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 26 Dec 2013 (Thursday) 02:18
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

24-105mm L going cheap - all rounder?

 
schlagle
Senior Member
Avatar
571 posts
Likes: 10
Joined Feb 2012
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
     
Dec 26, 2013 23:08 |  #16

I used to really like the 24-105 but I have real issues with it's propensity to produce CA. I find that in any kind of tough lighting the CA gets out of hand quickly. I'll probably end up selling it for the 24-70 2.8.


5D Mark III | EF 50 ƒ/1.4, EF 24-105L ƒ/4, EF 70-200L ƒ/2.8 IS II, EF 16-35L ƒ/2.8 II, MP-E65, EF 100L ƒ/2.8 IS Macro | 600EX-RT, 320EX, MT-24EX
PixelConceptPhoto (external link) | flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Mornnb
Goldmember
1,646 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 23
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Sydney
     
Dec 27, 2013 02:00 |  #17

schlagle wrote in post #16556400 (external link)
I used to really like the 24-105 but I have real issues with it's propensity to produce CA. I find that in any kind of tough lighting the CA gets out of hand quickly. I'll probably end up selling it for the 24-70 2.8.

I had the same issue with the 24-105, as well as it's terrible distortion at 24mm. I did not like the image quality of the lens at all.
You won't be disappointed with the 24-70mm II.


Canon 5D Mark III - Leica M240
EF 16-35mm F/4 IS L - EF 14mm f/2.8 L II - - EF 17mm TS-E L - EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II - EF 70-200mm IS II f/2.8 L - Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art - Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX
Voigtlander 15mm III - 28mm Elmarit-M ASPH - 35mm f/1.4 Summilux-M FLE - 50mm f/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH
500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
windpig
Chopped liver
Avatar
15,356 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 1681
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Just South of Ballard
     
Dec 27, 2013 11:41 |  #18

I would never compare the 24-70 and the 24-105, I have both. +35mm, cheaper and IS, or 2.8 and less distortion on on the short end. Photography, like a lot of things, is all about compromise.


Would you like to buy a vowel?
Go ahead, spin the wheel.
flickr (external link)
I'm accross the canal just south of Ballard, the town Seattle usurped in 1907.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
schlagle
Senior Member
Avatar
571 posts
Likes: 10
Joined Feb 2012
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
     
Dec 27, 2013 14:56 |  #19

windpig wrote in post #16557405 (external link)
I would never compare the 24-70 and the 24-105, I have both. +35mm, cheaper and IS, or 2.8 and less distortion on on the short end. Photography, like a lot of things, is all about compromise.

Very true. If light is going to be an issue then the 2.8 and better CA of the 24-70 makes it the clear winner. But if you just want a walk around lens and don't mind those short comings, the extra reach of the 24-105 may work.

Right now I only use the 24-105 as a lens to take pics of my kid and for doing wide angle stuff when my 16-35 is flaring too much. For kid pics it's just too big and cumbersome so I'll be buying a point and shoot. For solving my flaring problem, it works pretty well.


5D Mark III | EF 50 ƒ/1.4, EF 24-105L ƒ/4, EF 70-200L ƒ/2.8 IS II, EF 16-35L ƒ/2.8 II, MP-E65, EF 100L ƒ/2.8 IS Macro | 600EX-RT, 320EX, MT-24EX
PixelConceptPhoto (external link) | flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mornnb
Goldmember
1,646 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 23
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Sydney
     
Dec 27, 2013 16:23 |  #20

schlagle wrote in post #16557799 (external link)
Very true. If light is going to be an issue then the 2.8 and better CA of the 24-70 makes it the clear winner. But if you just want a walk around lens and don't mind those short comings, the extra reach of the 24-105 may work.

I can't agree. Even as a walk around lens stopped down to say f8, the 24-70mm II is obviously a better lens. Given the sharpness, lack of distortion, higher contrast and quality of colours. It is also a better lens than the wide angle zooms, 17-40mm and 16-35mm. It is superb at 24mm and makes a fantastic landscape lens. I only use my UWA when I need 17mm.


Canon 5D Mark III - Leica M240
EF 16-35mm F/4 IS L - EF 14mm f/2.8 L II - - EF 17mm TS-E L - EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II - EF 70-200mm IS II f/2.8 L - Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art - Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX
Voigtlander 15mm III - 28mm Elmarit-M ASPH - 35mm f/1.4 Summilux-M FLE - 50mm f/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH
500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Echo ­ Johnson
Senior Member
Avatar
433 posts
Joined Aug 2011
Location: UK
     
Dec 27, 2013 16:33 as a reply to  @ Mornnb's post |  #21

OP, given your other lenses, I think you'll be very satisfied with the 24-105. It's a great all-rounder. It's sharp, but not Canon's sharpest L (far from it's softest either, though). If you don't need the extra stop to freeze action, the IS is wonderful.

This forum often splits hairs ;) and both the 24-105 and the 24-70 are great lenses.
Mine served me well for 3½ years; it was a fantastic walk-around lens. The only reason I sold it was because I wanted to shake up my lens collection & force myself to try out other things.


Canon 5D3 | 17-40 | 50/1.4 | 135/2
...and other stuff.
Flickr (external link) | EchoJ.deviantART (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
amyandmark3
Goldmember
Avatar
2,157 posts
Gallery: 242 photos
Likes: 3935
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Rocklin, CA
     
Dec 27, 2013 16:39 |  #22

^^ I agree Echo... both the 24-105 and 24-70 (I and II) are winners in their price ranges.


Mark O.
Gear List & Gallery

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Gaarryy
Goldmember
Avatar
1,191 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 21
Joined Sep 2010
Location: The Colony-- texas
     
Dec 27, 2013 17:32 |  #23

I"ll admit right off that I just got this lens so I'm in the "oh wow, this is great phase". But I was in a similar situation to you. Have the 70-200, 50 prime, and a 17-50. It was that gap that would bother me more than I wanted to admit.
Yes I could just use my legs and move for the majority of the time. And I was a 2.8 or better snob, so I was looking down at the f4. But I really, really, really like this lens. I can see this being my lens of choice for kids portraits already. Just the first few pics in my house and I was impressed with the lens.
Like you mentioned it's going at a great price. I got mine for $600 off a member here and it will be money well spent.
G


---------------Camera, Lens, Flash stuff.. but still wanting more

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"That's what I do."
Avatar
16,044 posts
Gallery: 180 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 6231
Joined Dec 2008
Location: from Pennsylvania, now in Washington state, road trip back and forth a lot, with extensive detouring
     
Dec 27, 2013 22:05 |  #24

The 24-105 can, surprisingly, make for a really good wildlife lens. For wildlife and bird photos, however, the long end is especially valuable. I would not consider a 24-70mm for wildlife work, as I would miss far too many images. The 24-105 offers great range, with just enough reach to be a valuable field tool.

For any who are interested, here is a set of wildlife and bird images I made entirely with the 24-105mm f4:
http://www.flickr.com …2/sets/72157632​539565564/ (external link)
The focal length used is listed in the title of each image.

I have many more wildlife photos I made with this under-rated lens . . . I've got to get busy and post more of them to my Flickr page!


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Trumper
Goldmember
1,143 posts
Likes: 343
Joined May 2003
     
Dec 28, 2013 10:54 |  #25

I am in the UK and looking for a 24-105 L IS lens.I have the 17-40 L and the 70-200L F4 but on the 5d mk11 FF the wide angle is too wide most the time and the 40mm is just too short,itself on FF is still quite wide angle.
The missing gap between the 40mm and 70 mm is to big to lose and means lugging two lenses around.
If anyone has a really good one in the UK they want to sell let me know,it has to be good as i am looking to get new if not.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
smorter
Goldmember
Avatar
4,506 posts
Likes: 19
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Dec 28, 2013 11:11 |  #26

I have owned 2 copies (and still own 1 copy) of the 24-105 and have found that it's quite bad at long focal distances (e.g. landscapes)

Its exceptionally sharp for brick wall photos and Portraits, where the subject is quite close to the camera, but I have found that landscapes and wide angles and far away shots (e.g. big group photos of >50 people), even at f/8, lack the sharpness I expect from a L lens - the sharpness difference compared to say a 35L @ f/8 or a 70-200 @ f/8 is astoundingly different (poorer)


Wedding Photography Melbourneexternal link
Reviews: 85LII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
PrinceAbubu
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
397 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Sep 2009
     
Jan 02, 2014 05:24 |  #27

Hi Smorter,

So you are saying at both 70mm (700-200 and 24-105) at f8 that the 24-105 L is a not as sharp compared to the 70-200?

regards,

smorter wrote in post #16559631 (external link)
I have owned 2 copies (and still own 1 copy) of the 24-105 and have found that it's quite bad at long focal distances (e.g. landscapes)

Its exceptionally sharp for brick wall photos and Portraits, where the subject is quite close to the camera, but I have found that landscapes and wide angles and far away shots (e.g. big group photos of >50 people), even at f/8, lack the sharpness I expect from a L lens - the sharpness difference compared to say a 35L @ f/8 or a 70-200 @ f/8 is astoundingly different (poorer)


Canon 6D | 17-40 F4 L | 70-200 F2.8 L | 50 1.4 | | 430EX II Flash | Olympus OM-D E-M10 14-42mm kit lens | Sony A5000 with 16-50mm kit | Velbon Sherpa 600R | Manfrotto Monopod 790B | Naneu Pro urbangear U30 |Lowe Pro Flipside 200 | Toploader pro 75AW | wish list Fujifilm XT1 with 35mm f2 | (goneski) 1DsMk1, 450D with 18-200mm, 40mm stm

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
zarray
Member
167 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Oct 2010
Location: Singapore/ London
     
Jan 02, 2014 05:48 as a reply to  @ PrinceAbubu's post |  #28

The 24-105 is sharp at the wide end and gets progressively softer towards the long end past 85mm. I guess it should be geared towards those who either shoot stopped-down most of the time or for people who just need the 105mm reach once a while(like myself) to "get the shot".

IMAGE: http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5505/11463335473_be2998a70f_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jeremykwm/11463​335473/  (external link)
IMG_7111.jpg (external link) by JK 91 (external link), on Flickr
shot at 105mm f/4.5

Corner sharpness, on the other hand, the 24-105 cant compare with the modern lenses. Fortunately the 24-105 is adequate for my needs...been using it for 3 going on 4 years!

5D Mark II | 5Dc |17-40 | 24-105 | 70-200 F2.8 IS | Sigma 50mm 1.4 | 580EX

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jimewall
Goldmember
1,871 posts
Likes: 11
Joined May 2008
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
     
Jan 02, 2014 11:32 |  #29

zarray wrote in post #16571117 (external link)
The 24-105 is sharp at the wide end and gets progressively softer towards the long end past 85mm. I guess it should be geared towards those who either shoot stopped-down most of the time or for people who just need the 105mm reach once a while(like myself) to "get the shot".

QUOTED IMAGE
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jeremykwm/11463​335473/  (external link)
IMG_7111.jpg (external link) by JK 91 (external link), on Flickr
shot at 105mm f/4.5

Corner sharpness, on the other hand, the 24-105 cant compare with the modern lenses. Fortunately the 24-105 is adequate for my needs...been using it for 3 going on 4 years!

My copy get sharper (and less distortion) at the longer focal lengths rather than the shorter FL.

Also I hope you were not looking for corner sharpness in an angled shot at f/4.5 with the focus point toward the center!?!


Thanks for Reading & Good Luck - Jim
GEAR

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kpritts
Senior Member
Avatar
329 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Nov 2010
     
Jan 02, 2014 19:07 as a reply to  @ jimewall's post |  #30

I had a 24-105, sold it and immediately missed it for general purposes and travel. Bought another and use it with my SL1 primarily for travel purposes. Love the reach, the color, etc..

I have a lot to choose from and each has its purpose. The 24-105 stays with my SL1 for travel and "keep in the vehicle" purposes. Just my experience.


KDPritts Photography (http://kdpritts.com (external link))
Canon 1D Mark IV, 60D; Canon EF 16-35L II, 24-70 f2.8L II, 24-105L, 70-200 f2.8L II, 100 f2.8L macro, 100-400L, 300 f2.8L; Canon 1.4x III extender; Travel Kit: EOS M2, 11-22, 18-55, 22, 55-200.

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

5,801 views & 0 likes for this thread
24-105mm L going cheap - all rounder?
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 horus140
909 guests, 292 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.