After a month with my 24-105 f/4L

muusers wrote in post #10398987
You've got a beautfull 50mm... That should be pretty good in seperating your subject from the background.

Maybe add a tele(zoom) if reach is the problem?

I think I may just be asking too much from my walk-around lens? But then again, what is the point of having a walk-around lens, if I can't seclude a person on the street from everybody else? I may be overanalyzing this DOF though I'll go shoot it some more.

I would love to add a 135L to my arsenal though


Here's a shot from where the 24-105 worked well at f/4:

Short of going FF and thus cutting the DoF (check this DoF simulator http://www.liquidsculp​ture.com/dof.htm), or swapping for a faster zoom, there is only much you can do short of zooming out (and adding more distortion, especially on the 24-105) and getting closer (cutting DoF) or sticking with a fast prime(s).

On the latter point try and get an idea at roughly what FL you normally shoot at (we all tend to gravitate to a FL range we find 'natural' or prefer for a certain type of shot, especially with people and animals) and use a prime in that range. Most zooms rarely get used across their whole FL range.

if you want to isolate people you can get close so that the DoF gets smaller. The widest aperture you will get on a zoom is 2.8 which is only one stop. It will make a differernce but not the sort a difference a fast prime can make.

I have 4 lenses and it covers what i want. I can use the 50 1.8 for isolation if im close. At a bit more of a distance i find the 70-200 f4 wide open at 200 does a nice job as well as long as your not to far away. For distant subjects your going to need that 2.8 lens or a faster prime and prices start soaring. Then i use the sigma 10-20 for landscapes and everything in focus. I dont really use the kit lens much as i tend to not use its range much.

basically i would just advise you to shoot a bit closer to your subjects and have people in the background further away to help isolate them. Failing that use your 50mm prime or you will find your self broke rather fast

When I had the 7D, the 24-105 lived on the camera. I thought it was a great combo. It was wide enough for most of my needed.

I also wish Canon would replace it with a 2.8 version.

Mark-B wrote in post #10397161
If that lens came in an f/2.8 version, it might be the best selling lens Canon ever made.

-1
100% speculation here, but I'm pretty certain if a 24-105 2.8 IS AND a 24-70 2.8 IS were to coexist on the market at the same time; the 24-70 2.8 IS would outsell the 24-105 2.8 IS.

My justification is: @ the price it would sell for, people buying it would probably consider the fact that the larger the zoom range, more distorion ensues.

I wouldn't want a 24-105 f/2.8 IS. It's hard to engineer a well-performing f/2.8 zoom with a 4.3x zoom factor. Moreover, we all know how heavy the brick is at the moment - imagine how heavy a 24-105 f/2.8L would be.

More realistically, I'd be incredibly happy with just a 24-70 f/2.8L IS. In fact, if Canon just released a 24-70L Mark II which performs solidly throughout its range - in particular, at 70mm f/2.8 - and made it a bit lighter, I'd be pretty happy. But that's just me..

Collin85 wrote in post #10399673
I wouldn't want a 24-105 f/2.8 IS. It's hard to engineer a well-performing f/2.8 zoom with a 4.3x zoom factor. Moreover, we all know how heavy the brick is at the moment - imagine how heavy a 24-105 f/2.8L would be.

More realistically, I'd be incredibly happy with just a 24-70 f/2.8L IS. In fact, if Canon just released a 24-70L Mark II which performs solidly throughout its range - in particular, at 70mm f/2.8 - and made it a bit lighter, I'd be pretty happy. But that's just me..

I think you'll get what you want later in the year....when 1DSMK4 comes out.....I too will be keen on a MK2 of that lens......until then I'll use my 24-105 as an everyday lens.....it's great lens and I love the quality I get from it...but for me that extra stop is worth it so I don't need to hike up ISO quite as much.

daft_togger wrote in post #10399694
I think you'll get what you want later in the year....when 1DSMK4 comes out.....I too will be keen on a MK2 of that lens......until then I'll use my 24-105 as an everyday lens.....it's great lens and I love the quality I get from it...but for me that extra stop is worth it so I don't need to hike up ISO quite as much.

I hope so.. but we all know the 24-70 IS rumours have been going on for years.

In the meantime, the 24-70/24-105L package has been very profitable for Canon, and no one is gonna switch to Nikon because they don't have a stabilised 24-70 either. Specifically, I can't see Canon releasing a 24-70L IS unless they really start to lose market share (for some reason), or concrete news comes out that Nikon's planning to release a 24-70 VR. For the past few years, Canon's enthusiast/pro market share slippage due to Nikon's strong successes (seamless switch to CMOS, D3, D700 etc.) and its own mishaps (Mark III AF etc.) actually made a 24-70L IS release somewhat likely. But with release of the robust 7D and 1D IV within the past year or so, I'm not so sure Canon still needs a 24-70L IS out.

Would be awesome if it was announced with the 5D III.

Staszek wrote in post #10399006
I think I may just be asking too much from my walk-around lens?

Yes.

Or fit the entire empire statebuilding in one frame, or zoom in to the flag planted on the moon...

We all want a 10-1200mm f1.2L IS USM II under $1k and less heavy than a feather. But that isnt going to happen.

Good thing about your dSLR though, you can change lenses! . Every lens has it's purpose.

If it's really about good isolation of your subjects, i would recomend a fast prime >85mm. Not to replace, but to complement your 24-105.

A few months after getting my 24-105 I started having second thoughts about it as well. My issue was a little different, instead of DOF I was more concerned with f/4 not being fast enough indoors. I considered getting a 24-70 but decided against it for several reasons: much more expensive, losing 35mm on the long end, gaining nothing on the short end, only one stop better, no IS, and my 24-105 is very sharp. I decided adding primes was a better alternative for me. The 24-70 is only going to give you a one stop difference, which WILL do better on the separation but not nearly as much as a fast prime. Maybe you could try renting a 24-70 to see if it gives you what you are looking for. An f/2 zoom sure would be nice but the price would be even nicer!

Heavy Smiles wrote in post #10397193
That's true, I just wonder how fat it would be, considering the 24-70L already being a "brick"

I get the impression that every Canon shooter who's used/owned the 24-70 must either be a small teenage girl or just seriously needs to get their ass into a gym once in a while.

wcgryphon wrote in post #10399866
I get the impression that every Canon shooter who's used/owned the 24-70 must either be a small teenage girl or just seriously needs to get their ass into a gym once in a while.

Put me in the latter category

yourdoinitwrong wrote in post #10399841
A few months after getting my 24-105 I started having second thoughts about it as well. My issue was a little different, instead of DOF I was more concerned with f/4 not being fast enough indoors. I considered getting a 24-70 but decided against it for several reasons: much more expensive, losing 35mm on the long end, gaining nothing on the short end, only one stop better, no IS, and my 24-105 is very sharp. I decided adding primes was a better alternative for me. The 24-70 is only going to give you a one stop difference, which WILL do better on the separation but not nearly as much as a fast prime. Maybe you could try renting a 24-70 to see if it gives you what you are looking for. An f/2 zoom sure would be nice but the price would be even nicer!

I haven't tried either the 24-105 or the 24-70 but I have found with my own lenses that the 2.8 isn't always great indoors either. I just got a Sig 30 1.4 which is stellar in low light. My 2.8 lenses (Tamron 28-75, Canon 100 Macro and 70-200, both non-IS) do okay indoors as long as there is decent light. I would like to get a better walk around lens, maybe get rid of my 17-40 and 28-75 and get a 24-105.

ofafeather wrote in post #10400064
I haven't tried either the 24-105 or the 24-70 but I have found with my own lenses that the 2.8 isn't always great indoors either. I just got a Sig 30 1.4 which is stellar in low light. My 2.8 lenses (Tamron 28-75, Canon 100 Macro and 70-200, both non-IS) do okay indoors as long as there is decent light. I would like to get a better walk around lens, maybe get rid of my 17-40 and 28-75 and get a 24-105.

I want to get that Sig 30mm as well. Considering you have that one the 24-105 might be a good walkaround for you. A lot of people say it's too long on a crop sensor but since that's all I have had I have gotten used to it and it's all I know so it's not a big deal to me. You would lose some on the short end by getting rid of the 17-40 but since it's an f/4 it's not really a great indoor lens either. I'm getting around the indoor issue by using my 430EX II to get faster SS than I would get with an f/2.8 and no flash. The adults aren't really a problem, they don't move near as fast as the 5 year olds!

yourdoinitwrong wrote in post #10400200
I want to get that Sig 30mm as well. Considering you have that one the 24-105 might be a good walkaround for you. A lot of people say it's too long on a crop sensor but since that's all I have had I have gotten used to it and it's all I know so it's not a big deal to me. You would lose some on the short end by getting rid of the 17-40 but since it's an f/4 it's not really a great indoor lens either. I'm getting around the indoor issue by using my 430EX II to get faster SS than I would get with an f/2.8 and no flash. The adults aren't really a problem, they don't move near as fast as the 5 year olds!

Personally I don't think it's too long. When I was deciding between the 28-75 and the 17-50, 50 always felt so limiting. I love my 100, too, if I need a little more DOF. I'll have the sig 10-20 for more on the wide side, too. Hmmm. I need to think on it!