Not liking my 24-105L anymore

Dave Jenkins wrote in post #17057530
Better you should ask how heavy would a 24-105 f2.8 with IS be?

Not to mention expensive.

I like mine.

As mentioned previously, what 'all around, general photography' lens can beat the 24-105 in quality (IQ and build) and price?

While many online forum members claim it's soft here, or has CA there, unless one is pixel peeping to the extreme, it's a good lens and I've used it to produce many high-IQ pictures in low light, bright light, and even very low light.

But I have to ask the nay-sayers out there...how many had done a good MFA with that lens and your camera? When I had my 60D, it was sharp, but certainly not 135L sharp. Since upgrading to a 5D mark iii and doing MFA at my 'normal' shooting distances (50-100 feet), the results are at least as good as the 24-70 f2.8l mark I that I used to own. I had both for about 6 months. Great focal length range on the 60D and 5D3, fairly light weight, IS, and it's black. Bye bye 24-70.

Stop pixel peeping. Take a holiday. Take heaps of photos out in the real world. Print them. Bet you'll love it. I do.

This is a great thread... I thought I was the only person who felt this way... I just got so BORED with my 24-105!!! They were technically fine, but lacked a certain sizzle that I just can't define. I ended up with the Tammy 24-70 and I did get one bad copy - the VC added blur. They replaced it for me and the new one is fine. It's usually my walk around lens now. Primes are my favorite lenses, but sometimes it's just not practical, or sometimes it's just more hassle than I feel like incurring.

I have 24-105L, T28-75 f2.8 and lately bought the new version of T24-70 f2.8 vc to use in dark places, where stabilisation and f2.8 is needed. Unfortunately got bad version of Tamron and waiting for trying another copy. I will not sell the old Tamron because it is light weight lens with very good quality. Canon 24-105L is often used in packshots and in streetphotography where 24-70mm could be too short especially combined with full frame...The bad news...3 lenses where two of them are almost exact ranges... By selling the old I wont get so much money (it is 8years old lens from bought from second hand).

Well its not doing it for me anymore.. Its been with me 4 years now and each time I use it less and less so might as weel sell it to someone who likes it. Im 85% sure I will be purchasing the sigma 35 1.4. I think I can pull it off in weddings with my 70-200 in one body and the sigma in the other.

The 24-105mm range is very attractive, you can use it for modelshoots inside at f8 or higher with the necessary studiolights.

But for outside portraits the bokeh isn't dreamy enough (maybe someone can post the opposite?)
I had much vignetting on my 5D (correctable in 1 click but didn't like it so much), and inside f4 isn't fast enough.

I'd rather give up 35mm on the tele for the faster f2.8.
As said, the range is the most attractive, but everything is said with that.

I find it more an L kitlens with flat images, it's great for studiophotography with fixed background.
But I'd rather have the Tamron 24-70 2.8VC back, dual usuage inside/lowlight and outside/bokeh.

yamatama wrote in post #17066035
Well its not doing it for me anymore.. Its been with me 4 years now and each time I use it less and less so might as weel sell it to someone who likes it. Im 85% sure I will be purchasing the sigma 35 1.4. I think I can pull it off in weddings with my 70-200 in one body and the sigma in the other.

i have hardly used my 24-105 since i got the sigma 35mm 1.4

i cant praise it highly enough.

What would be a good price to sell a 3 year used 24-105 in good condition?

yamatama wrote in post #17067722
What would be a good price to sell a 3 year used 24-105 in good condition?

About $600. You can check out the "SOLD" prices for on ebay. http://www.ebay.com …&_nkw=ef+24-105mm&_sop=13

Posted something on dpreview about this recently. Been experimenting with Sony cameras lately (a6000 and rx100m3) and after using the Zeiss 24mm/F1.8 with the Sony a6000 I almost start to hate my 24-105L. My 5D3 is a fantastic camera (duh), but this lens seems to drag it down way too much. Never quite noticed it, but been browing through my lightroom catalog and pictures from my (sold-stupid me) 7D+1755IS are WAY sharper than what I'm getting out of my 24-105L. Very much considering it to sell it and get the 24-70 although I'm not quite sure I'm willing to spend that much money

Agree that the 24-105 is not the best lens for that creamy blurred out background you typically want for outdoor portraits. That being said though, it's a nice general lens. It's great indoors when you're stopped down and using strobes.

I've given heavy thought to selling mine, along with my 28-75, in favor of a 24-70...but the range of the 24-105 is very compelling. It's a great walk around lens in my opinon. Whenever my family goes on a trip and I take my camera the 24-105 gets slapped on the 50D and away we go.

Yeah but for studio the distance is fixed, I did a shoot with my 85 1.2 this weekend (I see you also have the 85 1.8 for studioportraits). I don't see the value of the 24-105 f4 over the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC which has double usuage with the better blur for outdoor and faster indoor.

Strange, but when you're used to quality... on holidays I take my 70-200 2.8LII (candid swimmingpoolshots), 35 1.4 (restaurant & allround shots) and 85 1.8 (portraits) with me for bokeh portraits of my daughter and wife around the hotel.

I wonder if the 24-105 f4L is actual better than any standard superzoom for example the Tamron 18-270.

rivas8409 wrote in post #17068668
Agree that the 24-105 is not the best lens for that creamy blurred out background you typically want for outdoor portraits. That being said though, it's a nice general lens. It's great indoors when you're stopped down and using strobes.

I've given heavy thought to selling mine, along with my 28-75, in favor of a 24-70...but the range of the 24-105 is very compelling. It's a great walk around lens in my opinon. Whenever my family goes on a trip and I take my camera the 24-105 gets slapped on the 50D and away we go.

CanonYouCan wrote in post #17068912
....I wonder if the 24-105 f4L is actual better than any standard superzoom for example the Tamron 18-270.

Better how?

Range - yes!
Price - yes!
Length and weight - yes (but not by that much IMO)!

IQ - Somewhat but no tele - here! Not even close wide - here. (As close as the site could show equivalents.)

Weather sealed - no!
Build - no!