Yes, Waxy - the 24-105L is that good.

Andy · March 10, 2007

wxwax wrote:

Who needs a tripod with the magical 24-105?

It's quite true.

Walking through the Bellagio today in Vegas, I'd wanted to get the gorgeous shells on the ceiling of the lobby - yeah it's a cliche shot in Vegas, but they are just so cool!

So I'm not one to measurebate... but this lens gets asked about quite often here on Dgrin.

Here's a 100% crop from a different shot,
1/10th second, handheld, ISO 1600:

And here's a 100% crop from the linked shot,
1/2 second, tripod, ISO 100:

rosselliot · March 10, 2007

I too love this lens! I just recently added this to my growing collection! and in large part to your review that you posted on the "reviews you can use!"

so...that means you owe me 1000 bucks, Andy!

- RE

saurora · March 11, 2007

This was the first lens I bought when I bought my camera. The salesman at Calumet suggested it......I really knew little about it at the time...am I ever greatful to him!!!! For once a salesman who knew what he was recommending. I use it so much I hate to not bring it with me even if I'm not planning on using it.

20DNoob · March 11, 2007

Thanks a lot Andy, my wishlist just grew by another grand.

ian408 · March 11, 2007

Proof that Dale Chihuly makes glass as nice as Canon

I knew that lens rocked the moment I picked mine up.

wxwax · March 11, 2007

35 1.4, 1/13th handheld

:poke

Nimai · March 11, 2007

24-105mm L . . . That's f/4.0 right? That certainly sounds like a great zoom range. It could be the lens for "walking around". If only it were f/2.8. I'm addicted (probably naively) to wider apertures.

Andy · March 11, 2007

Nimai wrote:

24-105mm L . . . That's f/4.0 right? That certainly sounds like a great zoom range. It could be the lens for "walking around". If only it were f/2.8. I'm addicted (probably naively) to wider apertures.

I'm a big fan of fast glass. But this lens is just so darn useful, and good

wxwax · March 11, 2007

Nimai wrote:

24-105mm L . . . That's f/4.0 right? That certainly sounds like a great zoom range. It could be the lens for "walking around". If only it were f/2.8. I'm addicted (probably naively) to wider apertures.

That's what I said. Then I got one. It really is a perfect walking around lens.

Mount it to a 5D, with its low-noise high-ISO performance, and you're in good shape.

ISO 1250 at the car show this weekend. That's Patch29. I think he just sat on something.

saurora · March 11, 2007

Nimai wrote:

24-105mm L . . . That's f/4.0 right? That certainly sounds like a great zoom range. It could be the lens for "walking around". If only it were f/2.8. I'm addicted (probably naively) to wider apertures.

If it were f/2.8 I'd have to mortgage the house to get one!!!!

wxwax · March 11, 2007

saurora wrote:

If it were f/2.8 I'd have to mortgage the house to get one!!!!

And lift weights to carry it.

dogwood · March 11, 2007

Nice pics Andy. Sounds like a nice lens. Unfortunately, the 16-35, 24-70, and 70-200 have already gotten a hold of my wallet and they won't let go! Interestingly, today I was shooting some catalog shots with the 24-70 at f/8 and near the end needed to switch to the 70-200 (and that's on a 1.3 crop camera)... sounds like the 24-105 would have been perfect in that situation. Not sure if I could give up the 24-70 though... that's another sweet lens.

System · March 12, 2007

Those shells are actually flowers by Dale Chihuly.

Steve Wynn started talking to me about the ceiling at the Bellagio long before construction even began. He wanted me to make a “spectacular” piece in the lobby of the hotel that would rival the aquarium at the Mirage, and generate more interest. Back in Seattle, we built the entire seventy-by-thirty-foot ceiling, full-scale, at my studio. The commission, as contracted, called for a whole new armature type and about a thousand new “flowers.” Steve visited several times, loved it, and wanted even more glass. Finally FIORI DI COMO was installed with over two thousand handblown glass elements. It’s the glory of Las Vegas.
— Chihuly

And yes, the lens IS that good.

wxwax...you're blowing the highlights in the upper right corner.

Andy · March 12, 2007

truth wrote:

Those shells are actually flowers by Dale Chihuly.

They actually look like colored jellyfish to me.

System · March 12, 2007

The do, especially at that angle. There's a wickedly good PBS in HD special on his Venice installations that's really worth seeking out. Amazing guy. The hall in which we are being married in May has a large Chihuly installation in it. Just at the edge of the frame in this pic...

wxwax · March 12, 2007

truth wrote:

wxwax...you're blowing the highlights in the upper right corner.

Um, check the bottom center of Andy's piccie.

wxwax · March 12, 2007

truth wrote:

Super shot.

System · March 12, 2007

wxwax wrote:

Super shot.

Thanks.

BTW, there's nothing wrong with Andy's image, the lens is infallible. It must be your monitor.

wxwax · March 12, 2007

truth wrote:

Thanks.

I know, I just looked at the gallery, you make really nice architectural images.

saurora · March 12, 2007

wxwax wrote:

Um, check the bottom center of Andy's piccie.

I think that's where one of the jellyfish died. (They really do look more like jellyfish, Andy!) Besides, a little white is needed in artwork as in photography!

ian408 · March 12, 2007

Andy wrote:

They actually look like colored jellyfish to me.

The jellies are in Monterey at the Monterey Bay Aquarium.

and

Art Scott · March 12, 2007

Andy,

Which Canon body was the 24-105L attached to take the Shells in the Belliago?

Reason is....those pics were not just the result of great glass...it is a combonation of glass and body.

Andy · March 12, 2007

Art Scott wrote:

Andy,

Which Canon body was the 24-105L attached to take the Shells in the Belliago?

Reason is....those pics were not just the result of great glass...it is a combonation of glass and body.

Canon 5D.

pathfinder · March 12, 2007

If it was a 24-105 f2.8, it would then weigh more than the 24-70 f2.8. Not a good thing to carry around all day.

I used to own a 28-105 f2.8 Tammie - very large, heavy, not nearly as nice as the f4 24-105 IS L.

Nimai · March 12, 2007

wxwax wrote:

Mount it to a 5D, with its low-noise high-ISO performance, and you're in good shape.

Adding to wish-list. Along with 1D MIII for ultra-ISO performance! (And, when I add things to my wish-list - that's exactly what it is... a wish!)

dogwood wrote:

Unfortunately, the 16-35, 24-70, and 70-200 have already gotten a hold of my wallet and they won't let go!

That's my jam, too. Man - the beggin' I had to do with my wife to get that 70-200 f/2.8 IS.

Art Scott · March 12, 2007

Andy wrote:

Canon 5D.

Thanx.............

ginger_55 · March 12, 2007

I love those jelly fish shots!!! If that is a hi-jack, I enjoyed it, smile. Maybe I will finally join our aquarium here in Charleston.

I have been prowling this thread just curious as to what lens (Canon or other) that he, you, Andy, were talking about.

Now I know and saw some nice jelly fish shots!!! Nice ceiling, Andy.

ginger

Poindexter · March 12, 2007

IS on this lens will allow you take some hand-held shots you normally shouldn't without a tripod:

That was at 0.25s before sunrise around 5:00 AM. The Vignetting is not from the lens

Here's another at the same shutter speed:

claudermilk · March 12, 2007

Nimai wrote:

24-105mm L . . . That's f/4.0 right? That certainly sounds like a great zoom range. It could be the lens for "walking around". If only it were f/2.8. I'm addicted (probably naively) to wider apertures.

f2.8? That one's called the 24-70 L.

It's every bit as good as the 24-105, just faster...and a slightly narrower focal range.

Love the shots.

Nimai · March 12, 2007

claudermilk wrote:

f2.8? That one's called the 24-70 L. It's every bit as good as the 24-105, just faster...and a slightly narrower focal range.

Yes, yes - the 24-70. I've got that one, and use it quite a bit! Adding some extra reach and IS is intriguing, though. Or maybe I just like torturing myself with the idea that I need more, more!
Muahahaa! :lol4

Nice examples of IS shots, Poindexter!

wxwax · March 12, 2007

Nimai wrote:

Yes, yes - the 24-70. I've got that one, and use it quite a bit! Adding some extra reach and IS is intriguing, though.

Extra reach, smaller and lighter.

The 24-70 is an outstanding lens. So too is the 24-105. They're just different.

Yes, Waxy - the 24-105L is that good.

Comments