Canon 60D and the L lenses

NeonStar wrote in post #16288976
Rockwell is an idiot. The 24/105 is plenty wide on a crop. No issues

Well, it is if it is for You. It really depends on the subject matter each individual shoots. But I do like the 24-105 on my 60D

NeonStar wrote in post #16288976
Rockwell is an idiot. The 24/105 is plenty wide on a crop. No issues

It's all subjective and specific to each individual user. I shoot a lot of skiing and landscapes, and I would never consider the 24-105mm for my 60D.

NeonStar wrote in post #16288976
Rockwell is an idiot. The 24/105 is plenty wide on a crop. No issues

It's not "plenty wide" for me, not even close. In fact, 38.4mm (equivalent) isn't even wide angle at all, it's closer to a "normal".

smmokan wrote in post #16290802
It's all subjective and specific to each individual user. I shoot a lot of skiing and landscapes, and I would never consider the 24-105mm for my 60D.

I have a lot of nice shots of the kids skiing with my 24-105. I sure wouldn't trust a non L lens to deal with that environment.

I have a 24-105 on my 40d and really love it. Like night and day with the kit lens and a bit more versatile than my 60mm macro which was sat on my body permanently for about a year before I got the 24-105.

I have thought about buying a wider lens for landscapes, although I'm thinking of getting a 6d so will wait and see how I notice the difference with FF

As has been said here repeatedly, every lens is a compromise of one sort or another. I chose the 15-85 for my walk around because it was recommended to me by several POTN 60D owners. Ironically enough, a couple of them have moved to the 24-105L. In addition to that, many 60D owners here prefer the 17-55 because of its fixed f/2.8 aperture.

I do more landscapes than indoor or low light photos so the 15-85, even with its limitations, works well for me. I find myself at f/7.1 or 8 more often than not. The newly released EF-S 18-135 STM is getting some good press as well, though I really like having 15mm on the wide side for the landscapes I referenced above.

Also based on POTN 60D users, I ended up with the 70-300L.... what a lens!!! Thanks to all of you who suggested it.

If you want to take landscapes, use a wide angle lens or panorama. The 24-105 is plenty wide for a general or walk around lens.

NeonStar wrote in post #16291875
If you want to take landscapes, use a wide angle lens or panorama. The 24-105 is plenty wide for a general or walk around lens.

Again, it's not even wide AT ALL. It's a normal.

Yes it is wide, quit exaggerating. It's plenty wide for everyday stuff.

tkbslc wrote in post #16291924
Again, it's not even wide AT ALL. It's a normal.

When I started with an SLR, the zooms started at 35mm on the wide side. I would call normal on crop more like 30mm though.

When I was shooting a film SLR, a 24mm was considered a wide angle... not ultra wide angle but wide angle, none the less. In fact, several photographers I knew selected a 28mm as their wide angle lens of choice for landscapes.

So my 15-85 gives me a field of view of a 24mm on a full frame camera. It isn't ultra wide like the 10-20 would be but I don't like the look of ultra wide photographs, for the most part.

As someone mentioned, a panoramic photograph would be a better solution to me if I needed a very wide view. I don't have a nodal setup so I'm not sure how good I'd be able to do it even though I have a very competent tripod.

FEChariot wrote in post #16292008
When I started with an SLR, the zooms started at 35mm on the wide side. I would call normal on crop more like 30mm though.

And how many FF zooms start at 38mm now? How many compact cameras even start that narrow? Even 35mm equivalent would be more palatable. 24mm on APS-C is even 10% narrower than 35mm on film.

It's great that a couple of you are making it work. But to argue that it is "wide enough" is like saying 45mph is "plenty" fast enough to drive on the freeway.

tkbslc wrote in post #16292836
It's great that a couple of you are making it work. But to argue that it is "wide enough" is like saying 45mph is "plenty" fast enough to drive on the freeway.

It is for my 83 year old mother in law.

Common guys, one cant just say its wide or not. If it works it works no matter what some funny buddys going to say...

Back to OP, i think it could work but it depends on your favor. The best way to find out is if you rent one, or look through your pictures you like and look if the focal length*1.6 is on widest higher than 35mm or so..

tkbslc wrote in post #16292836
And how many FF zooms start at 38mm now? How many compact cameras even start that narrow? Even 35mm equivalent would be more palatable. 24mm on APS-C is even 10% narrower than 35mm on film.

It's great that a couple of you are making it work. But to argue that it is "wide enough" is like saying 45mph is "plenty" fast enough to drive on the freeway.

I wasn't the one saying it was "wide enough". I also have a 17-50/2.8 that is "not long enough" to compliment my 24-105.

I was more responding to you calling 24mm normal. So you have some good logic above that could be used in reverse to talk about how much wider 24mm on crop is than normal 31.25mm. To me 38.4mm ~ 35mm which is still wide.