Lens whore

Stan

I am thinking of buying a 24-105mm IS. This lens has been bugging me ever since it came out.

I have a 28-70mm that I kind of love. (that's not the 24-70mm) It weighs a ton but it does stops down to F/2.8. The 24-105mm is wider but only F/4. The extra 4mm does make a difference. My next lens down is a 10-22 which I use alot at 22mm. My next lens up is the 100mm F/2.8 which is almost impossible hand held so the IS feature on the 24-105 would be aweome.

The lens weighs less than the 28-70, has a shallower hood and has IS. This makes it a classic carry round lens.

Should I give up my L lens worth £300 second hand and buy a £700 non L

Cheers
Stan

Poseidon

Stan wrote:

I am thinking of buying a 24-105mm IS. This lens has been bugging me ever since it came out.

I have a 28-70mm that I kind of love. (that's not the 24-70mm) It weighs a ton but it does stops down to F/2.8. The 24-105mm is wider but only F/4. The extra 4mm does make a difference. My next lens down is a 10-22 which I use alot at 22mm. My next lens up is the 100mm F/2.8 which is almost impossible hand held so the IS feature on the 24-105 would be aweome.

The lens weighs less than the 28-70, has a shallower hood and has IS. This makes it a classic carry round lens.

Should I give up my L lens worth £300 second hand and buy a £700 non L

Cheers
Stan

I really like my 24-105, but I would not give up my 24-70 to get it. I think both lenses have their place, as the 105 finds it way on the camera for Portraiture, but the 24-70 makes it way back for reception pictures. (Wedding photographer) The 2.8 vs 4.0 and IS thing can go both ways, but if your SUBJECT is moving then no amount of IS can help you, where 2.8 does.

Richard

Stan wrote:

Should I give up my L lens worth £300 second hand and buy a £700 non L

Cheers
Stan

Can you borrow or rent one for a week? That might be the best way to find out.

saurora

Stan wrote:

I am thinking of buying a 24-105mm IS. This lens has been bugging me ever since it came out.

Should I give up my L lens worth £300 second hand and buy a £700 non L

Cheers
Stan

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something here, but the Canon 24-105 f/4 is an "L" lens. If we are talking about the same lens, it's an awesome lens, my favorite of all that I own. For walk around it covers a lot of territory and the IS makes it possible for me to shoot sharp pictures hand-held. It's a nicely balanced lens on my 20D. I like the feel of it. It all boils down to what you shoot whether or not is worth giving up difference in f/stops. Darn Canon.........they just won't cooperate and build an all-in-one do-it-all lens!!! (If they did, we wouldn't be able to afford it!)

rjpat

I agree with Susan, my 24-105 stays on my camera about 80% of the time, love it.

andymillson

My 24-105 is an L lens as well

When Imoved from Minolta to Canon I took a long while over deciding which lenses to get to replace my Minolts ones. The 24-105 was always at the top of the list, but it was a little spendy. After reading Andy's review on here (and if you havent read it, check it out here http://dgrin.smugmug.com/gallery/1161613) I was convinced. I have not regretted paying the extra for this lens. I have done three commercial portrait sessions with it now and it is (slowly) starting to pay for itself

(one of the other) Andy ('s)

Halliday

Great
Now I've read this thread. I was thinking of buying the 24-70, but a few weekend ago I saw a Portrait photog using the 24-105 IS. It stuck in myhead then and after finding this thread I'm totally torn between the two.

cmason

Halliday wrote:

Now I've read this thread. I was thinking of buying the 24-70, but a few weekend ago I saw a Portrait photog using the 24-105 IS. It stuck in myhead then and after finding this thread I'm totally torn between the two.

I really really recommend trying these two out personally. The 24-70 is HUGE. I went into the camera store to buy it, and when I tried it out, I couldn't believe the size of it. I was turned off right away, and bought the Tamron instead, since at $300, it was no risk. I later tried the 24-105IS, and find that much more useful size. I will later upgrade I am sure.

Stan

Thanks for all the replies.

Cmason, I have the 28-70 which is the predecessor to the 24-70 but very similar. It is an awesome lens but yes it is very heavy, hence the desire for a lighter carry round lens

Sorry Saurora, you are right, I don't know why I got that in my head.

Poseidon, Good point IS will never compensate for motion in low light.The speed of the lens is why I love it.

Hi Richard, That would be good but I'm not sure it's feasible. They are in short supply at the moment.

SO in conclusion I will keep the 28-70 as a specialist lens and pack the 24-105 as my 3 lens kit.

I'll Keep you all posted Weekends come round so fast

Cheers
Stan

Blurmore

I don't really see the comparison here....these lenses are 2 very different animals. The 24-70 is a purist's zoom who wants to create great narrow DOF from wide angle to short tele. The 24-105 is a compromise all-arounder for people with the coin to afford the red letter. The 24 end of the 24-105 exhibits some pretty serious barrel distortion (to be expected) while the 24-70 is virtually distortion free throught (minor barrel very minor pin). Both lenses are sharp no doubt, both make a good portrait lens on a crop or full frame body. The 24-105 is a high quality "walk around lens" the 24-70 is more a lens for someone who is going to carry an extra body anway. I don't really see where their usability or desireability intersects. I personally sunk almost as much money as either into a Canon standard zoom devoid of the red letter because a 36 to anything doesn't cut it for me in a standard zoom. I am happy with my decision and the 17-55 while a sizeable chunk of glass on its own is puny compared to the 24-70 but still cuts the mustard optically. For me (and a lot of people I know) I'll tkae 2 stops and a shorter range over all the IS in the world anyday. But actually, I may cut this against myself as I consider trading in my 70-200 f4 L and 1g for the new 70-200 f4 L IS, not that I can't afford the 2.8 IS...just not the sherpa to haul it around.

claudermilk

I agree with Blur. While these two lenses cover a similar focal length, they are very different. I went with the 24-70 because of the f2.8--I have to have that speed for where I use it most; it also doubles nicely as a portrait and wal-around lens. Yep, it's big & has to be for that fast aperture--this is where the 24-105 gets the size advantage at f4. However, to me it's not excessively huge...but then I've spent all day with a 70-200/2.8IS hanging off the camera as well, so perception changes.


So, I'd say the question boils down to is that extra stop needed? Is the lighter weight of the f4 lens more important? Is the 70-105 range needed?

jdryan3

Just where is that Canon 14-400 f/2 L for $999? And I wonder how big that would be. Chris and Blur make great points - like I have to set priorities. Weight, speed, IS ... cost is about the same.

I'm following this thread because I have the 28-135 and am looking at either the 17-40 and 24-105 (both F/4) or maybe the 16-35 and the 24-70 (both F/2.8). I have the 24 F/2.8, 50 F1.8, and 100 F/2, plus the 70-200 F/2.8 IS. I recently got the 70-200 to replace the 200 prime I had because sometimes you do need the IS AND 2.8. Also I needed to occasionally crank it back to 175 or 150 - 200 was just too close. The weight of the 200 was less, but if you can't grab the image...

what to do, what to do <sigh> <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/headscratch.gif&quot; border="0" alt="" >

LiquidAir

On a 1.6 crop body the 24-70 f/2.8L perfectly covers the most used focal lengths for portraits and candids and is fast enough to provide good background separation and faster shutter speeds for low light. If you have a crop body and do a lot candid photography there is no better lens for it.

At f/4 the 24-105 is a tad slow for candids and I have lots of motion blurred shots to show for it. That said it, the lens does covers a huge amount of territory quite well and is exceptional for travel. If I am headed off into the unknown and I am only taking one lens, that is the one.

On my full frame 5D, the 24-70 range is kind of a funny beast; 24 is really wider than I want in a fast lens and 70 is too short for many of my uses. If I was shooting with the popular 24-70 & 70-200 f/2.8 pair I would be continually switching lenses which, in my mind, is not really the point of zooms. What I really want is a 35-105 f/2L. Sadly such a beast does not exist. My kit is a 24-105 general purpose lens and a set of fast primes for candids. I am still switching lenses quite a bit, but for my trouble I get an extra stop or two of light for my candids at f/2 even f/1.4.

Stan

Blurmore wrote:

I don't really see the comparison here....these lenses are 2 very different animals. The 24-70 is a purist's zoom who wants to create great narrow DOF from wide angle to short tele. The 24-105 is a compromise all-arounder for people with the coin to afford the red letter. The 24 end of the 24-105 exhibits some pretty serious barrel distortion (to be expected) while the 24-70 is virtually distortion free throught (minor barrel very minor pin). Both lenses are sharp no doubt, both make a good portrait lens on a crop or full frame body. The 24-105 is a high quality "walk around lens" the 24-70 is more a lens for someone who is going to carry an extra body anway. I don't really see where their usability or desireability intersects. I personally sunk almost as much money as either into a Canon standard zoom devoid of the red letter because a 36 to anything doesn't cut it for me in a standard zoom. I am happy with my decision and the 17-55 while a sizeable chunk of glass on its own is puny compared to the 24-70 but still cuts the mustard optically. For me (and a lot of people I know) I'll tkae 2 stops and a shorter range over all the IS in the world anyday. But actually, I may cut this against myself as I consider trading in my 70-200 f4 L and 1g for the new 70-200 f4 L IS, not that I can't afford the 2.8 IS...just not the sherpa to haul it around.

Thanks for the reply Blurmore, that makes alot of sense.
I bought the lens and look forward to trying it out. I need a walk around lens with a greater versatility than the 28-70. The 28-70 produces beautiful results but does have its drawbacks as a walk around so I will keep the 28-70, atlaest for the time being.

Stan

wxwax

The 24-105 is more than just a walkaround lens. It may become the only lens you take on a trip, and it may have a hard time leaving your camera.

I have both, and while there's no question that f4 is relatively slow, it simply hasn't been an issue - so far.

Plus, I feel entirely comfortable traveling with just the single lens. Time was, I always traveled with the 16-35, 24-70 and the 70-200. While I cannot reach 200, obviously, otherwise I feel very comfortable with the lens.

I had been skeptical, but not anymore.

Stan

wxwax wrote:

The 24-105 is more than just a walkaround lens. It may become the only lens you take on a trip, and it may have a hard time leaving your camera.

I have both, and while there's no question that f4 is relatively slow, it simply hasn't been an issue - so far.

Plus, I feel entirely comfortable traveling with just the single lens. Time was, I always traveled with the 16-35, 24-70 and the 70-200. While I cannot reach 200, obviously, otherwise I feel very comfortable with the lens.

I had been skeptical, but not anymore.

Thanks Waxy, my 28-70 is my main lens. My travel kit is this with a 10-22 and 100-400. I don't think I will ever give up the 10-22. I take the 100-400 as part of the kit if I am taking a tripod or sometimes I use the 100-400 as a carry round.

I only ever use a hand strap unless I need both hands in extreme situations so weight is not an issue since the 100-400 works well with the hand strap.

However, with the 24 105 maybe I will feel more confident in not having to change lenses so frequently unless I am Doing something specific.

Stan