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 08 Jan 2016 (Friday) 08:22
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Magic Drain Pipe Vs 24-105 L

 
almo
Goldmember
Avatar
1,069 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 5
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Portland, ME
     
Jan 08, 2016 08:22 |  #1

I am just getting back into Canon after several years away. I used to have a few L lenses, 17-40 f/4 L, 70-200 f/4 L, 100-400 f/4-5.6 L IS, and my beloved 24-105 f/4 L IS. My finances are not great, but I am planing to get a used L lens. My go to is the 24-105, but I am very intrigued by this 80-200 f/2.8. Always have been really.

I am just looking for opinions from people that have used both. I can get either for about the same price so I want to give the 80-200 some due consideration before I just go and buy a 24-105.

I used the 24-105 as my everyday walk around lens, in conjunction with the 17-40, and since this will be my only L lens for a while which ever I get will have to fill that role, as well as the telephoto role, because the only other lens I own right now is the 40mm STM.

Also any other suggestions for sub $600 L glass would be welcome too.


If you saw a man drowning and you could either save him or photograph the event...what lens would you use?

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Left ­ Handed ­ Brisket
Combating camera shame since 1977...
Avatar
9,897 posts
Gallery: 15 photos
Likes: 2362
Joined Jun 2011
Location: The Uwharrie Mts, NC
     
Jan 08, 2016 08:33 |  #2

if i could get away with the magic drain pipe instead of the 24-105 i would in a heartbeat.

I have seen two on the POTN for sale market recently.

if you think it will fit your needs, do it.

now.

:D


PSA: The above post may contain sarcasm, reply at your own risk | Not in gear database: Auto Sears 50mm 2.0 / 3x CL-360, Nikon SB-28, SunPak auto 322 D, Minolta 20

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tcphoto1
Goldmember
Avatar
1,374 posts
Gallery: 28 photos
Likes: 991
Joined Sep 2005
Location: Madison, Ga
     
Jan 08, 2016 08:34 |  #3

Even though Canon has discontinued servicing the Magic Drainpipe, I'd take it over the 24-105L any day.


www.tonyclarkphoto.com (external link)
www.tcphoto.org (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
artyH
Goldmember
2,108 posts
Likes: 29
Joined Aug 2009
     
Jan 08, 2016 09:47 |  #4

I like the 24-105L very much. I also have the 70-210F4L and it has only been used 2 or 3 times. The longer zoom is very sharp, but I am more likely to want the zoom range of the 24-105L.
There is no right answer here. No one can tell you what to get, since it really depends on your wants and photographic use.
I use the longer zoom once every 5 years, so it isn't really useful for me. The lens has taken perhaps 35 photos, mostly for testing when I first got it. It was so sharp that it literally brought a smile to my face.
Nonetheless, I find the 24-105F 4 gets used, but the longer zoom does not. What do you like to photograph? That should determine your choice.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scott ­ M
Goldmember
3,174 posts
Gallery: 70 photos
Likes: 269
Joined May 2008
Location: Michigan
     
Jan 09, 2016 07:41 |  #5

You do not mention what body you have -- a crop or full frame sensor? If you have a crop body, why limit yourself to the 24-105L just because it's an "L" lens? The EF-S 18-135 IS STM would be an excellent choice for a crop body instead.

As for comparing the 24-105L to the 80-200 f/2.8, those are radically different lenses for different uses, so it really depends on what you shoot.


Photo Gallery (external link)
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Vertigo1
Senior Member
310 posts
Likes: 49
Joined Sep 2006
     
Jan 09, 2016 08:56 |  #6

tcphoto1 wrote in post #17849703 (external link)
Even though Canon has discontinued servicing the Magic Drainpipe, I'd take it over the 24-105L any day.

The lack of servicability would be my biggest fear - if anything major goes wrong with it, it's potentially a write-off. Whether that's a risk worth taking is up to the individual to decide.


Canon 5D3/6D | EF 16-35 f/4L IS | EF 24-70 f/2.8L II | EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II | EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II | EF 35 f/1.4L II | EF 50 f/1.4

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Ralph ­ III
Goldmember
1,345 posts
Likes: 16
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Alabama
Post edited over 3 years ago by Ralph III. (2 edits in all)
     
Jan 09, 2016 09:46 |  #7

It's like the others stated, it really depends on what you want to use it for.

If you're eventually going to get another lens to cover your wide angles, or if you mostly shoot telephoto, then you cannot beat the 80-200mm L f2.8.

I've owned the 24-105mm f4 L and it was a good lens but it doesn't compare to the 80-200mm f2.8 L in many IQ aspects.

---------------

The 80-200mm f2.8 is:

1) A sharper lens. There's few zoom lenses that equal it in sharpness and it outperforms many prime
lenses IMHO. It's absolutely stellar.

2) It offers a constant f2.8 which is superior to f4.0 in low light, speed and isolation of a subject.

3) IMHO the bokeh is better on the 80-200mm L. It's one thing that quickly caught my attention with
this lens. It's very smooth and creamy. This may be due to the longer telephoto aspect and f2.8
but the background blur and bokeh shine with this lens.

4) It's a significantly better portrait lens due to the above. There is no comparison between the two
in this regards. It is far better at isolating a subject and rendering a pleasing and blurred
background.

5) It offers more focal lengths and a much longer telephoto end.


The 24-105mm L offers IS but the faster f2.8 on the 80-200mm L helps offset this. The 24-105mm offers a wider angle but less zoom range and significantly less on the telephoto end. It also has a 77mm diameter (vs 72mm) so filters cost more.


I wouldn't opt for the 24-105mm as a general purpose walk around lens over what is available with some other lenses. However, the 80-200mm f2.8 is phenomenal as a portrait and telephoto lens that only a few lenses made today are capable of matching. It's built like a tank, btw.

God Bless,
Ralph


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


"SOUTHERN and SAVED!"
POTN FEEDBACK...............ITEMS FOR SALE

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
almo
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,069 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 5
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Portland, ME
     
Jan 09, 2016 09:47 as a reply to  @ Scott M's post |  #8

I have a D30 and a 30D. No that's not a joke lol. Ideally I'd like a lens that would work with both, but I suppose that is not a must, as the 30D gets way more use. My main concern in IQ, and my old 24-105 was super sharp and contrasty. Colors were vibrant. It was an all around awesome lens. I am not opposed to an EF-S lens, but what is the IQ like?


If you saw a man drowning and you could either save him or photograph the event...what lens would you use?

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Left ­ Handed ­ Brisket
Combating camera shame since 1977...
Avatar
9,897 posts
Gallery: 15 photos
Likes: 2362
Joined Jun 2011
Location: The Uwharrie Mts, NC
     
Jan 09, 2016 10:03 |  #9

80-200 on a crop is going to be LONG.


PSA: The above post may contain sarcasm, reply at your own risk | Not in gear database: Auto Sears 50mm 2.0 / 3x CL-360, Nikon SB-28, SunPak auto 322 D, Minolta 20

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FEChariot
Goldmember
Avatar
4,423 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 345
Joined Sep 2011
     
Jan 09, 2016 10:23 |  #10

It's an extreme example but the MPE65 macro lens is super sharp too, but it's too specialized to spend all your budget on. To a lesser extent, the 80-200 is too specialized here too. Maybe your shooting habits are different and this isn't true for you, but for me I would spend my money on a standard zoom.

The 18-135STM fits the budget and would give you the functionality of what your 17-40 and 24-105 gave you and not really give up any IQ. Same thing with the 15-85 if you want a little wider.


Canon 7D/350D, Σ17-50/2.8 OS, 18-55IS, 24-105/4 L IS, Σ30/1.4 EX, 50/1.8, C50/1.4, 55-250IS, 60/2.8, 70-200/4 L IS, 85/1.8, 100/2.8 IS L, 135/2 L 580EX II, 430EX II * 2, 270EX II.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Left ­ Handed ­ Brisket
Combating camera shame since 1977...
Avatar
9,897 posts
Gallery: 15 photos
Likes: 2362
Joined Jun 2011
Location: The Uwharrie Mts, NC
     
Jan 09, 2016 10:34 |  #11

i keep hearing a lot about the new 18-135 but never checked it out. Realizing that it does fit the budget here, and would be a good all purpose EF-S lens for many, after looking into it I don't believe it will have anywhere close to the image quality of the 24-105.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …6-IS-STM-Lens-Review.aspx (external link)


PSA: The above post may contain sarcasm, reply at your own risk | Not in gear database: Auto Sears 50mm 2.0 / 3x CL-360, Nikon SB-28, SunPak auto 322 D, Minolta 20

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FEChariot
Goldmember
Avatar
4,423 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 345
Joined Sep 2011
Post edited over 3 years ago by FEChariot.
     
Jan 09, 2016 10:49 |  #12

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #17851108 (external link)
after looking into it I don't believe it will have anywhere close to the image quality of the 24-105.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …6-IS-STM-Lens-Review.aspx (external link)

Why don't you use the IQ crops page from the same site:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=2​&APIComp=2 (external link)

You'd be hard pressed to call a winner. Play around with the focal lengths there. I have the 24-105 on crop and my friend has the 18-135STM and I wasn't able to tell the difference.


Canon 7D/350D, Σ17-50/2.8 OS, 18-55IS, 24-105/4 L IS, Σ30/1.4 EX, 50/1.8, C50/1.4, 55-250IS, 60/2.8, 70-200/4 L IS, 85/1.8, 100/2.8 IS L, 135/2 L 580EX II, 430EX II * 2, 270EX II.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BigAl007
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,011 posts
Gallery: 543 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1624
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK.
     
Jan 09, 2016 11:49 |  #13

If you want a lens to suit your D30 I would be looking for a second party brand such as Sigma or Tamron. All their crop only leses use the EF mount, so will fit both bodies, while still maintining useful focal lengths and sizes.

Alan


My Flickr (external link)
My new Aviation images blog site (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
smythie
I wasn't even trying
3,720 posts
Gallery: 30 photos
Likes: 650
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Sydney - Australia
     
Jan 09, 2016 13:01 |  #14

Vertigo1 wrote in post #17850983 (external link)
The lack of servicability would be my biggest fear - if anything major goes wrong with it, it's potentially a write-off. Whether that's a risk worth taking is up to the individual to decide.

A good point but then again if anything major goes wrong with a 24-105 (or any lens in that price range really) the repair costs may render it a write-off anyway.


Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wallstreetoneil
Goldmember
Avatar
2,086 posts
Gallery: 14 photos
Likes: 1211
Joined Nov 2014
Location: Toronto Canada
     
Jan 09, 2016 13:17 |  #15

3 suggestions

used Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS ($300)

used Canon 15-85 (great range on a crop - $450)

used Sigma 18-35 F1.8 (might find it for $600 used - sharp wide open at F1.8)


Hockey and wedding photographer. Favourite camera / lens combos: a 1DX II with a Tamron 45 1.8 VC, an A7Rii with a Canon 24-70F2.8L II, and a 5DSR with a Tamron 85 1.8 VC. Every lens I own I strongly recommend [Canon (35Lii, 100L Macro, 24-70F2.8ii, 70-200F2.8ii, 100-400Lii), Tamron (45 1.8, 85 1.8), Sigma 24-105]. If there are better lenses out there let me know because I haven't found them.

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

7,962 views & 4 likes for this thread
Magic Drain Pipe Vs 24-105 L
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 Bob Wille
977 guests, 238 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.