Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM

[Martin.D]

I'm one step away from trading my 24-70 for this lens, I like the extra reach and IS as a landscape and walk around lens..

Dont know what to do :(

[guyzer09]

I'm one step away from trading my 24-70 for this lens, I like the extra reach and IS as a landscape and walk around lens..

Dont know what to do :(
Let me know if you do I may be interested!

[Martin.D]

Let me know if you do I may be interested!

Interested in how they compare or interested in trading? if the latter I already have one to trade ;)

[Martin.D]

^^ nice and very sharp :D

[Palna]

^^ nice and very sharp :D


Thank you Martin

I just bought this lens. I'm just glad that it is as sharp and I'm glad that it's so versatile. I have my primes for dark conditions and then I have this when it is light. At some point, I will have the 85 L or Zeiss 100 macro in my fold but that must wait. I am very happy with this lens.

I had it earlier a 5d Mark II and another copy of 24-105 which served also super good.

http://www.palnaphotos.com/PalnaPhotos/Test_files/DT3F1066_1.jpg

[guyzer09]

Interested in how they compare or interested in trading? if the latter I already have one to trade ;)
Both. I am wanting to compare the two lenses myself because its 50/50 here on POTN. I am even thinking about selling my 70-200L to buy a 24-70.

[TT-00]

I just trade the 15-85 IS for this lens 1st short of it.

http://img682.imageshack.us/img682/2812/blossomq.jpg

[sabu1818]

After much debate, finally went through buying this lens over the 17-55 f/2.8 and LOVE IT!!!!

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4137/4917897045_d7583470e7_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/erickchavezphotography/4917897045/)
Korean Friendship Bell (http://www.flickr.com/photos/erickchavezphotography/4917897045/) by e.chavez (http://www.flickr.com/people/erickchavezphotography/), on Flickr

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4098/4917861347_70797e90c4_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/erickchavezphotography/4917861347/)
San Pedro Sreet Shot (http://www.flickr.com/photos/erickchavezphotography/4917861347/) by e.chavez (http://www.flickr.com/people/erickchavezphotography/), on Flickr


http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4135/4918414090_e008efdac8_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/erickchavezphotography/4918414090/)
Woody (http://www.flickr.com/photos/erickchavezphotography/4918414090/) by e.chavez (http://www.flickr.com/people/erickchavezphotography/), on Flickr

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4098/4918430718_984571c08b_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/erickchavezphotography/4918430718/)
Woody (http://www.flickr.com/photos/erickchavezphotography/4918430718/) by e.chavez (http://www.flickr.com/people/erickchavezphotography/), on Flickr

[Martin.D]

Both. I am wanting to compare the two lenses myself because its 50/50 here on POTN. I am even thinking about selling my 70-200L to buy a 24-70.

I'm interested in the 24-105 simply because it's length - I mainly shoot outdoors but the problem is when you dont have 2.8 you miss it - although most indoor shots I use a flash so at F:4 it shouldnt be a problem.. I also have my sigma 1.4..

Still not decided yet.. :p

[Methodical]

That and the fact that you have one of the better high ISO cameras - 5D2

...although most indoor shots I use a flash so at F:4 it shouldnt be a problem.. I also have my sigma 1.4..

Still not decided yet.. :p

[Martin.D]

That and the fact that you have one of the better high ISO cameras - 5D2

Indeed, well I made the plunge my 24-70 will be in the last post this evening and the 24-105 should be here by Wed - If I made a bad choice my guess is trading again will not be a problem, beauty of buying an L lens is it hold's its value!

[MichaelBernard]

So I just got this lens, I wonder...is it a tad soft or is it just me? My Tammy 28-75mm seems to produce sharper images at the same apertures. Odd?

[Martin.D]

So I just got this lens, I wonder...is it a tad soft or is it just me? My Tammy 28-75mm seems to produce sharper images at the same apertures. Odd?

front or back focusing? test it out and see..

[Palna]

http://www.palnaphotos.com/PalnaPhotos/Test_files/DT3F1070_5.jpg

[MichaelBernard]

front or back focusing? test it out and see..

Neither, the images are soft all the way through. I don't have my MKII anymore to test it either :( This lens seems to shine on higher resolution bodies.

[aztecdaz]

such a lovely photo! Im just about to order this lens! home mines is as sharp as your copy

[matonanjin]

such a lovely photo! Im just about to order this lens! home mines is as sharp as your copy

It is a lovely photo. And we all saw it. You didn't need to repost it in your reply, thanks.

[aztecdaz]

It is a lovely photo. And we all saw it. You didn't need to repost it in your reply, thanks.

Fixed, my mistake, no need for the bluntness

[HcOiNvDiAc]

http://www.lancekeethphotography.com/Automotive/Huntsville-Car-Scenecom/IMG2271-copy/577006422_ZrWaS-1024x1024.jpg (http://www.lancekeethphotography.com/Automotive/Huntsville-Car-Scenecom/8726270_iTLzv#577006422_ZrWaS-A-LB)

[MichaelBernard]

Seems it shines on the 5d2..think I'll keep it for a while unless someone wants to buy it ;)

[jhoag]

Michael,

What body is it soft on? Mine has always been wonderfully sharp on my FF bodies - but it has also been very sharp on my 40D, except at the very long end (say; say 90-105) where it is a tad soft on that body. It's very strange because I would expect to to be the other way round.

JH

[MichaelBernard]

Michael,

What body is it soft on? Mine has always been wonderfully sharp on my FF bodies - but it has also been very sharp on my 40D, except at the very long end (say; say 90-105) where it is a tad soft on that body. It's very strange because I would expect to to be the other way round.

JH


I noticed it was a bit soft image for image on my old 5dc. This is of course relative to my 28-75mm Tammy. It may just be me though, 100% crops show it to be sharp, though not uniformly sharp like the Tammy.

[V-Wiz]

Should IS be turned off on the 24-105 when using a tripod. The manual only mentions battery life. tnx.

[tonylong]

Should IS be turned off on the 24-105 when using a tripod. The manual only mentions battery life. tnx.

The reason that often get passed out is that if you leave the IS on, it will maintain some activity while on the tripod, meaning a small bit of movement.

I haven't seen that problem with an IS lens but what I have seen is the fact that when the lens does not detect camera movement the IS will shut down after a couple of seconds or so. I'll tell you from first hand observation that this will be a problem when shooting with a tripod -- as the IS motor shuts down, the lens will actually tend to slump a bit and you can definitely see that in the viewfinder!

Now, newer IS lenses have a tripod detector. I'm not sure exactly how that works, but it sounds like if a bottom line bit of camera movement is not detected, the IS won't behave like it would otherwise.

For my own shooting, if I think of it I'll turn off the IS if using a tripod in static scenes -- say I'm shooting the moon, I absolutely don't want my framing affected by IS shenanigans. But, when I'm actively handling my gear with a scene, such as a little bird or critter at a distance, and I'm using a long telephoto, say with an extender (think 600mm or so) then I'll often use IS with a tripod because it really can help at that long focal length.

[PhotosByT]

I was wondering if anybody has ever had a problem of the lens unable to focus where you cannot click to take the shot?? Then when you point it to a more lit area, it works? It bugs me a lot! It never happens when using my primes (well, unless I am too close to the subject when using my 50mm or 85mm)

[tonylong]

I was wondering if anybody has ever had a problem of the lens unable to focus where you cannot click to take the shot?? Then when you point it to a more lit area, it works? It bugs me a lot! It never happens when using my primes (well, unless I am too close to the subject when using my 50mm or 85mm)

Well, getting AF to "work" is a combination of the camera and lens. Lenses with wider apertures have more "accuracy", and doubtlessly some lenses are faster than others. And, I've found that the 24-105 is not the best lens for action stuff...

But, I still like the lens for general purpose walk-around photography.

[hanjolee]

Handheld

Edgewater, NJ

[Lisa]

Seems it shines on the 5d2..think I'll keep it for a while unless someone wants to buy it ;)


Thanks Mike,


I'm getting his soon. :D

[MichaelBernard]

Thanks Mike,


I'm getting his soon. :D

Yeppers, You'll like it. Shame I won't get to use it on my new 5d2 :(

[Lisa]

Yeppers, You'll like it. Shame I won't get to use it on my new 5d2 :(

Oh, I didn't know you were getting one?

[MichaelBernard]

Oh, I didn't know you were getting one?

I sold my old one and I am picking up a new one. :)

[shlomicthailand]

So I just got this lens, I wonder...is it a tad soft or is it just me? My Tammy 28-75mm seems to produce sharper images at the same apertures. Odd?

Hi

i think i have the same softness problem (on 50D body) , i even sent it to Canon and they said it was front focus on the body but the lens is fine.
i'm still not very happy with the results - but maybe i'm expecting too much from a 1K$ lens :-)
i dont get sharp images at 105mm F4 no matter what i do .
i think that in a shorter focal length it very hard for our eyes to tell so most images here look very sharp,but i usually take portraits and 105 is a favorite focal for me.

would you guys mind sharing some tests (like paper on wall) so i will verify this is not a bad copy ?

thanks

Shlomi

[sabu1818]

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4078/4933888065_03a4376bcd_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/erickchavezphotography/4933888065/)
Frankie boat (http://www.flickr.com/photos/erickchavezphotography/4933888065/) by e.chavez (http://www.flickr.com/people/erickchavezphotography/), on Flickr

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4123/4933900497_07c54a2938_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/erickchavezphotography/4933900497/)
people at the beach (http://www.flickr.com/photos/erickchavezphotography/4933900497/) by e.chavez (http://www.flickr.com/people/erickchavezphotography/), on Flickr

[cptrios]

I've been searching for a walkaround zoom since I got my 5d2, with no joy so far. I'm currently on a Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 non-HSM, and while it's pretty nice, I think that if I'm going to be carrying around something that bulky it had either better be SPECTULAR or have more reach and/or IS. So I think the 24-105 was where my search was always going to end up.

The unfortunate thing is that I'm going to have to give up my Drainpipe in order to get one. On one hand, the Drainpipe is very large and heavy and not well-suited to travel. And while I love having it, I really don't USE it that much. On the other hand, it's a freaking fantastic lens, and in the next year I MAY have a potential use for it. Ugh!

So am I crazy for wanting to swap it for a 24-105?

[tonylong]

I've been searching for a walkaround zoom since I got my 5d2, with no joy so far. I'm currently on a Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 non-HSM, and while it's pretty nice, I think that if I'm going to be carrying around something that bulky it had either better be SPECTULAR or have more reach and/or IS. So I think the 24-105 was where my search was always going to end up.

The unfortunate thing is that I'm going to have to give up my Drainpipe in order to get one. On one hand, the Drainpipe is very large and heavy and not well-suited to travel. And while I love having it, I really don't USE it that much. On the other hand, it's a freaking fantastic lens, and in the next year I MAY have a potential use for it. Ugh!

So am I crazy for wanting to swap it for a 24-105?

Well, there's nothing wrong with wanting to have a good walk-around lens that will really meet your needs, and I'd imagine that the 80-200 is a bit much for that since it doesn't do wide, and may be too bulky. The 24-105 on your 5D should be a very good "fit".

But since you've been using a 24-70, you should have a better feel of your focal length needs. If it's just the bulk of the 24-70, the 24-105 I guess would be lighter, but it's really your call -- I switch pretty freely and happily between the 24-105 and the Canon 24-70 f/2.8, which is itself pretty bulky. They both have their positive points.

[roopaw]

On the barge going over to Coochiemudlo Island, off the coast of Brisbane, Queensland.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4097/4934000929_32a48764cf_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/roopaw/4934000929/)

[cptrios]

Well, there's nothing wrong with wanting to have a good walk-around lens that will really meet your needs, and I'd imagine that the 80-200 is a bit much for that since it doesn't do wide, and may be too bulky. The 24-105 on your 5D should be a very good "fit".

But since you've been using a 24-70, you should have a better feel of your focal length needs. If it's just the bulk of the 24-70, the 24-105 I guess would be lighter, but it's really your call -- I switch pretty freely and happily between the 24-105 and the Canon 24-70 f/2.8, which is itself pretty bulky. They both have their positive points.

I'm not terribly bothered by the bulk actually...it's just that I'd like (please forgive me for what I'm about to say) more "bang for the bulk." Nyuk nyuk! I had a Tamron 17-50 on my 40D, and I always had confidence that my shots would turn out sharp - and I don't think I have that with the Sigma. I definitely did often wish that the Tamron had a bit more reach, and as much as I like f/2.8, I used it mostly for low-light and rarely to stop action (and the bokeh wasn't great so subject separation wasn't enormously important). So the 24-105 seems like a good choice. I'd love to have a 24-70L but it's just a bit too expensive (not to mention the bulk and range issues pop up again).

I think the real question is: is a 24-105 worth giving up the Drainpipe? Losing it is a really horrible thought, but it would be 3lbs out of my bag (it's a heavy sucker) and arond $700 in my pocket. I could of course keep it AND the 24-105, but then I'd have to lose my Sigmalux, and I've really grown to love that one since getting the 5d2.

[tonylong]

Hmm, well it all comes down to choices, doesn't it? It would be great if you could just rent the 24-105 for a few days and try it out.

My problem is that since I hate to get rid of something I know and like, I have too much stuff laying around. I've given and loaned gear to family members but I've only actually sold off one piece of equipment, out of necessity, so I have way to many choices for any given task:)!

[V-Wiz]

Thanks tony, so ill turn it off



The reason that often get passed out is that if you leave the IS on, it will maintain some activity while on the tripod, meaning a small bit of movement.

I haven't seen that problem with an IS lens but what I have seen is the fact that when the lens does not detect camera movement the IS will shut down after a couple of seconds or so. I'll tell you from first hand observation that this will be a problem when shooting with a tripod -- as the IS motor shuts down, the lens will actually tend to slump a bit and you can definitely see that in the viewfinder!

Now, newer IS lenses have a tripod detector. I'm not sure exactly how that works, but it sounds like if a bottom line bit of camera movement is not detected, the IS won't behave like it would otherwise.

For my own shooting, if I think of it I'll turn off the IS if using a tripod in static scenes -- say I'm shooting the moon, I absolutely don't want my framing affected by IS shenanigans. But, when I'm actively handling my gear with a scene, such as a little bird or critter at a distance, and I'm using a long telephoto, say with an extender (think 600mm or so) then I'll often use IS with a tripod because it really can help at that long focal length.

[Palna]

http://www.palnaphotos.com/PalnaPhotos/Test_files/DT3F1185_1.jpg

http://www.palnaphotos.com/PalnaPhotos/Test_files/DT3F1170-4_1.jpg

[brg513]

2010 Camarillo Air Show

1.
http://jandmfoto.zenfolio.com/img/s9/v14/p163219301-4.jpg

2.
http://jandmfoto.zenfolio.com/img/s8/v12/p364389897-4.jpg

3.
http://jandmfoto.zenfolio.com/img/s9/v15/p262445668-4.jpg

4.
http://jandmfoto.zenfolio.com/img/s9/v14/p419251831-4.jpg

More here
http://jandmfoto.zenfolio.com/2010camarilloairshow

[Palna]

http://www.palnaphotos.com/PalnaPhotos/Test_files/DT3F1173-2_1.jpg

[MichaelBernard]

Hi

i think i have the same softness problem (on 50D body) , i even sent it to Canon and they said it was front focus on the body but the lens is fine.
i'm still not very happy with the results - but maybe i'm expecting too much from a 1K$ lens :-)
i dont get sharp images at 105mm F4 no matter what i do .
i think that in a shorter focal length it very hard for our eyes to tell so most images here look very sharp,but i usually take portraits and 105 is a favorite focal for me.

would you guys mind sharing some tests (like paper on wall) so i will verify this is not a bad copy ?

thanks

Shlomi

It seems to do better on higher end bodies for some reason. Dunno why.

[w7cma]

Tried microadjust?

[picard]

I am concerned by the problem of softness on this lens base on other people complaints.

Does this lens actually have serious issue with sharpness ?

[MichaelBernard]

I am concerned by the problem of softness on this lens base on other people complaints.

Does this lens actually have serious issue with sharpness ?

Should be fine on your 7d. I'm now wondering if it was a resolution issue all along. I.E. Was it that the lens was soft on older generations or is it that only the newer gen brings out the best in it?

[guyzer09]

I dunno, I was skeptic about that as well before I had it. I am using crop as well and I read everywhere that its soft on crop but using this lens and before having 17-55 I think they both are sharp. I dont have one bit of a doubt that this lens is soft on my body.

[matonanjin]

I am concerned by the problem of softness on this lens base on other people complaints.

Does this lens actually have serious issue with sharpness ?

I dunno, I was skeptic about that as well before I had it. I am using crop as well and I read everywhere that its soft on crop but using this lens and before having 17-55 I think they both are sharp. I dont have one bit of a doubt that this lens is soft on my body.

That is typical internet forum BS. Name a lens. I guaranty you I can find somewhere, someone is claiming it is soft.

Besides, it doesn't make sense that it would be soft on a crop camera. Most lenses are going to show softness around the edges which only shows up on a full-frame. Let the pixel peepers have their fun. Go shoot and have some real fun

[MichaelBernard]

That is typical internet forum BS. Name a lens. I guaranty you I can find somewhere, someone is claiming it is soft.

Besides, it doesn't make sense that it would be soft on a crop camera. Most lenses are going to show softness around the edges which only shows up on a full-frame. Let the pixel peepers have their fun. Go shoot and have some real fun


Some lenses have soft and creamy centers...you know, where a crop does it's business? :)

Example: The Nifty Fifty is soft all around regardless of crop or FF...until it's stopped down to f/4-8 :) Softness doesn't exist only in corners, if a lens is soft it's soft.

But we're not talking about 'most' lenses we're talking about THIS lens.

Is this lens sharp? Sure. Damn sharp for an average shooter. Is it sharp relative to some other lenses out there? Depends on the lens you're comparing it to.

Blows kit lenses out of the water by far. Get's it's lunch eaten by the 24-70, but not by that much and for $300-400 savings it's still a bargain. -shrug- some folks just want perfection for their dollar.

[shlomicthailand]

I dunno, I was skeptic about that as well before I had it. I am using crop as well and I read everywhere that its soft on crop but using this lens and before having 17-55 I think they both are sharp. I dont have one bit of a doubt that this lens is soft on my body.

I didnt understand - you say they both sharp and then you say this one is soft on your body .

[shlomicthailand]

Is this lens sharp? Sure. Damn sharp for an average shooter. Is it sharp relative to some other lenses out there? Depends on the lens you're comparing it to.

Blows kit lenses out of the water by far. Get's it's lunch eaten by the 24-70, but not by that much and for $300-400 savings it's still a bargain. -shrug- some folks just want perfection for their dollar.

Can you post some 100% crops so we see what you mean sharp maybe its all one big misunderstanding.

i'm not pixel peeper but i like to crop from time to time and i can say for sure mine is soft , very soft . (even after canon say it was OK in all tests so was the body)

[MichaelBernard]

Can you post some 100% crops so we see what you mean sharp maybe its all one big misunderstanding.

i'm not pixel peeper but i like to crop from time to time and i can say for sure mine is soft , very soft . (even after canon say it was OK in all tests so was the body)

Your lens and body are fine..meaning they are within their tolerances. They may not agree with each other though..that is another can of worms.

[Rsyx]

Blows kit lenses out of the water by far. Get's it's lunch eaten by the 24-70, but not by that much and for $300-400 savings it's still a bargain. -shrug- some folks just want perfection for their dollar.

I'm not that sure that the 24-105 is less sharp than the 24-70. A lot of people actually claim that the 24-105 is the sharper of the two. The contrast and bokeh are the strong points of the brick in my opinion.

[guyzer09]

I didnt understand - you say they both sharp and then you say this one is soft on your body .
sorry i ment that i dont have a doubt that this lens is NOT soft on my body!

[shlomicthailand]

sorry i ment that i dont have a doubt that this lens is NOT soft on my body!

ok - would you mind sending me some 100% crops for comparison, preferably of paper text

maybe my softness is related to the big Mega pixel compare to yours ? (15MP)

thanks

Shlomi

[Lisa]

Closed morning glory
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c71/LisaRae82/Canon%2024-105mm%20F4%20L/IMG_4895.jpg

Gardenia
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c71/LisaRae82/Canon%2024-105mm%20F4%20L/IMG_4741.jpg

Scooter
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c71/LisaRae82/Canon%2024-105mm%20F4%20L/IMG_4821.jpg

[Martin.D]

traded my 24-70 F:2.8 L for this lens and I love it!


http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4103/4947591901_9ef875939a_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/martins_album/4947591901/)
Little Poser (http://www.flickr.com/photos/martins_album/4947591901/) by Martin..D (http://www.flickr.com/people/martins_album/), on Flickr

[MichaelBernard]

I have a tinge of sellers remorse now.

[cptrios]

And I have a tinge of not-having-enough-money-to-but-this-yet remorse!

[markinessex]

I haven't posted for a while, but here is one from last night.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4147/4947363797_73a63a1fb4_b.jpg

[Palna]

I haven't posted for a while, but here is one from last night.



Great photo love the mood.

[Palna]

Here is a test shot of my son.. ISO 3200 natual lightning..

http://www.palnaphotos.com/PalnaPhotos/Test_files/DT3F1207_1.jpg

[mguffin]

^^^ Was there any noise reduction in PP... Very nice, very smooth... Very cute...

[matonanjin]

Here is a test shot of my son.. ISO 3200 natual lightning..



So it looks like the MkIV really is that good about high ISO!?!?:eek:

[MichaelBernard]

Gorgeous eyes on that one..he's going to be a lady killer!

[Martin.D]

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4133/4951883290_f2c0f30a6a_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/martins_album/4951883290/)
Lapland Owl (http://www.flickr.com/photos/martins_album/4951883290/) by Martin..D (http://www.flickr.com/people/martins_album/), on Flickr

[Palna]

Gorgeous eyes on that one..he's going to be a lady killer!

Thanks Guys He is so great: -) i did a little noise reduction in LR3 ( I have just bought this program and it´s great to compliment aperture 3.

[MichaelBernard]

Noise Ninja is my personal fav. Try it out if you haven't.

[FlyinBryan]

Just got this lens Wednesday from a forum member and love it all ready.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4113/4954627411_cf28ffcd22_b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4130/4954626753_2a5edb6417_b.jpg

[Methodical]

http://methodical.zenfolio.com/img/s2/v1/p909931808-5.jpg

[p360]

Chase Field, Phoenix.

http://www.p5imagery.com/Travel/ARIZONA-ILLUSTRATED/IMG7490-F/995388048_tuEih-XL.jpg

[millsinmaine@gmail.com]

Love this lens

[w7cma]

Has anyone notice this?

Bellow 50mm the distance scale is not accurate, it reads less than the actual distance to subject. 50mm and over seems to be OK.
Can some one verify this?

[digger58]

Here is a quick shot from it today

[Palna]

gsgs

[Palna]

http://www.palnaphotos.com/PalnaPhotos/Test_files/DT3F1493_1.jpg

http://www.palnaphotos.com/PalnaPhotos/Test_files/DT3F1462_1.jpg

http://www.palnaphotos.com/PalnaPhotos/Test_files/DT3F1503_1.jpg

[theague]

Shot yesterday.

http://agueimages.zenfolio.com/img/s7/v7/p432509363-5.jpg (http://agueimages.zenfolio.com/p270012869/h1496ba2f#h19c791b3)

[Yusef]

Here's where the IS comes in handy.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4108/4969794200_940bdd231f_z.jpg

[USER876]

Here's where the IS comes in handy.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4108/4969794200_940bdd231f_z.jpg

shutter speed?

[Yusef]

shutter speed?

Exposure 0.1 sec (1/10) hand held

[Ro_Ja]

you, sir, have incredibly steady hands!

[theague]

http://www.palnaphotos.com/PalnaPhotos/Test_files/DT3F1503_1.jpg

Palna, this is a really good portrait. Her eyes really make the image and they are SO sharp! Great job!!

[Mu Eugene]

^ +1

Almost like looking at an Andrew Wyeth.

[Palna]

Almost like looking at an Andrew Wyeth.[/quote]

Thank you very much Theague and Mu Eugene

[Mu Eugene]

I have to admit that I didn't have much respect for this lens in the beginning but after some extensive use during vacation and everyday use, I am much more appreciative of its versatility (focal length range, IS and compactness) and balance with 5DII (not to mention the performance boost after microadjust -- http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php?58042-AF-microadjustment-tricks).

These are cross posts but I hope I can make amends to this lens with the following:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4153/4980841871_58a12fb018_b.jpg
Less than one week into ownership of 5DII + 24-105. I forgot where the live view button was so I had to manually focus through the viewfinder with the standard focusing screen.


http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4153/4972620543_f9ace60947_b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4127/4983071368_08d6c412d5_b.jpg

[jhoag]

Mu Eugene,

Very nice work. Looks to me like you are making the most of it. You are right that this is a very nice and versatile lens deserving of respect. You images go a long way to prove that. Love the first shot of the fireworks, as you really captured the look - as if the view is there themselves.

JH

[tonylong]

Nice ones, there! This lens is no slouch, and as you can see, even an f/4 lens can be very nice to play with in the shallow depth-of-field arena!

[google]

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4131/4980975153_b1dae81d4a_b.jpg

[Rsyx]

Mu Eugene, that first short with the fireworks is very nice.

[Martin.D]

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4150/4983711934_c32b0b4932_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/martins_album/4983711934/)
Sarah - On da toilet! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/martins_album/4983711934/) by Martin..D (http://www.flickr.com/people/martins_album/), on Flickr

[RichSoansPhotos]

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4150/4983711934_c32b0b4932_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/martins_album/4983711934/)
Sarah - On da toilet! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/martins_album/4983711934/) by Martin..D (http://www.flickr.com/people/martins_album/), on Flickr




nawty

[Palna]

nawty

Great lightning. Great capture: -)

[Martin.D]

nawty
Indeed :)

Great lightning. Great capture: -)

Thank you

[Palna]

Here is two from a shooting yesterday.

Natural ligthning..

http://www.palnaphotos.com/PalnaPhotos/Test_files/DT3F1571_1.jpg


http://www.palnaphotos.com/PalnaPhotos/Test_files/DT3F1585_1.jpg

[HcOiNvDiAc]

http://www.lancekeethphotography.com/Automotive/Huntsville-Car-Scenecom/IMG2321-copy/577002750_qws86-XL-2.jpg (http://www.lancekeethphotography.com/Automotive/Huntsville-Car-Scenecom/8726270_iTLzv#577002750_qws86-A-LB)

[RichSoansPhotos]

Great lightning. Great capture: -)


I know


Indeed :)



Thank you

Damn you Martin, if only I could do that with.....

[Martin.D]

I know




Damn you Martin, if only I could do that with.....

Sorry :( :p

She reads photo mag's too!

http://www.martins-photography.com/img/s8/v10/p782894428-6.jpg (http://www.martins-photography.com/p876872240/h2eaa055c#h2eaa055c)

[Palna]

Here is one from yesterday.

ISO 6400 and some NR.

http://www.palnaphotos.com/PalnaPhotos/Test_files/DT3F1679-3_1.jpg

[Martin.D]

http://www.martins-photography.com/img/s8/v10/p506666572-5.jpg (http://www.martins-photography.com/p807985505/h303a819a#h1e331e4c)

[commonjunks]

http://www.martins-photography.com/img/s8/v10/p506666572-5.jpg (http://www.martins-photography.com/p807985505/h303a819a#h1e331e4c)

hmm, content protected by owner.

[Martin.D]

hmm, content protected by owner.

Hows that now? I used the incorrect link to my Zenfolio site..

[tonylong]

It works now, nice shot!

[Martin.D]

It works now, nice shot!

Thank you - I have a couple more but once I complete my processing I shall post them in the glam forums, some are a little exposed for these forums :p

[rvdw98]

Great lightning.

Natural ligthning..

Must be me, but I don't see lightning in any of these photos. :D

[Palna]

Must be me, but I don't see lightning in any of these photos. :D

Can´t you see it: -)

No of cause I ment natural light : -)

[p360]

hmm, content protected by owner.

bw!

[Martin.D]

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4153/4987462660_65b16e0d00_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/martins_album/4987462660/)
Sarah - Loves Photo Mag's (http://www.flickr.com/photos/martins_album/4987462660/) by Martin..D (http://www.flickr.com/people/martins_album/), on Flickr

[mguffin]

^^^ More Naughty...

[Martin.D]

^^^ More Naughty...


one more :)

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4147/4990774409_c1775841e7_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/martins_album/4990774409/)
Xenia - Toilet (http://www.flickr.com/photos/martins_album/4990774409/) by Martin..D (http://www.flickr.com/people/martins_album/), on Flickr

[Staszek]

That one doesn't work as well. Her skirts under her bum and she's not really sitting on the toilet. I find it interesting that they wear the same panties though ;)

[cobra671]

^^ Ditto.

[Martin.D]

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4148/4993964960_b4ec9d7b71_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/martins_album/4993964960/)
Xenia - Staircase (http://www.flickr.com/photos/martins_album/4993964960/) by Martin..D (http://www.flickr.com/people/martins_album/), on Flickr

[nWmR12]

Here are two pictures that were taken in France. The one on the top is from the Pyrenees, the other one I took while I was on a walk. Both Converted to B&W in photoshop.

[djentley]

I look at these photographs and wonder; how much of the spectacular quality is from the lens itself or from the expensive, predominantly 5D, bodies most are using? Right now I'm upgrading from a kit and nifty fifty and will splash out for my first serious lens as I do enjoy photography. Any lens will be plopped on a 450D body.

I will mostly use it for travel in tropical areas in the near future, so are there any filters I should hunt for also?

[Martin.D]

I will mostly use it for travel in tropical areas in the near future, so are there any filters I should hunt for also?

probably a CPL if your shooting in bright sun light or landscape shot's that consist of water so you can remove reflection etc..

Depends what your shooting to be honest..

[Mu Eugene]

I look at these photographs and wonder; how much of the spectacular quality is from the lens itself or from the expensive, predominantly 5D, bodies most are using? Right now I'm upgrading from a kit and nifty fifty and will splash out for my first serious lens as I do enjoy photography. Any lens will be plopped on a 450D body.

I will mostly use it for travel in tropical areas in the near future, so are there any filters I should hunt for also?


taken w/ 40D

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4147/4995357543_3d03bb31d6_b.jpg

As for filters, CPL would be extremely useful for your near future plans.

On a crop sensor, 24-105 becomes approx. 40-170mm, which is somewhat of an awkward range. I recommend giving serious consideration to 17-55mm IS for about the same price (I was really impressed by its IQ and versatility - might even consider picking one up if I decide to hold onto 40D for some more time). If you find yourself zooming out with the kit lens, then go with 17-55mm, but if you tend to use the long end and find yourself wanting more, this lens, 15-85mm or even the upcoming 70-300mmL (provided you keep the kit lens) is a good choice for the 450D.

[djentley]

probably a CPL if your shooting in bright sun light or landscape shot's that consist of water so you can remove reflection etc..

Depends what your shooting to be honest..

Landscapes and people from all different angles mainly.

[Martin.D]

Landscapes and people from all different angles mainly.

CPL will be your priority then..

[mguffin]

I look at these photographs and wonder; how much of the spectacular quality is from the lens itself or from the expensive, predominantly 5D, bodies most are using? Right now I'm upgrading from a kit and nifty fifty and will splash out for my first serious lens as I do enjoy photography. Any lens will be plopped on a 450D body.


I like it on my 50D, I use my Tokina 11-16 if I need to go wider...

[djentley]

Well I wanted something strong and mostly weatherproof as what I enjoyed most about travelling was meeting the children and people my age - 18 - and most of that was near some form of water, so a filter may prevent the inevitable splashes. I would rather have a lens for more cha-ching that won't break too quickly.

Most of the time I travelled with the 50 as it was lighter to carry and far better in low light ect. so zoom range is less important than IQ and build quality. Wouldn't mind being able to take wider than a 40mm on an ASP-C camera though, it did become anoying chopping off legs and such because of lack of width.

[Mu Eugene]

Well I wanted something strong and mostly weatherproof as what I enjoyed most about travelling was meeting the children and people my age - 18 - and most of that was near some form of water, so a filter may prevent the inevitable splashes. I would rather have a lens for more cha-ching that won't break too quickly.

Most of the time I travelled with the 50 as it was lighter to carry and far better in low light ect. so zoom range is less important than IQ and build quality. Wouldn't mind being able to take wider than a 40mm on an ASP-C camera though, it did become anoying chopping off legs and such because of lack of width.

17-55 is not an L lens and thus carries a stigma but once one loses L-snobbery, one realizes that it is one of the best lenses available for APS-C format cameras. Most L lenses are weatherproofed but bear in mind that most cameras on which they attach to isn't .

Another viable alternative - 17-40L
On APS-C format, it becomes a useful general-purpose lens. Keep the 50 around for low-light.

17-40 at work on a crop body:
http://www.pbase.com/maciekda/stungmeanchey2005

Sorry I digressed, now back to 24-105:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4153/4996713566_61ed6146c8_b.jpg

It has pretty decent macro too.

[djentley]

17-55 is not an L lens and thus carries a stigma but once one loses L-snobbery, one realizes that it is one of the best lenses available for APS-C format cameras. Most L lenses are weatherproofed but bear in mind that most cameras on which they attach to isn't .

Another viable alternative - 17-40L
On APS-C format, it becomes a useful general-purpose lens. Keep the 50 around for low-light.

17-40 at work on a crop body:
http://www.pbase.com/maciekda/stungmeanchey2005



Those are spectacular, but I'm not sure how well at the tele end that would work, as I often found with the 50 I either wanted to be further back or a much wider angle. If the 24-105 only offers 40mm on a crop body I'm not sure that will be wide enough, how wide is a 50 on a crop body?

[Deep Pocket]

I look at these photographs and wonder; how much of the spectacular quality is from the lens itself or from the expensive, predominantly 5D, bodies most are using? Right now I'm upgrading from a kit and nifty fifty and will splash out for my first serious lens as I do enjoy photography. Any lens will be plopped on a 450D body.

I will mostly use it for travel in tropical areas in the near future, so are there any filters I should hunt for also?

You gotta realize there is often Photoshop done. One major factor.
But, quality-wise, most of it comes from the lens.

But to answer your question, for the crop body, get a 17-55 IS.

[Martin.D]

something a little different from me - not sure it works or not..

http://www.martins-photography.com/img/s8/v10/p147308014-4.jpg (http://www.martins-photography.com/p876872240/h8c7bdee#h8c7bdee)

[djentley]

Well actually I really want a "prime quality" image from a lens - like the photograph above - while having more freedom to move around, frame and take the pictures.

[rvdw98]

Well actually I really want a "prime quality" image from a lens - like the photograph above - while having more freedom to move around, frame and take the pictures.

"Prime quality" as in first rate quality or quality comparable to a prime lens?

Also, perhaps you can elaborate on which aspects of this particular image you consider to be "prime quality"?

[djentley]

"Prime quality" as in first rate quality or quality comparable to a prime lens?

Also, perhaps you can elaborate on which aspects of this particular image you consider to be "prime quality"?

Sharpness, clear and deliniated colours, good contrast ect. By "prime quality" I mean comparable to my 50mm lens. I guess it would do best when stopped down.

[rvdw98]

Sharpness, clear and deliniated colours, good contrast ect. By "prime quality" I mean comparable to my 50mm lens. I guess it would do best when stopped down.

The 70-200/4 is generally considered to be prime quality in that sense, except it won't open up to f/1.8 like your nifty fifty.

[tonyniev]

Summer Milky Way from the dark skies of Bryce Canyon
http://tonyniev.smugmug.com/Astronomy/Astrophotos/file/1000778418_YRVkG-L.jpg

[Palna]

[quote=Martin.D;10925038]something a little different from me - not sure it works or not..

I works great Martin: -)

[cptrios]

Tony, how did you do that without getting too star-traily? I can only see a bit of trailing at the edges of the frame. Awesome!

[versedmb]

I tend to think of this as my landscape and walk-around lens, but its not a bad portrait lens....


5d2, 88mm, f/5.6...
http://brownphotography.smugmug.com/photos/1011820184_X6aRJ-XL.jpg

[tonyniev]

Tony, how did you do that without getting too star-traily? I can only see a bit of trailing at the edges of the frame. Awesome!
I shot at iso 6400 f4 and 30 sec ensure, I wished I had use an F1.8 lens.

[Ro_Ja]

something a little different from me - not sure it works or not..

[IMG]http://www.martins-photography.com/img/s8/v10/p147308014-4.jpg[IMG] (http://www.martins-photography.com/p876872240/h8c7bdee#h8c7bdee)


I love it. Great composition and editing.

[p360]

Before I sold this lens recently:

http://www.p5imagery.com/Travel/ARIZONA-ILLUSTRATED/IMG7487-F/1012375982_X4i2d-XL.jpg

[Mu Eugene]

Before I sold this lens recently:



feeding your Zeiss appetite? :lol:

[shlomicthailand]

taken w/ 40D

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4147/4995357543_3d03bb31d6_b.jpg



would you mind to share the exposure / post info / CPL filter ?

i have hoya CPL and 50D with 24-105 and could not get these nice images near the pool

thanks

Shlomi

[p360]

feeding your Zeiss appetite? :lol:


Precisely. :D

[Mu Eugene]

would you mind to share the exposure / post info / CPL filter ?

i have hoya CPL and 50D with 24-105 and could not get these nice images near the pool

thanks

Shlomi

Exif info:
Manual Mode (could have been aperture priority)
1/1250sec @ f/4.0
Focal length: 45mm
ISO 400
Flash: none
10:18am July 10, 2010
WB set to Auto
AI Servo
Hi-speed continuous shooting
No filter

In terms of PP, nothing out of the ordinary except to increase the clarity setting on LR to +40 in order to accentuate the stop-motion capture of water and +20, +25 and -10 for blue hue, saturation and luminance, respectively to give water some blue 'punch'.

It was still in the morning and the sun was behind the trees and part of the pool was in the shade. Looking at the set taken that day, the sky was at times overcast, therefore creating nicely diffused light yet maintaining the brightness. I think it had more to do with the condition of the light than anything else.

Hope this helps.

[Beebopsk]

thanks for sharing the processing for your photo, Mu Eugene. that is a superb picture

[Beebopsk]

this is my small contribution to this thread with this lens. this is a candid picture of my mom holding my first and only grandchild...my two favorite people....

[tonylong]

Hey, you know, this thread sent me down memory lane today. I have thousands of pictures from this lens, some quite memorable to me, and it's easy to forget -- so I was doing some stuff in Lightroom and decided to go down to the metadata section for lenses and click on this lens and began scrolling. Boy, it's like going back in a time machine!

These are just a couple from last year:

http://www.pbase.com/tonylong/image/112224854/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/tonylong/image/112230234.jpg

A distant shot of Mount St. Helens, WA in Oct '07:

http://www.pbase.com/tonylong/image/87243448/original.jpg

A clear-day view of Mount Hood, WA in October of '07:

http://www.pbase.com/tonylong/image/112603698/original.jpg

A lake near Mount St. Helens in the setting sun, Oct. '07:

http://www.pbase.com/tonylong/image/87257767/original.jpg

And then, the lens can be good for action and fun! May of '08:

http://www.pbase.com/tonylong/image/98038545/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/tonylong/image/98035675/original.jpg

A hand-held night scene, New Years Eve, Dec '07:

http://www.pbase.com/tonylong/image/91197610/original.jpg

So, yeah, I've had good times with this lens, and these are just a few!

Keep 'em coming!!!

[Beebopsk]

this was taken in a Cathedral when the sun was shining through the stained glass, dappling the benches...

[BMW_e30]

Can you see this photos, or i should change the upload site?
http://87.121.7.213/site_pics/177/m_1284669141_DPP_0262.JPG

http://87.121.7.213/site_pics/187/w_1284668268_DPP_0254.JPG

http://87.121.7.213/site_pics/187/w_1284669210_DPP_0264.JPG

http://87.121.7.213/site_pics/187/w_1284668236_DPP_0253.JPG

This are just cropped images straight from the camera, which is 40D

[Mu Eugene]

thanks for sharing the processing for your photo, Mu Eugene. that is a superb picture

thanks!

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4149/5004468976_46fe8d9fb3_b.jpg

On 5DII
1/25sec f/4.0
ISO 100
Spot metered on manual mode
auto WB
Focal length 28mm

SOOC except for lens correction turned on.

[mguffin]

Here's a few from yesterday...

http://mikeguffin.com/images/_MG_1761.jpg
http://mikeguffin.com/images/_MG_1762.jpg
http://mikeguffin.com/images/_MG_1763.jpg

[Dr.Pete]

Still probably my best shot with this lens...

http://kreishmanfamily.smugmug.com/Other/Cleveland-Photos/IMG0098/838933143_HbMGX-XL.jpg

[tonyniev]

Flowers at Bellagio hotel lobby
http://tonyniev.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Sept10ZionBryceYSPTetons/IMG7674/1012789715_ajthx-L.jpg

[Rittrato]

Still probably my best shot with this lens...

http://kreishmanfamily.smugmug.com/Other/Cleveland-Photos/IMG0098/838933143_HbMGX-XL.jpg

Nice shot but a bit noisy. Were you using a high ISO? Also some of the lights are a bit blown out.

[Dr.Pete]

Nice shot but a bit noisy. Were you using a high ISO? Also some of the lights are a bit blown out.

It was low ISO, long exposure (30sec) to get the soft water effect and the little bit of motion in the clouds. There was also a nice 30mph or so wind blowing, so I'm sure there's a little vibration in the tripod that comes out... I guess a ND filter would've helped keep the lights at bay.