24-105 L or ???

OK......I either have fat fingers or can't count to 1.....

I've had mine for 3 months now and I love it!
the 24-105L that is!!

Just got my 24-105 L IS today and I LOVE it so far...

cant wait to really put it through its paces!

Hmmm

Tamron 18-200 Slowwww Consumer lens! Noisy slow focus.. soft from 150-200 range (not bad for the price you pay)!

Canon L4 24-105 IS USM.. Wheather and dust sealed.. L glassss IS (superb) USM very fast accurate focus... Sharp wide open at 24 or 105.....

The Canon lens has a shorter range..... But is's comparing a Fiat with a Mercedes!

ed rader wrote in post #2134899
do you mean one-stop? certainly the 24-105L is a better low light lens as it has a 2-stop advantage over the 24-70L.

and yeah yeah yeah before someone says it i know IS doesn't stop motion but when it's that dark neither does f2.8.

ed rader

Really neither is good for low light photography.

eslaydog wrote in post #2134716
My 2 cents: the 24-70 blows away the 24-105 because of the low light ability of the 2.8.

I've had both... the 24-105 got cut.

The 24-70 2.8 will NEVER blow away the 24-105 IS 4.0.

The 27-70 is the worst peace of junk that Canon ever made.

In my opinion anyway. Good luck.

I have great results from my 24-105. Fast and accurate focus and most importantly sharp wide open. Very nice build. IS is fantastic. Seems to me that this technology is showing almost everywhere now; point and shoot to consumer grade Nikor lenses.

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

sparker1 wrote in post #2134573
I need a new walk-around lens and have been thinking of the 24-105 L. Popular Photography gives pretty good marks to the Tamron 18-200, which is much less expensive. I admit the greater range of the Tamron has some appeal. Is there any experience with that lens? Is there another option I should consider?

Thanks for all opinions and information.

Yes I got one to work with my 10-22 despite already having the 17-40 28/1.8 50/1.4 and 100mm macro, mostly for a light wieght two lens solution over the general photography focal range.

Its a very sharp lens and well constructed although the extending zoom is a bit disconcerting. It does however flare a lot more than any og my other lenses when a bright light source is in the frame.

The IS gives about a 2-3 stop advantage at the wide end depending on sharpness requirements and so handheld low light capability is about the same as the 28/1.8 excluding subject motion blur.

At the long end the IS seems to give a simple 2 stop advantage.

sparker1,
For alot less $$$$ you could give the Canon 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 a try. I find its a great lens, (and was great on film too ) light weight and low cost with great quality and it even works great for IR shots

I think the 24-105 is the perfect walk-around general duty lens, sharp with great contrast, and the 24mm end is plenty wide for me. However, I would much rather have it with the 2.8 aperture. Not because of the low light advantage that almost everyone quotes, but for the improved bokeh/depth of field.

My thanks to all who responded to this question. I'm not surprised to hear the 24-105 L is a great lens, or that members of this forum own more of them than the Tamron. I do get the impression the 18-200 is an OK lens (or better), but with some limitations. I'll still need some time to think this one through.

i love my 24-105 L IS . At its lowest apperture it performs. The extra stop might be nice but the reach i get with it is nice. If im not sure whats going to present itself its nice to have that bit extra range insurance and this is why i didnt stop at 70mm. It is a bit heavy , but it feels nice in my hand.

eslaydog wrote in post #2134716
My 2 cents: the 24-70 blows away the 24-105 because of the low light ability of the 2.8.

I've had both... the 24-105 got cut.

Until you go to a museum that does not allow flash photography. IS comes in handy.

17-35L

my cousin owns one and its replacement the 16-35L. the 17-35L is CONSIDERABLY sharper than its cousin. the great thing too is that on a crop body the 17-35 basically covers the range similar to the 24-70.


i have the 24-105, and i find it...okay. Nothing spectacular. I mainly use it on my FF cameras. i keep the 17-40 on the 20D. I dont hate it, but i dont really like it either...i guess. Nothing impresses me about this lens.

I’m sorry but if you have a larger aperture you allow in more light, if you let in more light you can have a faster shutter speed, if you have a faster shutter speed you will be able to stop action better.

The difference between f2.8 and f4.0 might be enough to freeze action in low light or it might keep you from having to use the next higher ISO.

Yea the IS on the 24/105 will keep the flower pot behind the birthday boy sharp but the birthday boy might be out of focus as he blows out the candles while the 24/70 is able to stop the action because it has a higher shutter speed with the aperture set at 2.8. Not only that but at f2.8 the flowerpot will have a nice bokeh too.

I’ve seen this argument time after time. The 24/70 is more for indoor shots of the kids with no flash and the 24/105 is for a day at Sea World with its longer reach. Each has its niche.