 20 second, but won't work for low light portraits indoors as well as the 24-70f2.8 or the 85 f1.8
Gus - you do not need a ring flash for macro shooting, but you will really appreciate a good ETTL flash of some sort. If you are only going to purchase one, the 580ex is my first choice. The 430ex comes close though. The Sigma EF-500 I believe is well liked by many folks also. I have never seen a direct comparision of the Sigma and the 580ex.
The 580ex pairs very nicely with a Better Beamer to give you fill flash out to 50-75 feet or so when shooting birds. Gives good light in the eyes with tele shots. I'll see if I can find a shot where I used a Better Beamer. Just Googel Better Beamer and you'll find it at the Nature Photographer site.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin