Alternative to Canon EF 24-105L

Hey folks,

I've been using the 24-105L for about 3-4 months now everyday. I average about 100-200 shots a day. General walking about on in the mornings before I start work in the streets, and my lunch hour and at night usually capturing a landscape or seascape of some kind. Most of the time hiking up the munros of Scotland (or trying to) Most of my images end up on Alamy or Picfair. I do shoot for the Press on occasion when asked too.

My point being is that I don't think the 24-105L is all it's cracked up to be. Is there anything else that's going to combat the issues I have with it?

• Corners fall apart at 24mm even at f/8
  
• Distortion at 24mm is pretty poor.
  
• Chromatic Aberration is pretty bad in the corners.
  

I'm inclined to agree. Once I bought the 16-35 f4, I don't use the 24-105 anymore. The 16-35 is way better from 24-35mm. As I have the rather good 70-200 f2.8 IS, I have been placed in a situation where I really only need to cover 36-69mm. For this I'm considering the new Sigma 50 Art.

how much do you use the 70-105 focal lengths?
i think that there is a little program which can make an assessment of your use of a certain lens/or focal length etc...
and then you can see where you use the tool
so maybe you'll want a 50mm prime...or the canon 24 II
or if it is more evenly spaced - the 24-70 II
do you use AF? is it necessary for you? maybe a rokinon or a zeiss would fit your uses?I am afraid that here - you will have to give more details.

Will you have a problem with a big white lens on the end of your camera?

good luck on the fine tuning of the lenses.

I used to own the 70-200 2.8 MKII It was an amazing lens and now I have FF I am thinking of getting it again. I'm either at the 24mm end for landscapes or the 100mm end for everything else. Because of this I was thinking of getting a 100mm 2.8L macro and trying a prime for landscapes.

I'll dig out that wee bit of software. I have used it before but can't remember the name of it lol

After using Exposure Plot on the folder where export all my files from Lightroom I found some interesting facts. The images in this folder are the ones I've used online for Flickr and all sorts.

Over 150 images (20%) were shot at around 110mm
Only 35 images (7%) were shot at 24-35mm
95 (12%) was shot at 400mm, however, that's most of my wildlife shots with the 1D3.

Mostly all the remainder were just dotted around the other focal lengths.

ISO readings were mostly around the 100, 200, 400 mark.
Aperture values hovering over the f/5.6 and f/8 mark taking up 50-60% of the shots.

indeed interesting. So ti seems that the 24-70II and a version of the 70-200 would fit you the best

Question - have you taken the time to MFA the 24-105 on your 5D3?

When I took the time MFA my 24-105/5D3 using FoCal, the results went from a bit soft to less soft, but still, not as sharp as I expected. I think I had my camera about 30 feet from the target. But as most of my shooting with that lens is at the 50-200 feet range, I re-did the MFA using LensAlign Pro with the long ruler from about 80 feet. Nowadays, all 4 of my lenses are incredibly sharp!

Paulstw wrote in post #17032862
Over 150 images (20%) were shot at around 110mm
Only 35 images (7%) were shot at 24-35mm
95 (12%) was shot at 400mm, however, that's most of my wildlife shots with the 1D3.

Mostly all the remainder were just dotted around the other focal lengths.

ISO readings were mostly around the 100, 200, 400 mark.
Aperture values hovering over the f/5.6 and f/8 mark taking up 50-60% of the shots.

Given this data, I would concur with the 100 2.8L Macro, but since you constantly hit the limit of your lens range (your "around" range is higher than your current lens' max!), I wonder if you're better off using 70-200 F4L IS and open up all those extra focal lengths for your walk-abouts.

For the times you need to shoot in the 24 to 35 range for landscapes, you might consider any of the recent IS primes for this purpose. If you find you'd still want a zoom in this range, you'll probably want the new 16-35 F4L IS.

Heya,

Samyang 24mm F1.4 prime for landscape (alt: EF 24mm F2.8 IS if you feel the need for autofocus... for landscape).
Canon EF 100mm F2 for your walk around.
Canon EF 40mm F2.8 in your pocket just in case.

Just saved you a ton of money

Very best,

how about...

16-35/4
50/1.4
100/2.8 Macro (L)

All great suggestions that'll i'll certainly be mulling over. I think I do prefer primes. I like moving about a lot, and sometimes feel a zoom roots me to the spot.

The holy trinity of the 16-35, 24-70 & 70-200 is appealing however for a longer goal. I like the idea of the Samyang as my mate Peter Stewart uses it and finds great success with it. Jonanthan Danker also uses the 14mm one and says its taken over from his 16-35 lately.

I really do want the macro so that's a dead cert. Cheers folks.

Heya,

In that case, an inexpensive really good line-up:

Samyang 24mm F1.4
Tamron 90mm F2.8 VC (rivals the L, for less)
Canon EF 40mm F2.8 in the pocket

Very best,

Sigma 24-105 f4 is worth considering. Apparently very good optically.

ceriltheblade wrote in post #17032871
indeed interesting. So ti seems that the 24-70II and a version of the 70-200 would fit you the best

My sentiments exactly. If money and/or weight is an issue, the 24-70 F/4 IS and 70-200 F/4 IS would be good choices. Otherwise, the 24-70 II F/2.8 and 70-200 F/2.8 IS II really do produce images that rival primes and give you more flexibility in low light situations. Now, in spite of my signature, I really am not a Canon snob. Tamron is making some killer lenses and there are other good third party lenses. I feel more comfortable, even confident, with the best I can afford. The people who purchase photos are also cognizant of the equipment that "good" photographers use and (I believe) take that into account at some level. In professional photography, image (pun intended) is everything and that includes equipment. Others will disagree, but my experience tells me otherwise.