en4h wrote in post #16287565
I've had my eye on the 24-105 f4L for a while now. I'd like to step up to a higher quality glass in the near future and I've been aspiring toward the L lenses. I came across a Ken Rockwell review of this lense and it's use on crop cameras. His words were, "it's silly to use this on a 1.6x crop camera". I see his point, effectively it becomes 39-168. Is there something more suitable for my 60D that has comparable glass? I've also been eye-balling the 70-200 (2.8 and 4.0).
I shoot mostly sporting events, baseball, soccer, & equestrian.Any thoughts?
Thanks in advance...
Pete
Hi Pete,
I shoot a lot of similar subjects to you and can tell you that a 17-55 would be too short, by a mile, for a lot of what you do.
Hopefully Ken Rockwell's reason for "dissing" the 24-105 for use on a cropper is not due to it's focal length range. For your purposes, the 24-105's focal lengths would be excellent. However...
Even though the focal length range would be great for me, I don't own and probably never will own a 24-105. The reason is that the Canon EF 28-135 IS is every bit it's equal in image quality for focal lengths they share, as well as in terms of focus speed, close focusing ability and IS effectiveness. Sure, the L series lens is better built and sealed. But the 28-135 can be picked up lightly used for about 1/4 or 1/5 the price!
I have a couple 28-135s because sometimes I have to provide loaner cameras, and this is the lens I put on them. They also serve to back up my 24-70. The more expensive of the two 28-135s cost me $250 a few years ago, very lightly used with the matching lens hood and a 72mm B+W MRC UV filter on it.
I also use a 24-70/2.8. But that usually also means using a 70-200. When I need to hike 4 miles to a photo shoot, take pics for several hours, then hike back... I prefer to leave both the 24-70 and 70-200 in the car and take the 28-135 instead... along with 10-22 and 300/4 IS. That saves me about 3 lbs of lenses and a lot of space in my backpack. All these were shot at 2011 Trail Trials with a 28-135mm (on 7D)...
The 28-135mm isn't perfect. It's a little soft all the way out at 135mm... I try to always stop it down to f8 when using that focal length. Throughout the rest of it's range of focal lengths, it's fine. Also, the 28-135 tends to get "zoom creep", where it self-extends when you are carrying it (actually it's not uncommon for the 24-105 to do that too). The fix is either as simple as a rubber band over the zoom ring, or some minor DIY tricks to tighten it up a little. Over time and with a lot of hard use, the 28-135 front barrel will feel a bit "sloppy" with some play in it... it actually has no effect on image quality, but means the lens is probably on it's last legs. Probably won't last as long as a 24-105 would, but at 1/4 or 1/5 the price, who cares!
So, for your purposes the focal lengths will work great and the 24-105 would be fine. However there are less expensive lenses that can take just as good a shot. Besides the 28-135 (buy used, there are tons of them around that were sold in kit with 40D, 50D, etc.)... There's also the EF-S 15-85 USM IS that sells for about $450 less than the 24-105. It's got excellent image quality and might be wide enough you don't need to carry a wider lens. And, I haven't used the EF-S 18-135
STM IS, but it sounds like another viable option,
if the focus speed is fast enough for sports (I suspect the focus on your 18-135 isn't up to the task, if it's the non-STM verson). It sells for about $600 less than the 24-105mm. Or just get the 28-135, a practically unused one might cost you around $900 less than the 24-105.
You will likely want to get a 70-200 eventually. It's easily my most used zoom for sports/events. You will hear from some folks that it's not needed for sports, but I swear by IS and wouldn't want to have one of these longer lenses without it. I know I have gotten shots with IS, that I wouldn't have without it... even sports shots! But if budget doesn't allow, the non-IS versions of the Canon 70-200s are real workhorses, too.
I have both the 70-200 f2.8 IS and the f4 IS as backup/loaner. The 70-200 f4 is quite sharp and a bit smaller/lighter than the f2.8. The f2.8 can be essential, shooting at under the lights or in covered arenas, etc. But after 8 hours of shooting, the f2.8 gets pretty heavy!
I do know some folks who successfully use 70-300s, 100-400s and 120-400s for sports/equestrian too. It really comes down to having a fast enough lens, if you ever need to shoot under the lights or under a covered arena.
For handheld longer lens work, I prefer my 300/4 IS, which works quite well with a 1.4X when I need a bit longer. For low light such as in a covered arena or I just want the max image quailty and I don't need handheld mobility, can use a tripod, I'll switch to a 300/2.8 IS, with and without 1.4X or 2X TCs.
Shooting equestrian and field sports, I usually can park relatively close by and most frequently will use a 70-200 on one camera and a 300/4 on the other. At a minimum I have 10-22 and 24-70 in my camera bag ready to swap out if needed, plus a 1.4X teleconverter. Lately I have been tucking a compact Tamron 60/2.0 macro lens into my bag, too, for the occasional portrait or close-up detail.
Trail trials are the type of event that I know I'm going to have to hike a ways and want to lighten my load as much as possible... so will switch to 28-135 on one camera, 300/4 on the other, with 10-22, 1.4X TC and 60mm macro in my bag.
Have fun shopping!
