24-105 on a 7D?

how bad of an idea is this? I'm looking for a mid range to go with my 10-22 and 100-400. I shoot a bit of everything, but my main focus with a mid range zoom is action shots (surfing, skiing, sailing), auto racing, landscaping and product shots. A LOT of that is stopped down (75%) but the rest is wide open where I'd like SOME separation... How bad does f/4 kill the ability to get some separation on a cropper?

Here's my thinking:
24-105 is sealed and has an amazing range on a cropper when paired with a 10-22 (16-160 covered with great IQ effectively). But it's "only" f/4. It's also in my price range IS is great on boats or for panning action (2 things I do a lot of).
24-70, give me the 2.8 I'd prefer, but it's bigger and heavier (better hood design though). It's more expensive though, and it's range is less (but still 112 effective). I also lose the IS.
17-55, IS and 2.8, but limited range and not sealed?
15-85, IS, not fast, least expensive, not sealed, less range than the 24-105 and the 15-23mm isn't helping in my situation, this would be a better ONE LENS option though, but I'm fine with 2.

I also feel the 24-70 might get refreshed soon. This might mean a lot of things, but a 2.8 version with IS is only going to be more expensive and bigger/heavier, so it'd be out for me, but it COULD mean cheaper used versions of the old one. But I think I'm really sold on the 24-105 on crop for the wicked FL with IS and being sealing (for skiing/sailing).

Thoughts?

I'd LOVE to see some examples of the 24-105 on crop that specifically show some background separation as well as the IS being put to good use (panning shots).

edit: oh, and for low light I don't consider 2.8 all that fast anyway. I use primes for low light work because another 1.5~2 stops faster than 2.8 anyway, so ignore that in your reasoning in this case please.

The 24-105 is a great lens. The drawback for most people using them on a crop is they dont go wide, but you have that covered with the 10-22. I dont see a downside. Its lighter and cheaper than the 24-70 and it has IS.

Ill let you know when i get mine (T1i) and will post some pics.

The 24-105 is great on crop or FF. It was the 1st lens I bought when I got my 40D. I use in both 7D and 5DII.

from my experience 24-105 is good for static shots
but i find its focusing not fast enough (at least on the 2 copies i tried) for action shots (soccer)
its not because of f4 (I have used 70200 f4 is for action shots without any issues)
i had 17-55 before, again had trouble with focusing speed
i would go with the standard 24-70 lense, make sure you get a sharp copy

I liked the 24-105 on my 40D. The 24-70 gives you an extra stop of light and a more shallow DOF at the cost of IS, range and weight, but might be a good alternative. I would personally let it come down to one of those two.

It's a fantastic lens for any purpose. All of THESE Nascar practice shots were taken with a 40D and 24-105. It's a GREAT lens and you won't regret it!

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html'

I find the 24-105 on the 7D easy and reliable in use, the IS is excellent, high keeper rate (almost too high making it difficult to decide which to choose), great color, contrast and sharpness. I like the extra crop reach on the long end, use the wide end as I would a 35 and reach for the 16-35 if I want wider.

Of course your DOF will be a bit deeper, but I find the separation quite good and the bokeh more than acceptable. Originally the 24-105 was kind of dismissed as a kit lens, but lately it seems to be growing in popularity in professional use. It's a pleasant, not too demanding lens to use, especially as a walkabout, maybe even more so on the 7D than the 5D2. Unless you have some very specific objectives, I think it will round out your kit very nicely. Not sure an image is going to prove or decide anything, better you borrow or rent one and give it your own whirl.

jacobsen1 wrote in post #10709770
how bad of an idea is this? I'm looking for a mid range to go with my 10-22 and 100-400. I shoot a bit of everything, but my main focus with a mid range zoom is action shots (surfing, skiing, sailing), auto racing, landscaping and product shots. A LOT of that is stopped down (75%) but the rest is wide open where I'd like SOME separation... How bad does f/4 kill the ability to get some separation on a cropper?

Here's my thinking:
24-105 is sealed and has an amazing range on a cropper when paired with a 10-22 (16-160 covered with great IQ effectively). But it's "only" f/4. It's also in my price range IS is great on boats or for panning action (2 things I do a lot of).
24-70, give me the 2.8 I'd prefer, but it's bigger and heavier (better hood design though). It's more expensive though, and it's range is less (but still 112 effective). I also lose the IS.
17-55, IS and 2.8, but limited range and not sealed?
15-85, IS, not fast, least expensive, not sealed, less range than the 24-105 and the 15-23mm isn't helping in my situation, this would be a better ONE LENS option though, but I'm fine with 2.

I also feel the 24-70 might get refreshed soon. This might mean a lot of things, but a 2.8 version with IS is only going to be more expensive and bigger/heavier, so it'd be out for me, but it COULD mean cheaper used versions of the old one. But I think I'm really sold on the 24-105 on crop for the wicked FL with IS and being sealing (for skiing/sailing).

Thoughts?

I'd LOVE to see some examples of the 24-105 on crop that specifically show some background separation as well as the IS being put to good use (panning shots).

edit: oh, and for low light I don't consider 2.8 all that fast anyway. I use primes for low light work because another 1.5~2 stops faster than 2.8 anyway, so ignore that in your reasoning in this case please.

I'm going against the crowd here and voting for the 15-85. I think the 15-85 (5.6x) has more range that the 24-105 (4.375x). I use the wider end more so I like not having to switch lenses at the wide end. Plus it has the newer (newest?) 4-stop IS.

I did try the 24-105 and wanted to justify keeping it so I could use it on my 5D too. But I just enjoy the 15-85 so much more.

I took the price difference and picked up a 24-60 to go on the 5D and for low light.

Im with Dan. I hated the 10-22/24-105 combo on my 40D. Ive never changed lenses so frequently in all of my life. Just thinking of owning that combo again makes me cringe at the amount of crap that probably floated into my camera body all those times and how frustrating it was to always always always have to carry two lenses. Sometimes I do really just want one, like when hiking.

The 15-85 is a great lens. I would say it rivals the 24-105 in sharpness, contrast, and color, has a better range, and better IS. Ill miss it if I ever go FF. Its not fast, but I know you are a landscape shooter like I am so you're usually at f8-f11 anyway.

I have a 5D I just bought from a POTN member to try before I jump into FF all the way. The 15-85 is a very compelling reason to stay on a crop body. An 8-16 would fit in perfectly on the bottom end and is what Ill be ordering if I decide not to go with the FF, just need to do some tests first - based on your 5DII vs 7D tests, its not looking good for the 5Dc.

From the 15-85:

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

+1 for 24-105. Excellent lens that is well worth every dollar. Mine is super-sharp, and is a killer of a combo on 7D. Now, I carried it over to the 5D2, which made it even better.

It's my most used lens on my 7d and was my most used lens on my 40d. It's a great focal range for me and the image quality leaves me nothing to complain about. I've got a 50/1.4 when a want a shallow dof.

24-105mm. Much better range than the 24-70, lighter, cheaper.

I loved it on the 7d because I also had the ultra-wide option. I took it to hawaii and used it the majority of the time. I have a 5dii now and I like it alot better on the 7d because it's longer, but wide enough to get group shots. That way I don't have to change to my 100-400L often, which is a specialized lens on the 7d.

The problem I have is it feels too short on the 5dii, which is the aspect I really liked about it on the 7d. But on the other hand, the 100-400L is more useable for everyday type stuff (not just wildlife and sports). So I think after only 2 months, I'm going to sell my 24-105 and get a 35L to go along with my 17-40L, 85 1.8, and 100-400L. If you're interested let me know.

Dan C wrote in post #10710116
I'm going against the crowd here and voting for the 15-85. I think the 15-85 (5.6x) has more range that the 24-105 (4.375x). I use the wider end more so I like not having to switch lenses at the wide end. Plus it has the newer (newest?) 4-stop IS.

yeah, the 15-85 is certainly a great ONE lens option, but for landscaping I "need" wider than 15mm. But for when I might want JUST ONE lens it would be a much better solution. It's also cheaper, smaller, but at the loss of IS (I'll call the speed even since it's close enough).

I've heard nothing but good things about that lens and it's range is far more appealing to me than the 17-55...

MNUplander wrote in post #10710151
Im with Dan. I hated the 10-22/24-105 combo on my 40D. Ive never changed lenses so frequently in all of my life.

The 15-85 is a great lens. I would say it rivals the 24-105 in sharpness, contrast, and color, has a better range, and better IS. Ill miss it if I ever go FF. Its not fast, but I know you are a landscape shooter like I am so you're usually at f8-f11 anyway.

I have a 5D I just bought from a POTN member to try before I jump into FF all the way. The 15-85 is a very compelling reason to stay on a crop body. An 8-16 would fit in perfectly on the bottom end and is what Ill be ordering if I decide not to go with the FF, just need to do some tests first - based on your 5DII vs 7D tests, its not looking good for the 5Dc.

great shot, and great perspective since you know where I'm coming from. Thanks. You guys aren't making this any easier... The 24-105 has that whole FF compatibility going for it too. I haven't decided if I want to keep the 5Dii (or switch to a 5Dc) yet, but if I do that will put the 24-105 in the lead I'm thinking.

I agree on the lens swaps, it will happen more, but for the way I shoot I "need" that 10~14 range anyway and I don't want to deal with the filter issues of the 8-16 again really (at least not as my ONLY landscaping wide).

The 15-85 sounds like an amazing one lens solution if I stick with just crop. The 24-105 sounds like the answer if I keep a FF body as well. So I think I'll have to decide on the bodies in the bag at the same time.

Thanks guys, especially uplander, since you have experience with the exact lenses I'm considering and are also on the crop/FF fence....