The infamous 24-105L...

cprofit wrote in post #3829307
The 24-105 bokeh and lack of speed, which means wandering focus in low light, made me sell my 24-105 and stick with the 24-70. I do hate the size of the 24-70 though... I'm even thinking about selling it and just going tamron 28-75, as I prefer my primes.

What is wrong with the blur? Do you mean you cannot get enough at f4? It depends on how close you are. Example: http://www.zangenberg.​net/foto/index.php?id=​218

I dont know what camera you used it with, but I have no focus problems in low light. I would love 2.8, but I would miss the extra reach. I have also thought about trying a Tamron 28-75 2.8 though because it is so cheap but very sharp.

Lord_Malone wrote in post #3828145
I've got both of those primes, so I've got the extreme low light stuff covered. However, I'm more interested in a versatile mid-range zoom that will afford me more flexibility and will meet the challenges if or when the lighting situation changes dramatically and I don't have time to swap lenses without risking missing good shots (I'll have a back-up body for that contigency as well). I'd consider the 24-70, but the focal range of 24-105 is so much more appealing, especially considering I can make full use of the 580ex flash coverage (24mm - 105mm extendable to 17mm).

IMO, getting the shot is more important than getting the exact exposure considering the ability to process in RAW; therefore, is zooming ability will get you more shots without having to crop in, that would be my choice. This isn't a case for the "fixing in PS" argument, but simply a way out in case you think you cannot get the shot because your aperture won't open another stop. Better to get the shot with high ISO and focused than not at all.
Right?

I'd go 24-70 all the way Malone.

canonpink wrote in post #3832973
... Better to get the shot with high ISO and focused than not at all.
Right?

that's one thing I noticed between my 24-70 and 24-105... in dark dark situations, the 24-105 has much more difficulty locking focus than the 24-70. As a result, I was missing many moments that the 24-70 could have gotten. Don't get me wrong, the 24-105 can focus in somewhat low light... but there comes a point where the 24-105 focus gets totally lost, while the 24-70 is still working great.

I did a lot of investigation on this, and chose the 24-70. The only gripe I have is that on the odd occasion, I wish it went to 105mm. I know picturecrazy said he has had issues with it, and I have heard of others as well, but my experience is all good so far. I have paired it with the 70-200 f/2.8 IS and wider with the 10-22.

Nathan

I shot 2 weddings with my 24-105... It is nice not to have the need to change lenses at all.. It was used on my 30D, I had 0 issues with it.. I also use it as my primary walk around lens as well..

i cant fault it, i shoot models and weddings with it on a 5d and im yet to have any problems, Its tack sharp, and low light extremeties can be dealti with ISO and EC if need be.
For the price and the reach it does the job.. also if i need a shallower DoF u can simply zoom and sharpness and speed remain constant throughout

For stupid low light environments without flash, i use a 50 1.4

to be honest, with the 24.105 set to 70mm at f4, the DoF would be comparable to a 2.8 at full tele... thats jsut my opinion,but im sure others will pipe in to justify their investments.

A lens shoudl be purchased or whatever reason YOU need it.. not for what the masses might think you need it for..
If your shooting weddings exclusively (ie no portraits, no shows, no landscapes, no studio) then you shouldnt consider a lens which can accomodate THOSE needs.
Instead, look at what YOUR needs are and decipher whether or not that lens itself can assist you in executing those needs with little trouble

for me, the 24-105 is a versatile unit and does what i want it to with no fuss... thats all that matters to me

As for focus speed, i havent persoanlly had any issues.. maybe its because i keep the 580ex on it and allow it to project the focal point assist LED

Well, I just picked up the lens yesterday (Thanks, Jon!) despite the popular support the 24-70L gets around here. I must say that this lens has really impressed me so far. It's got a solid build (not quite "tank like" like my old 28-80L, but solid nonetheless), focus and zoom ring were nice and tight and very sharp. AF locked on accurately in adequate lighting conditions where this lens will be primarily used anyway. I have confidence that I'm quick enough on the draw to manually override the AF in case it decides it can't lock focus under more challenging conditions. I went for versatility over fastest aperture on the block in this case and so far I'm glad I did. I'll see how she does and report back. Thanks for your opinions everyone.

I've shot the last 4 weddings I've done with the 50mm (1.8), 24-105L and the 70-200L 2.8IS exclusively. I use a lot of flash (generally dialled down) and always have the 580 on the body for focus assist. Never had a real issue. There's been a couple of times when I've fished for slightly faster target aquisition on hte AF side of things, but nothing a helping hand with MF can't fix. I generally zoom with my feet for crazy low light shots and use the 50. Overall, the 24-105 is my default lens of choice, for most types of my shooting, including weddings.

Lord_Malone wrote in post #3850837
Well, I just picked up the lens yesterday (Thanks, Jon!) despite the popular support the 24-70L gets around here. I must say that this lens has really impressed me so far. It's got a solid build (not quite "tank like" like my old 28-80L, but solid nonetheless), focus and zoom ring were nice and tight and very sharp. AF locked on accurately in adequate lighting conditions where this lens will be primarily used anyway. I have confidence that I'm quick enough on the draw to manually override the AF in case it decides it can't lock focus under more challenging conditions. I went for versatility over fastest aperture on the block in this case and so far I'm glad I did. I'll see how she does and report back. Thanks for your opinions everyone.

Congrats, you'll love it. This is the one lens I could not go without

Padreous wrote in post #3850571
to be honest, with the 24.105 set to 70mm at f4, the DoF would be comparable to a 2.8 at full tele...

Huh? You might want to rethink that one ...

LM, I think the 24-105L is about as versatile as they come, but my big problem with it is that the high precision AF sensors dont' activate without f/2.8 and faster lenses. But, if you're using it in pretty good light, then it doesn't much matter.

If I were you, I'd be doing everything with the 24L and 50L (or 35L and 85L for me)

TheGreatDivorce wrote in post #3856043
Huh? You might want to rethink that one ...

LM, I think the 24-105L is about as versatile as they come, but my big problem with it is that the high precision AF sensors dont' activate without f/2.8 and faster lenses. But, if you're using it in pretty good light, then it doesn't much matter.

If I were you, I'd be doing everything with the 24L and 50L (or 35L and 85L for me)

Ah yes... I remember the first time I shot a wedding with all primes (save one 16-35L), and I remember thinking to myself "I need a damn zoom!"

The 24 and 85 will have their place in the grand scheme of things. The 24-105 will go on the 5D, the 85 on the 40D and the 24 on the 20D. I'll reserve the 70-200 for those times I really need the reach and of course will use the 15mm sparingly. That's my plan of attack and I'm sticking to it.

I just bought a 24-105 when I realized that I rarely even shot my 28-70 f2.8 any faster than f4. I figured if I was already shooting it slow, why not get the extra reach on both ends and the IS to boot. So far I'm really impressed with the perfomance of the lens (2 weddings and 3 portrait sessions later).

picturecrazy wrote in post #3833715
that's one thing I noticed between my 24-70 and 24-105... in dark dark situations, the 24-105 has much more difficulty locking focus than the 24-70. As a result, I was missing many moments that the 24-70 could have gotten. Don't get me wrong, the 24-105 can focus in somewhat low light... but there comes a point where the 24-105 focus gets totally lost, while the 24-70 is still working great.

Right. That would make sense because autofocus depends a lot on the light in the lens and I would imagine that the 24-105 on its best day couldn't focus as well as the 24-70 since it cannot go to 2.8.

Would you say the 24-70 on f/4 could autofocus better than the 24-105 at f/4?

canonpink wrote in post #3859903
Right. That would make sense because autofocus depends a lot on the light in the lens and I would imagine that the 24-105 on its best day couldn't focus as well as the 24-70 since it cannot go to 2.8.

Would you say the 24-70 on f/4 could autofocus better than the 24-105 at f/4?

Yes - because a camera always autofocuses using the widest available aperture. It's not until you actually click the shutter that the aperture closes down to the one you have selected.