Charlie wrote in post #15269502
yes, the FF sensor gives you sharper photos. I still have raws taken from the sigma, and generally, it cant match the sharpness and clarity of the 5D2 image, regardless of lens. when I compare the 24-105, I meant to say that 24-105 on a FF > 17-50 on a crop > 24-105 on a crop... at least that was my experience. The 24-105 works a lot better on FF because it's not as demanding (larger pixels).
the tamron 28-75 had sloppy corners compared to the 24-70 mark 1, but for a budget system, that's really the way to go.
I got ya. Thanks for the information. Really leaning toward saving the extra for the 24-105.
JeffreyG wrote in post #15269727I think a lot of 1.6X shooters who do not have a lot of prior film experience have a hard time picturing how the lenses will match up on the different formats. I went from a 30D + EF-S 17-55 to a 5D + 24-105 about five years ago. Over the first year I learned three interesting things about FF.
1) FF cameras of the same 'generation' can be used at a higher ISO level than 1.6X bodies. This means you can get away with a slower lens in some situations for an even trade.
2) FF cameras will have you shooting at longer focal lengths for the same framing (duh), so you will shift your lens choices in both zooms and primes to match.
3) The longer focal lengths you will now be using mean less DOF at the same aperture. The effect is that you will tend to shoot about one stop down in aperture after the shift to get the same DOF. This loss in light is compensated by the higher ISO I mentioned in point 1).
Over time I came to realize that the EF 24-105L is the FF functional equivalent of a lens like the EF-S 17-55 or similar. The best way to picture this is that a 1.6X equivalent lens (for FOV, DOF and low light capability) would be an EF-S 15-64 f/2.5 IS. That's effectively what the 24-105 is on FF.
This makes sense. Thanks so much for the information.
Stir Fry A Lot wrote in post #15270882Just got a chance to bounce the images from my new 24-105 to my computer and I am thoroughly impressed with the IQ from this lens. Performance is great wide open. You can't beat it for the price.
Only auto exposure was applied in LR4 on these two images.
This was taken at ISO 3200 f4 on my 5dc
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …s/stirfryalot/8204258769/ IMG_3965.jpg by
stirfryalot, on Flickr
This looks amazing to me for being shot at ISO 3200. This is what I'm looking to be able to do with going FF. No way I could go up to ISO 3200 on my T1i and get a result that looks like this. Thanks for posting.
These looks fantastic! All the photos I've seen from this lens on flickr look great. What are your feelings about the AF on it? Reviews talk about it being slow? A lot of my photos are of my 2.5 year old daughter so, slow AF may not cut it.
Scott M wrote in post #15271704I used to shoot with a EFS 17-55 f/2.8 lens on my 7D (and 40D before that). The only weakness I noticed when moving to a 5D3 + 24-105L combination is that the 5D3 + 24-105L vignettes a lot more, and I see more instances of CA compared with the 17-55 + crop body. Both these issues can easily be fixed in Lightroom, though.
The benefits of the 5D3 + 24-105L far outweigh these two issues, though. You get more focal range and better build quality (cannot speak for the Sigma 17-50 on this one, as I've never used one). Supplementing this combo with a couple of fast primes gives me all the flexibility I need.
Vingettes more, you say? Sign me up! Vignetting all the things is the sign of a professional photographer, right? Right guys? /sarcasm
I've used the 24-105 briefly, but not really enough to do any thorough testing. But, as far as build quality, the Sigma is pretty good in my opinion (feels solid, not plastic feeling) but definitely not as good as the 24-105.
