Could be, but I never use a filter on mine and see flare with light sources from time to time.
I also see flare from light sources used in movies and other photographer's images, so I consider it a feature, not necessarily a defect as I stated earlier. You just need to be aware and inspect your viewfinder if shooting into the sun for instance:):
The funny thing is that lens companies and photographers have spent more and more money over the decades trying to get flare-free lenses...and then when CGI came into use for special effects, they wrote plug-ins to create lens flare (there's one in Photoshop) so that a scene would look like it was taken with a real lens!
I think I want one of these lenses, my only concern is I'd like to be using it sometimes in a concert type atmosphere. I was planning on getting the canon 28-70 f/2.8L, but this seems like more for my money.
I'm concerned that f/4 might not be a fast enough lens for concert shooting, but with numbers like these "20D f/4 1/13s iso800 24mm" - I think well maybe its possible.
I guess one thing to consider is, at 1/13s the people on stage are going to be blurry no matter what. If they're not moving that much though, it might not be that noticable.
What would you guys suggest? Keep in mind that if I went the 24-105mm route, I'd probably keep the Sigma 24-70mm (even if it is a bit on the soft side) just for concert occasions where the Canon wouldn't work. I would also have the 70-200mm and the 50mm to work with.
If this lens was a f/2.8 I'd be a happy camper. Maybe I should just wait for Canon to come around and make one considering its popularity. Or is that highly unlikely?
bored? check out my photo site...and if you have the time, leave a comment or rate some pictures while you're there.
Canon 20D | Canon 17-40mm f/4L USM | Tamron 28-75 f2.8 XR Di LD IF | Canon 50mm f/1.8 II | Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
The music I've shot has been in very small venues with mediocre light, at best.
In that type of situation, f4 simply doesn't cut it. IS is pointless. Musicians move when they play, it's what they do. You have to find a way to get a decent shutter speed.
Bigger concerts with better lighting may be a different deal, I've never shot under those circumstances.
Sid's right. I love the 24-105 outdoors, but .....
For concerts, indoors in the dark, especially up close where focusing has less room for error, get the 24-70 f2.8 L, or the Tamron 28-75f2.8 Di, or the 50mm f1.4 or the 85mm f1.8 , yadda yadda yadda .....
Even if IS would let you capture the exposure, f4 will not let you focus in the dark like f2.8 of f1.4 will.
Good info. I was figuring that'd be the answer. Perhaps I'll toss the Sigma and grab the Tamron. That way it won't hurt my wallet too much and I'll be able to get the 24-105 before too long.
bored? check out my photo site...and if you have the time, leave a comment or rate some pictures while you're there.
Canon 20D | Canon 17-40mm f/4L USM | Tamron 28-75 f2.8 XR Di LD IF | Canon 50mm f/1.8 II | Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
I already have the 50mm f/1.8 and use it on occasion, but I'm finding that the Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 is on my camera for the majority of the night in the concert atmostphere and I'd just like something a little sharper in that range.
At the same time, I'd like a nice, sharp, walk around lens. Right now I tend to use my 17-40mm as my walk around, but would like something with a little more range.
Right now, I'm thinking about selling the Sigma and opting for the Tamron as all the reviews I've read are very good and it seems to be sharper than the Sigma. Then somewhere down the line I'll grab the 24-105mm.
I think my biggest problem is, I've become an (as someone else here called it) "L-coholic" - but can't justify owning a pile of lenses that cost me over $1k each when I'm still a hobbyist. But L glass is so sexy!
bored? check out my photo site...and if you have the time, leave a comment or rate some pictures while you're there.
Canon 20D | Canon 17-40mm f/4L USM | Tamron 28-75 f2.8 XR Di LD IF | Canon 50mm f/1.8 II | Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
I use primes in the dimly-lit small clubs. Mine are all faster than any zoom. I sometimes mess with the 70-200 f2.8, but I don't need to and I give up shutter speed when I do. Of course, I can get really close. Again, a larger venue might not give you such great access.
The music I've shot has been in very small venues with mediocre light, at best. In that type of situation, f4 simply doesn't cut it. IS is pointless. Musicians move when they play, it's what they do. You have to find a way to get a decent shutter speed.
I only have the 17-85 IS and the 50mm 1.8. In dark places I always end up taking off the IS (probably because that lens goes to 5.6 when you zoom in) and putting on the 1.8.
One thing about people motion is that is can be periodic. There is a time when they move and a time when they stop as that part of the body is about to move the other way. So it can sometimes help to use a big memory card, put the camera in drive mode, and fire a multi-frame burst around your "decisive moment." Several will be blurred, but you might catch one where the subject has paused. When I try this I expect to throw out a few blurred frames as the cost for getting the one where the pause was caught and enough of the frame is sharp.
Also, I seem to remember the 50mm 1.8 sometimes "hunting" for focus in the dark while I've got the shutter pressed, and I'm thinking "Focus, d*** you, focus!!!" Sometimes I have to put the 50mm in manual focus and hope I can see enough in the dark to get it right. Still love the lens though.
Pretty much any lens will hunt for focus in very low light, I've found. Wider aperature helps, but doesn't guarantee the focus will snap in. Yeah, I too have used bursts, hoping to isolate a still moment. It does work at times.
Also, I seem to remember the 50mm 1.8 sometimes "hunting" for focus in the dark while I've got the shutter pressed, and I'm thinking "Focus, d*** you, focus!!!" Sometimes I have to put the 50mm in manual focus and hope I can see enough in the dark to get it right. Still love the lens though.
I've done the exact same thing with that lens. That little bugger will just rack back & forth while you watch the shot fade away. I even have the Katzeye split prism screen for my 20D, and when it's dark enough to confuse the 50 that much, the prisms are hard to see; I've had some luck with it, but not enough practice.
Even with the 24-70 giving up about 1.5 stops (is that correct?), it's AF is so darn fast & accurate it iwll snap right into focus where the 50 would be hunting. It's really that constant f2.8 you're paying for & is worth it in the concert/theater arena.
...on an APS-C body?
Anyone have any comments on how this lens measures up on an x0D or x00D body? I am a 300D shooter that dreams of going full-frame one day. The plan was to get an EFS 17-85 IS as a walk-around and then sell it off if I ever went FF. This was mostly due to the accessable price. Fortunately I've found myself in a situation where I can afford the 24-105 IS instead and am feeling that I would rather have it because of its fixed f/4-ness, better build quality, and compadibility w/ FF bodies, should I ever make that leap. I own a 70-200/4 that I consider the last lens in that range I'll ever buy. I would consider a 24-105 purchase similar.
Any comments as to how useful 24mm is at the wide end as a walk-around when limited by the crop? I have (and love!) an EFS 10-22, so I feel comfortable w/ coverage at the wide end. But I'm wondering how important people find the ~20-28mm range; will I be doing an insane amount of lens swapping? Am I better served looking to something that goes out to 17 or 18mm, scraficing some tele reach, and then trading lenses when I go FF?
My needs are predominantly landscapes and pseudo macros (i.e. flowers). I typically reach for the wides 3-5x more often than I do for the teles. I am horrible w/ portriats, so I often avoid them.
Thanks..
If anybody else is facing this decision too, this thread has an interesting discussion too.
As you can tell from my previous posts in this thread, this lens has assumed the "most used lens" status in my stable of optics. But I generally use it on a full frame camera - 5D, where it is wide enough usually for me. I tend to be a detail, macro, tele shooter, rather than a wide shooter. So that works for me.
But on an APS sensor camera, it will not be wide like a 17-85 is wide.
Then again, adding a 17-40 L is a very nice idea, and relatively cheap for good L optics. It will also work well later with a FF camera also. Just a thought.
Then again, adding a 17-40 L is a very nice idea, and relatively cheap for good L optics. It will also work well later with a FF camera also. Just a thought.
I had dismissed the idea of the 17-40/4 since I already have my ultra-wide coverage from the EFS 10-22. I figured I'd look to trade from 10-22 -> 17-40, but not until I went FF (if I ever do!). The idea of those lenses complimenting each other had not really occured to me. But the more I think about it, the more I like the idea. The 17-40/4 strikes me as a (significant) improvement over the kit, w/ only a slight sacrafice in reach (over the kit). And it is FF friendly. Since I don't do that much tele, it is probably appropriate.
DanielB's recent post about using it on his Philmont trip certianly reinforces this idea.
17-40/4, 24-105/4, 70-200/4 would be an excellent lens lineup, especially for a FF body.. Excellent thought. .. Off to contemplate that lens instead.
17-40/4, 24-105/4, 70-200/4 would be an excellent lens lineup, especially for a FF body.. Excellent thought. .. Off to contemplate that lens instead.
The 17-40/f4 is a great lens, I use it far too much. I've thought about getting the 10-22, but I find the 17 wide enough on the 20D for most occasions.
bored? check out my photo site...and if you have the time, leave a comment or rate some pictures while you're there.
Canon 20D | Canon 17-40mm f/4L USM | Tamron 28-75 f2.8 XR Di LD IF | Canon 50mm f/1.8 II | Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
SpeshulEd: The 10-22 is just way too much fun for landscapes (and more!). I would not part w/ it unless I were going FF. (The fact that I picked it up 2nd-hand and don't have much invested in it helps too!)
Waxy: You've lost me. We were talking 17-40 as an alternative to the 24-105 for APS people (like me) because it is wider, covers a more useful focal range (after the crop), is cheaper, and yet is still FF compatible. The only point I see as arguable is the useful range bit.
I think your 17-35 is a typo and you meant 17-40.. but even if it is, how would buying this lens only buy me 2mm of coverage? The 17-40 covers the 20-40mm range (~32-64mm equiv), which is arguably an important walk-around range. Many here are saying the 17-40 serves as a suitable all-rounder for us APS types, which is what this 24-105 is being touted as for the FF crowd. I gather you disagree?
The more I think about this the more I think you meant "Not sure why you'd need to buy a 17-40, good as it is. You'd be spending $500 to cover 20mm." Which I interpret as saying the 17-40 is NOT a suitable stand-in for the 24-105, even w/ the crop. Am I reading that right?
Sid is correct if you stay within the APS sensor based bodies.
I introduced the 17-40 because NHBubba's stated desire to move to a FF body someday, which the 17-40 works rather well on, and which the 10-22 will not mount to.
My comment was in semi-jest, but if one were starting fresh, a 17-40, 24-105, and a 70-200 covers a heck of a lot of ground. Not wide enough for the die hard wide shooters, but I'm just a hack at wide angles, so......:D
Sid is correct if you stay within the APS sensor based bodies.
I introduced the 17-40 because NHBubba's stated desire to move to a FF body someday, which the 17-40 works rather well on, and which the 10-22 will not mount to.
My comment was in semi-jest, but if one were starting fresh, a 17-40, 24-105, and a 70-200 covers a heck of a lot of ground. Not wide enough for the die hard wide shooters, but I'm just a hack at wide angles, so......:D
Ah, got it, didn't notice the potential body change issue.
OK.......I have read reviews all over the place about this lens and have been on the cusp of buying it for quite a while but I must have had a molecule of doubt because I never did press the purchase button. Two things happened that made me pull the trigger on this thing and I did just that this morning.
The two things that finally got me moving on this were as follows.
1) I read Andy's review AND I read this thread. That was compelling in and of itself. I owned a razor sharp copy of the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L but that lens was way too heavy for my taste. The photos were gorgeous but the lens is a behemoth that weighs a ton. I sold it.
2) I got a superb deal that I would like to alert others to if they are in the market for this lens. I purchased it from B&H for $1,043.30 delivered. Plus a $50 rebates will bring the actual price to $993.30. Go to B&H and put PPE06 in the search bar. Then click Canon and look for the lens. That is one heck of a great deal. This should link right to the lens: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=Search&A=details&Q=&sku=465888&is=USA&addedTroughType=search
I can't wait to get my hands on this lens and give it a workout on my 5D. I thank all those who contributed to this inspirational and motivating thread.
2) I got a superb deal that I would like to alert others to if they are in the market for this lens. I purchased it from B&H for $1,043.30 delivered. Plus a $50 rebates will bring the actual price to $993.30. Go to B&H and put PPE06 in the search bar. Then click Canon and look for the lens. That is one heck of a great deal. This should link right to the lens: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=Search&A=details&Q=&sku=465888&is=USA&addedTroughType=search
I can't wait to get my hands on this lens and give it a workout. I thank all those who contributed to this inspirational and motivating thread.
How does one get these codes to the discounted prices?
I see two prices for the USA model
OK....I received the lens from B&H the other day and it's been raining ever since. I will take some outdoor shots Saturday when the rain is scheduled to stop. But.......so far....I am loving this lens. Having to use flash indoors I snapped some photos to check focus.....handling......and overall quality of the lens. I am very happy and am dying to get this thing outside to see how it performs. Here is a shot of some flowers in a vase. I used flash....hand held. The IS is flat out amazing (I have never used a lens with IS before). I know this is not a full crop but it should give you an idea how sharp the lens is. This is f/4. Focus was on the top rim of the vase.
Comments
I also see flare from light sources used in movies and other photographer's images, so I consider it a feature, not necessarily a defect as I stated earlier. You just need to be aware and inspect your viewfinder if shooting into the sun for instance:):
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
pathfinder must be right!
Nir Alon
images of my thoughts
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
I'm concerned that f/4 might not be a fast enough lens for concert shooting, but with numbers like these "20D f/4 1/13s iso800 24mm" - I think well maybe its possible.
I guess one thing to consider is, at 1/13s the people on stage are going to be blurry no matter what. If they're not moving that much though, it might not be that noticable.
What would you guys suggest? Keep in mind that if I went the 24-105mm route, I'd probably keep the Sigma 24-70mm (even if it is a bit on the soft side) just for concert occasions where the Canon wouldn't work. I would also have the 70-200mm and the 50mm to work with.
If this lens was a f/2.8 I'd be a happy camper. Maybe I should just wait for Canon to come around and make one considering its popularity. Or is that highly unlikely?
In that type of situation, f4 simply doesn't cut it. IS is pointless. Musicians move when they play, it's what they do. You have to find a way to get a decent shutter speed.
Bigger concerts with better lighting may be a different deal, I've never shot under those circumstances.
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
For concerts, indoors in the dark, especially up close where focusing has less room for error, get the 24-70 f2.8 L, or the Tamron 28-75f2.8 Di, or the 50mm f1.4 or the 85mm f1.8 , yadda yadda yadda .....
Even if IS would let you capture the exposure, f4 will not let you focus in the dark like f2.8 of f1.4 will.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
At the same time, I'd like a nice, sharp, walk around lens. Right now I tend to use my 17-40mm as my walk around, but would like something with a little more range.
Right now, I'm thinking about selling the Sigma and opting for the Tamron as all the reviews I've read are very good and it seems to be sharper than the Sigma. Then somewhere down the line I'll grab the 24-105mm.
I think my biggest problem is, I've become an (as someone else here called it) "L-coholic" - but can't justify owning a pile of lenses that cost me over $1k each when I'm still a hobbyist. But L glass is so sexy!
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 only have the 17-85 IS and the 50mm 1.8. In dark places I always end up taking off the IS (probably because that lens goes to 5.6 when you zoom in) and putting on the 1.8.
One thing about people motion is that is can be periodic. There is a time when they move and a time when they stop as that part of the body is about to move the other way. So it can sometimes help to use a big memory card, put the camera in drive mode, and fire a multi-frame burst around your "decisive moment." Several will be blurred, but you might catch one where the subject has paused. When I try this I expect to throw out a few blurred frames as the cost for getting the one where the pause was caught and enough of the frame is sharp.
Also, I seem to remember the 50mm 1.8 sometimes "hunting" for focus in the dark while I've got the shutter pressed, and I'm thinking "Focus, d*** you, focus!!!" Sometimes I have to put the 50mm in manual focus and hope I can see enough in the dark to get it right. Still love the lens though.
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've done the exact same thing with that lens. That little bugger will just rack back & forth while you watch the shot fade away. I even have the Katzeye split prism screen for my 20D, and when it's dark enough to confuse the 50 that much, the prisms are hard to see; I've had some luck with it, but not enough practice.
Even with the 24-70 giving up about 1.5 stops (is that correct?), it's AF is so darn fast & accurate it iwll snap right into focus where the 50 would be hunting. It's really that constant f2.8 you're paying for & is worth it in the concert/theater arena.
http://www.chrislaudermilkphoto.com/
*shrug*
Just couldn't help myself, there's a rebate out right now.
Anyone have any comments on how this lens measures up on an x0D or x00D body? I am a 300D shooter that dreams of going full-frame one day. The plan was to get an EFS 17-85 IS as a walk-around and then sell it off if I ever went FF. This was mostly due to the accessable price. Fortunately I've found myself in a situation where I can afford the 24-105 IS instead and am feeling that I would rather have it because of its fixed f/4-ness, better build quality, and compadibility w/ FF bodies, should I ever make that leap. I own a 70-200/4 that I consider the last lens in that range I'll ever buy. I would consider a 24-105 purchase similar.
Any comments as to how useful 24mm is at the wide end as a walk-around when limited by the crop? I have (and love!) an EFS 10-22, so I feel comfortable w/ coverage at the wide end. But I'm wondering how important people find the ~20-28mm range; will I be doing an insane amount of lens swapping? Am I better served looking to something that goes out to 17 or 18mm, scraficing some tele reach, and then trading lenses when I go FF?
My needs are predominantly landscapes and pseudo macros (i.e. flowers). I typically reach for the wides 3-5x more often than I do for the teles. I am horrible w/ portriats, so I often avoid them.
Thanks..
If anybody else is facing this decision too, this thread has an interesting discussion too.
But on an APS sensor camera, it will not be wide like a 17-85 is wide.
Then again, adding a 17-40 L is a very nice idea, and relatively cheap for good L optics. It will also work well later with a FF camera also. Just a thought.
17-40, 24-105. 70-200 covers a lot of ground:D
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
DanielB's recent post about using it on his Philmont trip certianly reinforces this idea.
17-40/4, 24-105/4, 70-200/4 would be an excellent lens lineup, especially for a FF body.. Excellent thought. .. Off to contemplate that lens instead.
The 17-40/f4 is a great lens, I use it far too much. I've thought about getting the 10-22, but I find the 17 wide enough on the 20D for most occasions.
But you already have a 10-22.
Adding a 24-105 completes your range.
Not sure why you'd need to buy a 17-35, good as it is. You'd be spending $500 to cover 2mm.
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
Waxy: You've lost me. We were talking 17-40 as an alternative to the 24-105 for APS people (like me) because it is wider, covers a more useful focal range (after the crop), is cheaper, and yet is still FF compatible. The only point I see as arguable is the useful range bit.
I think your 17-35 is a typo and you meant 17-40.. but even if it is, how would buying this lens only buy me 2mm of coverage? The 17-40 covers the 20-40mm range (~32-64mm equiv), which is arguably an important walk-around range. Many here are saying the 17-40 serves as a suitable all-rounder for us APS types, which is what this 24-105 is being touted as for the FF crowd. I gather you disagree?
The more I think about this the more I think you meant "Not sure why you'd need to buy a 17-40, good as it is. You'd be spending $500 to cover 20mm." Which I interpret as saying the 17-40 is NOT a suitable stand-in for the 24-105, even w/ the crop. Am I reading that right?
You own a 70-200.
You're interested in either a 17-40 or a 24-105.
Why buy the 17-40? Why sell the 10-22?
Just add the 24-105 and you're covered from 10 to 200. The only gap you have is from 22-24 - not much of a gap at all.
So again, why mess with the 17-40? It's a fine lens. But you don't need it.
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 introduced the 17-40 because NHBubba's stated desire to move to a FF body someday, which the 17-40 works rather well on, and which the 10-22 will not mount to.
My comment was in semi-jest, but if one were starting fresh, a 17-40, 24-105, and a 70-200 covers a heck of a lot of ground. Not wide enough for the die hard wide shooters, but I'm just a hack at wide angles, so......:D
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
The two things that finally got me moving on this were as follows.
1) I read Andy's review AND I read this thread. That was compelling in and of itself. I owned a razor sharp copy of the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L but that lens was way too heavy for my taste. The photos were gorgeous but the lens is a behemoth that weighs a ton. I sold it.
2) I got a superb deal that I would like to alert others to if they are in the market for this lens. I purchased it from B&H for $1,043.30 delivered. Plus a $50 rebates will bring the actual price to $993.30. Go to B&H and put PPE06 in the search bar. Then click Canon and look for the lens. That is one heck of a great deal. This should link right to the lens: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=Search&A=details&Q=&sku=465888&is=USA&addedTroughType=search
I can't wait to get my hands on this lens and give it a workout on my 5D. I thank all those who contributed to this inspirational and motivating thread.
How does one get these codes to the discounted prices?
I see two prices for the USA model
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=46756&highlight=code
Ian