Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 20 Aug 2013 (Tuesday) 22:46
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Bought a 24-105 for $715 new, did I Make the right decision?

 
sandpiper
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,171 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 50
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Merseyside, England
     
Aug 21, 2013 10:06 |  #31

Charlie wrote in post #16227294 (external link)
it has more to do with pixel density. Higher megapixel crop sensors will reveal the weaknesses of the lens.

Yes, I appreciate that, and as you were typing that, I was making just that point, but that it isn't that simple. You see the lens as "softer" because you are blowing up the image more, viewing it at 100% on a monitor. Make identical sized prints (or final jpegs) from a low pixel density crop body and a high pixel density crop body and you won't see the difference, as both images are shown the same size. View both original images at 100% on a monitor though, and you do see a difference as the higher density image is way bigger.

I am not saying that you cannot see a difference, but it only shows when pixel peeping. All you need do is tell yourself that the difference isn't "real" it is simply that you are peering closer at the image. That point often escapes people when the images they look at appear to be the size of their monitor, but in reality one is over 5 feet wide while the other is maybe 4 feet wide.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
kenwood33
Goldmember
2,597 posts
Likes: 20
Joined Jul 2005
     
Aug 21, 2013 10:07 |  #32

This lens gets a lot of bad reputation because its sold as part of a kit, and there has been an over supply of it on the used market. I saw a few copies of it on local CL asking for $500 with no takers for months.


Gearlist

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cory1848
Goldmember
Avatar
1,884 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Kissimmee, FL
     
Aug 21, 2013 10:24 |  #33

Paid $830 for mine and it was a refurb. Thought I got a deal then when they were selling new for $950ish. I would say you got a great deal. Been very happy with mine.


Gear List
"Those are some mighty fine pots and pans you have, they must make a great dinner!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rudou
Member
55 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jan 2009
Location: New York
     
Aug 21, 2013 10:37 |  #34

I first purchased this lens while I had a 50D for about the same price last year (was white box from a kit, was told and looked new). I was pretty happy with the image quality on a 50D and have since gone full frame and like the range for an everyday lens. This has been my primary lens since purchasing it. I think the price is right for a good quality build lens and gives decent pics.
Give it a try, see if it works for you.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
16,070 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 6154
Joined Sep 2007
     
Aug 21, 2013 10:51 |  #35

sandpiper wrote in post #16227338 (external link)
Yes, I appreciate that, and as you were typing that, I was making just that point, but that it isn't that simple. You see the lens as "softer" because you are blowing up the image more, viewing it at 100% on a monitor. Make identical sized prints (or final jpegs) from a low pixel density crop body and a high pixel density crop body and you won't see the difference, as both images are shown the same size. View both original images at 100% on a monitor though, and you do see a difference as the higher density image is way bigger.

I am not saying that you cannot see a difference, but it only shows when pixel peeping. All you need do is tell yourself that the difference isn't "real" it is simply that you are peering closer at the image. That point often escapes people when the images they look at appear to be the size of their monitor, but in reality one is over 5 feet wide while the other is maybe 4 feet wide.

well it's not just 100% crops, I can see the difference on print. I have quite a bit of crop prints hung along with my FF prints, and it really doesnt take much for a keen eye to point them out (some harder to tell than others).

btw kenwood33, $500 and no takers is DEFINITELY a ploy. I sold a copy a few weeks ago for $700 on CL, easily. It was new and never used.


Sony A7riii/A9 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - SY 24/2.8 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 17-28/2.8 - 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sandpiper
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,171 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 50
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Merseyside, England
     
Aug 21, 2013 11:08 |  #36

Charlie wrote in post #16227460 (external link)
well it's not just 100% crops, I can see the difference on print. I have quite a bit of crop prints hung along with my FF prints, and it really doesnt take much for a keen eye to point them out (some harder to tell than others).

But that won't be due to pixel density, that will be due to either a difference in sensor quality, or the lens /body combo on one needs more MFA than the other.

I'm not saying that the difference in your prints doesn't exist, but simply that the reasons why one combo turns out worse prints than another, aren't usually because a particular lens model doesn't work well on a particular model of body. It is more likely down to an individual lens, on an individual body, and how they are both calibrated to each other.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wombatHorror
Goldmember
1,937 posts
Joined Sep 2010
Location: NJ
     
Aug 21, 2013 19:29 |  #37

Charlie wrote in post #16227460 (external link)
well it's not just 100% crops, I can see the difference on print. I have quite a bit of crop prints hung along with my FF prints, and it really doesnt take much for a keen eye to point them out (some harder to tell than others).

btw kenwood33, $500 and no takers is DEFINITELY a ploy. I sold a copy a few weeks ago for $700 on CL, easily. It was new and never used.

Depends where you try to sell. Where I used to live CL had lots of takers for high prices. Where I live now, CL is tough! People either like paying full price new (most it seems) or a SUPER bargain (the few of the rest, like $150 offers for a ONE WEEK used Sony RX100 level bargain). If you put it up for months you may eventually get a decent price.

Also the 24-105 price has reallllly fallen lately. It fell a lot last summer and now it's reallly fallen.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wombatHorror
Goldmember
1,937 posts
Joined Sep 2010
Location: NJ
     
Aug 21, 2013 20:21 |  #38

dnauer wrote in post #16226978 (external link)
Don't get this statement -- if anything a FF lens will be sharper on a crop since you are only using the "Sweet spot" of the image circle -- edges should be sharper as you aren't using the corners and edges of the image circle, and there should be no difference in center sharpness. I've used one on my 40D for years and it is a great lens, and I do not have MFA.

To the original poster -- that is a great price -- enjoy this lens on your 50D -- you'll find it will be your main workhorse lens.

He probably means the higher density of many aps-c bodies stress the lens more in the center and a sharper lens maintains better micro-contrast there.

It doesn't really have any edge or corner problems on APS-C at all only on FF.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gfspencer
Member
179 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 17
Joined Dec 2008
     
Aug 22, 2013 09:01 as a reply to  @ wombatHorror's post |  #39

My 24-105 is on my camera 95% of the time.


Canon 50D - Canon 7DII - Canon 6D - 16-35mm f/2.8L - 24-105mm f/4[COLOR="red"]L IS - 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS - 50mm f/1.2L - 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS - 100-400mm II f/4.5-5.6L IS - Extender EF 2x

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

4,221 views & 0 likes for this thread
Bought a 24-105 for $715 new, did I Make the right decision?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is armychemical
510 guests, 230 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.