would I miss 2.8?

rosselliot · February 18, 2007

If I got the canon 24-105 f/4 L and the Sigma 10-20 f/4-? do you think I'd miss the 2.8 that my current Tamron gives me?

- RE

ivar · February 18, 2007

rosselliot wrote:

If I got the canon 24-105 f/4 L and the Sigma 10-20 f/4-? do you think I'd miss the 2.8 that my current Tamron gives me?

- RE

Depends on what you need it for. Give it a try, and you'll see. Don't think anyone can answer this for you.

rosselliot · February 18, 2007

well, see, I want a good travel kit. but I went to a science museum yesterday and set my tamron to a constant f/4 to try it out and see if the f/2.8 was REALLY doing THAT much for me! and....in short...yes it was. however, I don't know if the IS on the 24-105 would make up for that? because I've never had an IS lens, so I can't speak of it.

do you think the IS would be convenient in this matter?

- RE

ivar · February 18, 2007

rosselliot wrote:

well, see, I want a good travel kit. but I went to a science museum yesterday and set my tamron to a constant f/4 to try it out and see if the f/2.8 was REALLY doing THAT much for me! and....in short...yes it was. however, I don't know if the IS on the 24-105 would make up for that? because I've never had an IS lens, so I can't speak of it.

do you think the IS would be convenient in this matter?

- RE

IS works great for static shots, it doesn't prevent subject-movement though. After playing with the IS for a while, you can get 1 second exposures fairly sharp. (don't mind the colors in that shot, but it was taken with a 24-105)

pathfinder · February 18, 2007

Ross,
If you are shooting in dimly lit interiors, the 24-105 f4 IS L does a pretty fair job. You can shoot safely at ISO 800-1600 f4.5 at 1/13 or even 1/10th of a sec some times. If you can tolerate a little blur, you can shoot at 1/4 sec. If you can find something to brace against, 1/2 to 1 sec expsoures become possible.

This will work better for static shots than for shooting basketball though. For shooting in museums that do not allow tripods, IS can be a great help. I would not expect it to help with indoors sporting matches though, for that you will need a flash.

The ability to zoom for 24-105 trumps the f2.8 for me. Your milage may vary of course. If I want a faster lens, I begin to think about fast primes, f2.0 or faster.

rosselliot · February 18, 2007

pathfinder wrote:

Ross,
If you are shooting in dimly lit interiors, the 24-105 f4 IS L does a pretty fair job. You can shoot safely at ISO 800-1600 f4.5 at 1/13 or even 1/10th of a sec some times. If you can tolerate a little blur, you can shoot at 1/4 sec. If you can find something to brace against, 1/2 to 1 sec expsoures become possible.

This will work better for static shots than for shooting basketball though. For shooting in museums that do not allow tripods, IS can be a great help. I would not expect it to help with indoors sporting matches though, for that you will need a flash.

The ability to zoom for 24-105 trumps the f2.8 for me. Your milage may vary of course. If I want a faster lens, I begin to think about fast primes, f2.0 or faster.

great advice, thanks! thanks, ivar as well!

I think I've made my decision. especially with such educated second opinions.

- RE

ziggy53 · February 18, 2007

Museums are a rather special case in that tripods are usually "not" allowed, so not an option.

Canon has made the situation more interesting in the release of the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM. For many indoor venues, this lens has a lot going for it.

I suppose my own "ideal" lens lineup for general travel (Canon 1.6 crop platform) would be:

Super-wide for vista landscapes
Sigma AF 10-20mm f/4-5.6 HSM EX DC "or"
Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

General purpose walk-a-round and interior
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

Portrait and outdoor tele-zoom
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 USM L IS

Throw in a decent flash (or two), and some light modifiers, and I think I could be happy for most trips. (BTW, my current "standard kit" is a Sigma 18-50mm, f2.8 EX DC, Canon EF 24-85mm, f/3.5-4.5 USM, Canon EF 50mm, f/1.8 II, and Tamron 75-300mm, f4-5.6 LD. You can see where I'm headed and how far away I currently am from the "ideal".) (I have many other lenses to choose from, but this is my current kit that stays together and with me most of the time.)

For me, I will choose more aperture over IS anyday, as I think the extra aperture is more valuable to my style of shooting. As the manufacturers choose to add IS to faster lenses, the situation just gets better, IMHO.

System · February 18, 2007

You won't miss it on the 24-105 unless you are shooting things that move in low light. IS will reduce lens blur, not motion blur. For a travel lens the 24-105 is about as good as it gets. I love mine.

pathfinder · February 18, 2007

Ross,

One other suggestion for an APS sensored camera like the 30D
Canon 17-55f2.8 IS - This might be the best of both worlds for you - f2.8, wider than the 24-105 and faster to boot. And cheaper too.

The downside is that it is an EF-S lenses only - it will not ever work on a full frame camera. Tamron makes a similar lens 17-50 f2.8 with out the IS also

I like the 24-105 lens a lot, but I like it a lot better on a FF rig. On a APS sensor camera, the 17-55 f2.8 IS EF-S looks like a very sweet lens.

Ultimately it depends on whether you favor wide or long.

Hi Ziggy, I didn't see your post until I submitted this one:D

Great minds and all that!!

rosselliot · February 18, 2007

pathfinder wrote:

Ross,

One other suggestion for an APS sensored camera like the 30D
Canon 17-55f2.8 IS L - This might be the best of both worlds for you - f2.8, wider than the 24-105 and faster to boot. And cheaper too.

The downside is that it is an EF-S lenses only - it will not ever work on a full frame camera. Tamron makes a similar lens 17-50 f2.8 with out the IS also

I like the 24-105 lens a lot, but I like it a lot better on a FF rig. On a APS sensor camera, the 17-55 f2.8 IS EF-S looks like a very sweet lens.

Ultimately it depends on whether you favor wide or long.

Hi Ziggy, I didn't see your post until I submitted this one:D Great minds and all that!!

see, that's kinda the problem, it's not an L lens. If I'm gonna spend almost ONE THOUSAND dollars on a lens, I expect an almost perfect review EVERYTIME. I know there's no perfect lens, but hearing almost every review speak of dust and that the build quality is OK, but can't really compare to L lenses, I feel more comfortable with spending that much money on a lens taht I know is great. if the 17-85 f/2.8 IS was an L I would snatch it in a SECOND, but not as it is.

I've been playing with my tamron 17-50 and seeing what 24mm is like and what f/4.0 will look like. I think it may be just what I'm looking for, however, ideally, if the canon 17-85 were sealed and built like tank, that'd be the PERFECT lens (for me at least).

the 24-105 would make a good portrait lens, right?

- RE

wxwax · February 18, 2007

I would never, ever get rid of a fast lens.

There will be times when you need it. There will always be low light situations where no amount of IS and high ISO can substitute for a larger aperture.

System · February 18, 2007

rosselliot wrote:

ideally, if the canon 17-85 were sealed and built like tank, that'd be the PERFECT lens (for me at least).

the 24-105 would make a good portrait lens, right?

- RE

Actually if the 24-105 was f/2.8 that would be the perfect lens. I use mine for portraits and it seems to work well. These are the first shots I took with my studio lighting, shot handheld.

W.W. Webster · February 18, 2007

rosselliot wrote:

If I got the canon 24-105 f/4 L and the Sigma 10-20 f/4-? do you think I'd miss the 2.8 that my current Tamron gives me?

I subscribe to the theory that it's better to have it even if you use it rarely, than find when you really need it that you don't have it.

As photographers, we are talking about the use of light, after all. The more, the merrier, I'd say.

Just my opinion.

pathfinder · February 18, 2007

You're right Ross. Not sure why I called the Canon 17-5 an L, I knew it was not. And with the Tammy 17-50 you are already wide enough.

The 24-105 is an excellent portrait lens These were all shot with the 24-105 IS L.

rosselliot · February 19, 2007

pathfinder wrote:

You're right Ross. Not sure why I called the Canon 17-5 an L, I knew it was not. And with the Tammy 17-50 you are already wide enough.

The 24-105 is an excellent portrait lens These were all shot with the 24-105 IS L.

those are great pictures, pathfinder! thanks for the link.

well, thanks everyone! I guess the next logical step is just to order it, play with it, and decide before 14 days

- RE

Zanotti · February 19, 2007

Why not rent it then? It seems a shame to abuse the return policy to learn what you want.

There are many internet based rental companies who will rent these for about $15 for three days plus some shipping. I have some names at home if you want them and I could post them tonight.

I am sure others here have favorites.

My personal opinion is that buying with the intent to return is worng. It just adds costs for all of us to absorb.

Z

rosselliot · February 19, 2007

Zanotti wrote:

Why not rent it then? It seems a shame to abuse the return policy to learn what you want.

There are many internet based rental companies who will rent these for about $15 for three days plus some shipping. I have some names at home if you want them and I could post them tonight.

I am sure others here have favorites.

My personal opinion is that buying with the intent to return is worng. It just adds costs for all of us to absorb.

Z

I had no idea renting was so cheap! when I did research on it, it seemed a waste of money that you could've been putting towards the lens itself! but $15 isn't that bad...I'd really appreciate those names!!!

- RE

ziggy53 · February 19, 2007

Zanotti wrote:

Why not rent it then? It seems a shame to abuse the return policy to learn what you want.

There are many internet based rental companies who will rent these for about $15 for three days plus some shipping. I have some names at home if you want them and I could post them tonight.

I am sure others here have favorites.

My personal opinion is that buying with the intent to return is worng. It just adds costs for all of us to absorb.

Z

I think Ross is sincere about ordering the lens with an intent to buy. He is about to make a trip and is looking for new glass.

http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=484114&postcount=6

While I agree that it is wrong to order anything with the intent to return it, I don't think that is his adgenda. Did I miss something?

rosselliot · February 19, 2007

ziggy53 wrote:

I think Ross is sincere about ordering the lens with an intent to buy. He is about to make a trip and is looking for new glass.

http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=484114&postcount=6

While I agree that it is wrong to order anything with the intent to return it, I don't think that is his adgenda. Did I miss something?

you're right, ziggy, I'm quite sure of keeping it, because I really do want to make sure I have the right lens for my trip, and with all the research the 24-105 might just be it...but do you still think it would behoove me to rent it first?

- rE

Zanotti · February 19, 2007

I didn't mean to make a connection between Ross's intention and returns. I just offered him the option of rental if he is unsure. I wish I were at home to give the rental link, but I'll do that this afternoon.

Not specifically directed at Ross, was the comment that I do not think those who abuse return policies help any of us. I do not think that one should return things simply because they changed their decision - or simply as a "free" rental. I know that several of the major chains - Fry's for one- gets an absurdly high return rate on Monday's. Sounds like a "free rental
" to me.

This policy hurts all of us who have legitimate reasons to use the return. Soemtimes things do not work as intended, not necessarily defective, but not operating under the assumed conditions.

Back to Ross: I understand that there is a trip coming up and he wants an ideal lens set. I would too (and I would carry a nice P&S for the casual times). Ross seems a little undecided, I share many of the same issues, in that it is extremely difficult for me to see things live before ordering them. Internet rental gives him a bit of the best of both worlds. (Although in the end, he may want both and thats even more expensive!)

Respectively,

Z

ziggy53 · February 19, 2007

rosselliot wrote:

you're right, ziggy, I'm quite sure of keeping it, because I really do want to make sure I have the right lens for my trip, and with all the research the 24-105 might just be it...but do you still think it would behoove me to rent it first?

- rE

There are many times when rental makes sense, and this may be one of those times.

You might also locate someone locally who has the lens. While they would probably be reluctant to "loan" the lens, they might be perfectly willing to go on a short "testing mission" with you to help you determine the lens suitability.

Check with any local photo clubs and Colleges/Universities as possible sources of help.

I've not personally heard of rental places as inexpensive as Zanotti mentions, but that might be of value beyond this intent as well.

Zanotti · February 19, 2007

www.lensrentals.com
1242B002.jpg?1165096540

Availability: In stock Estimate: Ships tomorrow
Arrives Thursday or Friday Length: 4.4 inches Filter size: 77mm Weight: 1.4 pounds Part number: 1242B002 Price: Three day: $31.00 One week: $46.00 One week with insurance: $53.00 Two weeks: $76.00 Two weeks with insurance: $86.00 21 days: $95.00 30 days: $111.00 30 days with insurance: $125.00 Shipping: $16.00 (return shipping included) For 1.6 cameras only – Rebel, 20D, 30D. This new lens provides a very wide f2.8 aperture, 3rd generation image stabilizer and a zoom range that makes an ideal ‘walkaround’ or everyday lens for 1.6 crop cameras. Its gotten universally excellent reviews for sharpness and usability; its an “L” quality lens, both in build and sharpness.
We continue to add copies as the demand seems to be growing almost weekly. Several people have rented it for a second time now, so obviously they like it.
Canon 24-105mm f4 IS

0344B002.jpg?1165096540

Availability: In stock Estimate: Ships tomorrow
Arrives Thursday or Friday Length: 4.2 inches Filter size: 77mm Weight: 1.5 pounds Part number: 0344B002 Price: Three day: $31.00 One week: $47.00 One week with insurance: $55.00 Two weeks: $79.00 Two weeks with insurance: $89.00 30 days: $124.00 30 days with insurance: $138.00 Shipping: $16.00 (return shipping included)
Canon’s wide range Image Stabilized midrange zoom is a favorite ‘walkaround’ and vacation lens. Its very sharp even wide open and the Image Stabilization system allows it to be handheld even at slow shutter speeds. It does exhibit some barrel and pincushion distortion at extreme range on full frame cameras.
We’re frequently asked “24-105 or 24-70”. There isn’t a right answer, they’re both great. The advantages of the 24-105 are smaller size, greater range and IS. The 24-70 has less distortion and wider apertures. My choice is 24-70 for portraits and architectural shooting, 24-105 for walking around and to take on vacation. But that’s just me.

Tamron 28-75 f2.8 XR Di LD

AF09C700.jpg?1165096540

Availability: In stock Estimate: Ships tomorrow
Arrives Thursday or Friday Length: 3.6 inches Filter size: 67mm Weight: 1.5 pounds Part number: AF09C700 Price: Three day: $15.00 One week: $22.00 One week with insurance: $27.00 Two weeks: $40.00 Two weeks with insurance: $48.00 30 days: $62.00 Shipping: $16.00 (return shipping included)
A strong competitor to the two midrange Canon zooms, the Tamron is smaller and lighter. Its nearly as sharp as the Canon zooms, has a wide aperture, and is significantly less expensive. Autofocuses accurately and almost as quickly as the Canon zooms. It may be important to consider that 24mm (on the Canon zooms) is quite a bit wider than 28mm if you don’t have another lens to cover wide angle shots, though.

Sample Pictures

Zanotti · February 19, 2007

You know Ross, after reading these reviews, you have to ask yourself if you are about to spend a boatload of money for a relatively little increase in performance.

Why not spend the $1K on a wild weekend in Europe that you will never forget?

Z

rosselliot · February 19, 2007

Zanotti wrote:

You know Ross, after reading these reviews, you have to ask yourself if you are about to spend a boatload of money for a relatively little increase in performance.

Why not spend the $1K on a wild weekend in Europe that you will never forget?

Z

well, I am going to France for my 18th birthday...and I'm not paying for it (thank goodness), so I got that covered.

However $1000 WOULD bring back a TON of souvenirs.....friends and family would be happy for sure...

and...I am going to San Diego this summer...money might be helpful there too. haha.

Truth is, I'm a big believer in buy the best the first time. I love my tamron, but the feel of it, although very well built and tough, doesn't feel as good as an "L" (I used to have the 70-200 f/4, but didn't use it near enough to justify having it sit in my car). lenses...make everything more complicated....haha.

I REALLY appreciate your help with my decision! I'll definitely look into your lens renting place. those prices don't seem TOO too bad...

- RE

Zanotti · February 19, 2007

You know the lens you are looking at is $89 for two weeks rental, then you can have $900 left over......

As a frequent traveller to Europe on business - it's a wonderful place - but enjoy the sense of history, food and culture. With the exchange rate at 1 euro = US$1.30 - you will find nothing worth buying.

The lens you looked at is euro 999 at most stores - about US$1300. Clothes, purses, gifts, etc will all be cheaper in any american mall.

Spend the bucks on a nice dinner, learn about the history of the great churches, pay more for a first class train ride to the south. But dont bother buying anything. We have the greatest economy in the world in the USA - things are naturally cheaper here.

Dont spend on things, spend on experiances.......

Z

rosselliot · February 19, 2007

Zanotti wrote:

You know the lens you are looking at is $89 for two weeks rental, then you can have $900 left over......

As a frequent traveller to Europe on business - it's a wonderful place - but enjoy the sense of history, food and culture. With the exchange rate at 1 euro = US$1.30 - you will find nothing worth buying.

The lens you looked at is euro 999 at most stores - about US$1300. Clothes, purses, gifts, etc will all be cheaper in any american mall.

Spend the bucks on a nice dinner, learn about the history of the great churches, pay more for a first class train ride to the south. But dont bother buying anything. We have the greatest economy in the world in the USA - things are naturally cheaper here.

Dont spend on things, spend on experiances.......

Z

that's great advice...I can't wait to go!!!

Khaos · February 19, 2007

For museums you need fast glass. At the Toldeo Museum of Art which does not allow flash and is also dimly lit, I used the 35 L exclusively with almost all shot under 2.0

You can see the results here: http://creative-khaos.smugmug.com/gallery/2140264

Scott_Quier · February 20, 2007

Ross,

Here's my $.02

For your trip, you have mentioned needing a lens to shoot stuff in museums where things will be static and needing a "general walk-around" lens for, I assume, outdoor stuff.

Consider the following advertising propaganda - "they" say that you can get 2 to 3 stops from IS. We know this applies only with respect to camera motion and will not stop action. So, this would seem to offset the f/4 of the 24-105L in the museum settings.

For outdoors, especially during the day, the f/4 is not an issue and, in fact, you may find yourself shooting stopped down a bit from there.

Finally, I don't know if you've looked here, but Andy did a review of the 24-105L a while ago. It might be useful information. And, IIRC, Andy posted some shots from some night-time scenes using this lens. Might want to do a search and see what you can find.

pathfinder · February 20, 2007

I was at the Steamboat Arabia Museum in Kansas City a few weeks ago, and shot entirely with a 5D and a 24-105 f4 IS L. It was dark in there - they keep it dark so that light will not bleach out these artifacts recovered from a steamboat that sank in the Missouri River in 1856. I shot at ISO 800-1600 without a flash

1/40th f5 ISO 800

1/15th f5 ISO 1600 - silver keys on a flat, black background....

1/13th f5 ISO 800 Bone white china from England

All handheld

This shot of the engine did not look nearly this bright in real life - it was dim in there
1/5th sec ( yes, 1/5th sec ) f4.5 ISO 1000 Handheld

rosselliot · February 20, 2007

pathfinder wrote:

I was at the Steamboat Arabia Museum in Kansas City a few weeks ago, and shot entirely with a 5D and a 24-105 f4 IS L. It was dark in there - they keep it dark so that light will not bleach out these artifacts recovered from a steamboat that sank in the Missouri River in 1856. I shot at ISO 800-1600 without a flash

1/40th f5 ISO 800

1/15th f5 ISO 1600 - silver keys on a flat, black background....

1/13th f5 ISO 800 Bone white china from England

All handheld

This shot of the engine did not look nearly this bright in real life - it was dim in there
1/5th sec ( yes, 1/5th sec ) f4.5 ISO 1000 Handheld

wow! those are amazing!

I have to confess...I ordered this lens yesterday! after more research after all of the comments from this thread, I decided that it would be a good choice for I think I need. these pictures definitely verified my thoughts.

thanks again for everyone's comments! I can't wait to try out this lens and tell y'all what I think!!!!!!!!!!!!

- RE

pathfinder · February 20, 2007

Live Long and Prosper, Grasshopper

( I always wanted to say that somewhere:D )

would I miss 2.8?

Comments