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 11 Dec 2007 (Tuesday) 08:41
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Call me Crazy, but my L fever is gone!

 
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
36,754 posts
Gallery: 161 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 7122
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
Dec 11, 2007 21:48 |  #91

sapearl wrote in post #4486472 (external link)
Hey there air - yes, I've got that FLE 50 as well as the 150.... sold some stuff but kept those ;). They are some mighty fine little devices there. I never had the 180 but folks told me it was a wonderful lens. I miss using all that gear too, but it was just too expensive for wedding work - and no zooms.

I had a 150, great lens. Also had a 120 also a beauty. I got so used to shooting with out zooms for YEARS that when I went digital I tried a few they just never worked with my style of shooting. Different strokes I guess. Also got so used to looking at the quality from the larger negs and Zeiss glass and I get fairly good results now from the stuff I use. If only Leica had better sensors. An M body and a couple of their better pieces of, glass I donno.

Stu don't change anything you're doing cause your stuff looks great.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Littlefield
Goldmember
Avatar
1,567 posts
Gallery: 289 photos
Likes: 4601
Joined Jan 2006
Location: SC, USA
     
Dec 11, 2007 22:14 |  #92

timnosenzo wrote in post #4486977 (external link)
I assume you have some examples to share with us to back this up?

Why would you think it would not ? It is known as the sharpest of the canon lens now. Do you have either? :)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
36,754 posts
Gallery: 161 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 7122
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
Dec 11, 2007 22:37 |  #93

Littlefield wrote in post #4487120 (external link)
Why would you think it would not ? It is known as the sharpest of the canon lens now. Do you have either? :)

It is? HMMM there are several primes sharper. The 24 1.4L is quite a bit sharper at both 2.8 and 4 both the 85 1.2L and the 135 beat it and from what I've read the 200 1.8L was the king. So its not known as sharpest canon lens.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Littlefield
Goldmember
Avatar
1,567 posts
Gallery: 289 photos
Likes: 4601
Joined Jan 2006
Location: SC, USA
     
Dec 11, 2007 22:43 |  #94

Talking zoom . Fred Miranda rate the 70-200 f4 LIS higher then 24 -105 9.7 compared to 9 .

The 70-200IS F4 is, "the sharpest zoom lens ever made"(E.J. Peiker, 2007)

Sr. Technical Editor, NatureScapes.net




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
Avatar
23,307 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 526
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
     
Dec 11, 2007 22:50 |  #95

Littlefield wrote in post #4487300 (external link)
Talking zoom . Fred Miranda rate the 70-200 f4 LIS higher then 24 -105 9.7 compared to 9 .

i've owned both. the 70-200L f4 IS is the sharpest zoom i have owned and maybe the sharpest lens period.

the 24-105L is at the other end of the spectrum of the L lenses i've owned, pretty close to the 17-40L.

ed rader


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D4, 80d, 16-35L F4 IS, 24-70L II, 70-200L F4 IS II, 100-400L II, sigma 15 FE, sigma 14 f1.8 art, tc 1.4 III, 430exII, gitzo 3542L + markins Q20, gitzo GT 1545T + markins Q3T, gitzo GM4562

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
djeuch
Senior Member
Avatar
933 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Langhorne, PA USA
     
Dec 11, 2007 22:58 |  #96

Ugh... isn't this a moot point? No matter how sharp the 70-200mm f/4L is (I own a very sharp f/2.8L), it isn't sharp at 24-69mm compared to the 24-105mm f/4L!

Also, I seriously suggest those of you who really doubt the sharpness, send your body and lenses to Canon.... I took in my whole camera bag (I'm lucky enough to live close enough to drive there) and had them re-calibrate everything.... They even did my 1.4x TC attached to my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS!


Canon 40D w/BG-E2N Battery Grip | Canon 5D w/BG-E4 Battery Grip | EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM | EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM | EF 85mm f/1.8 w/ET-65III | EF 50mm f/1.4 w/ES-71II | Canon 1.4x TC | Lowepro SlingShot 200 AW | B+W 77mm MRC (010) filter x2 | Speedlite 580EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
timnosenzo
Cream of the Crop
8,833 posts
Likes: 14
Joined Sep 2005
Location: CT
     
Dec 12, 2007 05:40 |  #97

Littlefield wrote in post #4487120 (external link)
Why would you think it would not ? It is known as the sharpest of the canon lens now. Do you have either? :)

I've had both. Still have my 24-105. I didn't think my 70-200 f/4L IS was that amazing (not saying it was bad, I just wouldn't say it was the sharpest zoom ever--not even the sharpest zoom I ever owned), but thats an opinion for another thread. ;)


connecticut wedding photographer (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Lord_Malone
Cream of the Manpanties.....​... Inventor Great POTN Photo Book
Avatar
7,686 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2005
     
Dec 12, 2007 06:59 |  #98

flipteg wrote in post #4485578 (external link)
that's what i was saying before... too many people only look at lens sharpness with little regards for other aspects of lenses... if a photographer needs the sharpest lens and only the sharpest lens to do the job, then fine, but sometimes focal length and/or maximum aperture are more impotant than all out sharpness in a given situation...

I've been saying exactly that for quite some time now. You're a good man, Mr. Flip"da script"teg. I will admit that I shoot exclusively with L glass (with the exception of the recently added 50 2.5 macro), and the results have been nothing short of amazing. But I have produced equally great quality images with cheap glass such as the 28-105 II, which among one of my all time favorite prosumer lenses.

I will continue to say L lenses suck until people start to buy off on it and drive the prices down. Whistles go Woo Woo!


~Spaceships Don't Come Equipped With Rear View Mirrors~
http://www.myspace.com​/chocolate_thai (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
harrydog
Member
146 posts
Joined May 2003
     
Dec 12, 2007 07:07 |  #99

LAB wrote in post #4482183 (external link)
I'm getting the same or better results from my 17-85 IS than a new 24-105 IS L. I bought one yesterday from my local camera shop and took numerous photos with both of these lenses and I'm not impressed with the L lens.

For costing twice as much, it should be noticably better and it's not, at all. At best, the colors were more vibrant on a few shots but most were the same or worse than my 17-85. For a lens that cost $1100, images should look superb to a less expensive lens. The only advantage the L lens has is more reach, and that is not worth an extra $600.

So, just in case you were contemplating buying the 24-105, try the 17-85 and see if that will be long enough for you. If so, you will save a lot of money.

Has anyone else had a mediocre experience with the 24-105?

Not me. I have both lenses and my 24-105 is clearly the better of the two.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tonylong
...winded
Avatar
54,657 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Likes: 546
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver, WA USA
     
Dec 12, 2007 09:10 |  #100

harrydog wrote in post #4488768 (external link)
Not me. I have both lenses and my 24-105 is clearly the better of the two.

Heh! I think this discussion is a good illustration of why it's good to "look before you leap!"

The 17-85 was an upgrade to the original kit lens for the APS-C cameras, and a very nice upgrade. For a long time it was the best "walk-around" lens for those cameras. The newer 17-55 2.8 IS is now "the best", and for those looking for something better than the 17-85, that's the lens to get. But still, there's nothing shabby about the 17-85 -- I wouldn't hesitate to pop it onto my 30D for all-around usefulness.

I'm not sure why so many APS-C owners seemed to have jumped on the 24-105. This lens was made to be the kit lens, the "walk-around" lens for the full-frame 5D, and for full-frame cameras it gives a range of focal lengths that is similar to the EF-S 17-xx lenses give for the APS-C cameras. But I'm not sure what the 24-105 adds for the APS-C owners -- a lot of overlap with a bit more reach, but there are other choices that might serve you better.

As far as the "L" factor, yes, the 24-105 is the "kit lens" version of an L lens. As such it has higher specs for both build and optical qualities, but that doesn't mean that you can't get great pics from your 17-85 that rival pics from the L lens. It just means that the L optics are designed to be more consistent across the range of f-stops, focal lengths and edge-to-edge. The latter quality, though, will only benefit full-frame cameras.

If you have an APS-C camera, I'd suggest not leaping to the 24-105 just to have an L lens. As I said above, if you want an upgrade from the older 17-85, get the fantastic 17-55, and then I'd suggest taking the time to make wise choices -- some good primes (including the great 85mm lenses), the EF-S 10-22 UWA, and one of the 70-200 lenses would boost your shooting abilities more than the 24-105. At least, that's my opinion.

By the way, I got the 24-105 as a kit lens with my 5D, and do use it when it fits the bill, and I'm happy with it in that way. I'm not putting this lens down, just suggesting that it was designed to fill a particular role -- with the full frame cameras.


Tony
Two Canon cameras (5DC, 30D), three Canon lenses (24-105, 100-400, 100mm macro)
Tony Long Photos on PBase (external link)
Wildlife project pics here (external link), Biking Photog shoots here (external link), "Suburbia" project here (external link)! Mount St. Helens, Mount Hood pics here (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sapearl
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
16,343 posts
Gallery: 152 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1426
Joined Dec 2005
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
     
Dec 12, 2007 12:10 |  #101

I'd tend to agree with you regading it's design intent.

Just like in old FF 35mm film days you'd typically have the 50mm "normal" lens that came with the body, and then 24mm or 28mm if you did groups, social events, etc. Some people would even get a 35mm and use that as their normal.

And then if you did portrait work, the perfect range was 85 - 105. So you can see how this one lens contains all of those. That's what caught MY eye when I was looking to purchase. This is how I shot both 35mm and MF. I applaud whoever came up with that marketting decision; gave me EXACTLY what I needed.;)

tonylong wrote in post #4489328 (external link)
....By the way, I got the 24-105 as a kit lens with my 5D, and do use it when it fits the bill, and I'm happy with it in that way. I'm not putting this lens down, just suggesting that it was designed to fill a particular role -- with the full frame cameras.


GEAR LIST
MY WEBSITE (external link)- MY GALLERIES (external link)- MY BLOG (external link)
Artists Archives of the Western Reserve (external link) - Board

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
eelnoraa
Goldmember
1,798 posts
Likes: 37
Joined May 2007
     
Dec 12, 2007 13:37 as a reply to  @ sapearl's post |  #102

My L fever is gone too, no L now

I, too, moved away from L, not because Ls are not good, just for the way I shoot, I found some non-L better suits me. If I were to buy a L again, it would be the 70-200F2.8IS.

Here is my history with some Ls:

1. 17-40L (6 monthes) => 17-85IS (2 years) => 24-105L (6 monthes) => 17-55IS (now)

2. 70-200F4 non-IS => 85f1.8

IMHO, 17-40L on crop body is a little overrated. It is a standard zoom, but there are alot of better choice out there. It is compatible with FF, but it is a ultra wide. So you will need to buy another standard zoom for FF anyway.

The 24-105L is probably one of the best standard zoom for FF. . But for crop, it is not wide enough (at least for me). If you don't need wider than 24mm, it is the right lens. I move to 17-55IS mainly because of the 17mm and F2.8. Not everyone need this tho.

The 70-200F4L non-IS, for me, is vast over rated lens. It is sharp, very sharp, but so what!!! It is only useful in a sunny day out door. With any less than perfect light condition, it will suffer from camera shake blur due to not fast enought shuttter speed. Even with flash, 1/250s won't do much good at 200mm end. It is too short for sport, bird, wild life. It is long enough to be very noticeable. Being white didn't help either.

It is the least expansive L, but I realized there is a reason for it. It was my least used lens although maybe with the highest quality glass.

eel


5Di, 5Diii, 28, 50, 85, 16-35II, 24-105, 70-200F2.8 IS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Marsellus_Wallace
Senior Member
342 posts
Joined Apr 2007
     
Dec 27, 2007 10:18 |  #103

I don't know. I don't really suffer from L-fever, but most of the L series is sweet stuff for sure. I own the 17-85 and have used the 24-105 quite a lot. The 24-105 is better IMO, but the focal range of the 17-85 is nicer, as is its price.

I do believe however that the 17-85 is WAY underrated by lots of people and the 24-105 is overrated. What I didn't like about the 24-105 for example is the barrel distortion at 24mm and the sub-par bokeh it produces. Strange enough most people don't complain about the distortion, and bokeh isn't even considered in most reviews.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sapearl
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
16,343 posts
Gallery: 152 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1426
Joined Dec 2005
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
     
Dec 27, 2007 10:46 |  #104

When I bought the 24-105 I didn't buy it for it's bokeh. Sure I've gotten some pleasant bokeh at f/4 based upon the way I set up the shot, but I don't really consider good bokeh effect until I get to f/2.8 or wider. I imagine that's why it's not considered in a lot of reviews.

As for the barrel distortion, sure it's there to a small degree. If this were pre photoshop days where you couldn't fix it, I'd say it was a major problem. But to me the lens has far more features and advantages than not.

Marsellus_Wallace wrote in post #4576731 (external link)
.....

I do believe however that the 17-85 is WAY underrated by lots of people and the 24-105 is overrated. What I didn't like about the 24-105 for example is the barrel distortion at 24mm and the sub-par bokeh it produces. Strange enough most people don't complain about the distortion, and bokeh isn't even considered in most reviews.


GEAR LIST
MY WEBSITE (external link)- MY GALLERIES (external link)- MY BLOG (external link)
Artists Archives of the Western Reserve (external link) - Board

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Edle
Member
Avatar
74 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 5
Joined Nov 2007
     
Dec 27, 2007 11:36 |  #105

I use my 24-105 L for 80% of the the time compared to my other lenses and I absolutely love it!


Body: 5D MKIII Gripped, 7D MKII
Lens: EF 85mm f1.2L II - EF 50mm f1.2L - EF 16-35mm f2.8L II - EF 17-40mm f4L - EF 24-70mm f2.8L - EF 24-105mm f4L- EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS - EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS II - EF 15mm f2.8 fisheye - EF 1.4x II
Flashes: 580EX II - 600EX RT Canon Battery Pack CP-E4
Tripod/Monopod/Heads : 190XPROB / 695 5-Section Magfiber / 3039 - 488RC2

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

9,669 views & 0 likes for this thread
Call me Crazy, but my L fever is gone!
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 Eternal Louper
733 guests, 298 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.