24-105 on a 7D?

Thanks - glad its helpful.

Just remember, the 10-22 fits just as well as the 8-16 under the 15-85...you'll still have 10-15, just as always, but you'll have another option for a different type of outing with a one lens choice.

That said, you are planning on keeping your FF where my decision is an either or. If I had both, Id consider the 24-105 due to its versatility on both bodies. It is a fine mid-range zoom on crop and even better on FF.

As long as you have options to hit every focal length on at least one of your cameras, you cant go wrong with either choice, really. My opinion is a little biased because I only used the 24-105 on crop and had no other option except to switch to the 10-22.

10-22 on your crop plus 24-105 on your FF at the same time would be a great combo.

the issue with the 8-16mm is filters though. I've done that route with the 12-24mm on FF and it just gets old. Real holders and smaller filters are sooooo nice now.

We'll see.

jacobsen1 wrote in post #10710889
the issue with the 8-16mm is filters though. I've done that route with the 12-24mm on FF and it just gets old. Real holders and smaller filters are sooooo nice now.

We'll see.

Yah, I understand - I was actually advocating for you to keep your 10-22 in the last post if it didnt come across that way.

I have the same thoughts back and forth about the 8-16. However, Im only concerned with a CPL - I prefer to blend exposures in post over using GND's. I have an idea in my mind about that GND look with dark mountain peaks that I cant get over, even though its probably an easier PP fix than blending exposures...

The 24-105 f/4L is my only lens.I used to think I'll use the IS kit lens when I need wide-angle, but it ended up sat in the bag the whole time (I seldom need wide angle although sometimes it's nice to have one). It's easy to separate the subject with the background when you have a large aperture lens. But the 24-105 does not have the best bokeh compared to others nor a big aperture, so shooting closer and use a longer focal length did the job for me for the most part. It's 3-stop IS is quite effective. At the end, it's a great lens taking everyday stuff or you just don't feel like to bring multiple lenses with you on a given day.

MNUplander wrote in post #10710924
Yah, I understand - I was actually advocating for you to keep your 10-22 in the last post if it didnt come across that way.

gotcha

how often do you shoot mountains or trees in your scenes though? IMHO, TRY GNDs once. But one cheap P GND and hand hold it. For me it's night and day and soft edged filters hide well enough it's a non issue. Yes exposure blending also works, but it's a lot of PP time for a similar result. Some scenes NEED that, some work very well with the filters. I use filters whenever possibly, when they don't work, then I bracket and deal with it at home...

jacobsen1 wrote in post #10711214
gotcha

how often do you shoot mountains or trees in your scenes though? IMHO, TRY GNDs once. But one cheap P GND and hand hold it. For me it's night and day and soft edged filters hide well enough it's a non issue. Yes exposure blending also works, but it's a lot of PP time for a similar result. Some scenes NEED that, some work very well with the filters. I use filters whenever possibly, when they don't work, then I bracket and deal with it at home...

I've noticed you shoot a lot of sunrise (or sunset?) photos Ben. Do you use reverse GND's at all? If so, what strength?

I use normal GNDs, I don't have a reverse yet but I'd like one. I have 2 and 3 stops in both soft and hard grads now, but I just got them ~2 weeks ago. Before that I had 1 2 and 3 stops, all soft. I'm using hitechs now but just switched from cokin.

and they're sunrises, the wife doesn't mind me disappearing for a few hours in the AM before she and our son get up.

I'm sorry to say this but theres enough evidence to show the 24-70 is a superior lens to the 24-105...

Sportidi wrote in post #10713058
I'm sorry to say this but theres enough evidence to show the 24-70 is a superior lens to the 24-105...

I love it when people say stuff like this. Let's just all get over the whole 24-70 vs 24-105 debate and admit that both lenses have their own use and are very capable lenses.

Sportidi, maybe yours is so superior because you seem to be the only one in this world with a 24-70 IS.

Rsyx wrote in post #10713153
I love it when people say stuff like this. Let's just all get over the whole 24-70 vs 24-105 debate and admit that both lenses have their own use and are very capable lenses.

Sportidi, maybe yours is so superior because you seem to be the only one in this world with a 24-70 IS.

I thought that would get a bite.....I agree with you they are both good lenses...but the 24-70 is still better...

Great shot!!!!

With the ample lighting and high shutter speed many lenses could achieve similar results. Even though I own a 24-70L I still would like the 24-105L for the additional focal length.

The 24-70L is still the bokeh King compared to the slightly nervous bokeh of the 24-105L.

I've walked around for 8hrs+ using a 1dmkIII, 24-70L, 580exii combo with my Spider Holster and I never complain about weight. Weight is not a factor if your happy with the results you get. f/2.8 isn't the biggest appeal for me when it comes to the "brick". I like the "brick" due to the creamy bokeh. Yes f/2.8 isn't that much faster in comparison to a f/4 lens but on a full frame its much more noticeable in subject/background separation.

In a crunch the 24-70 will have less barrel distortion compared to a 24-105L.

ShotByTom wrote in post #10710023
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'

Sportidi wrote in post #10713058
I'm sorry to say this but theres enough evidence to show the 24-70 is a superior lens to the 24-105...

Rsyx wrote in post #10713153
I love it when people say stuff like this. Let's just all get over the whole 24-70 vs 24-105 debate and admit that both lenses have their own use and are very capable lenses.

Sportidi wrote in post #10713244
I agree with you they are both good lenses...but the 24-70 is still better...

better at what though? And bear in mind I've owned both. When I had the 24-105 I wanted a 24-70. When I had a 24-70 I didn't use it much because it was a PITA to carry (hiking) and I wished it had IS... Both are great lenses, and I could see myself owning both if I had the money, but if I have to pick, I think for me the 24-105 is a better choice for a few reasons (weight, IS, cost, range).

Besides, if the 24-70 was so much better, why'd they make the coffee cup the 24-105?

jacobsen1 wrote in post #10713847
better at what though? And bear in mind I've owned both. When I had the 24-105 I wanted a 24-70. When I had a 24-70 I didn't use it much because it was a PITA to carry (hiking) and I wished it had IS... Both are great lenses, and I could see myself owning both if I had the money, but if I have to pick, I think for me the 24-105 is a better choice for a few reasons (weight, IS, cost, range).

Besides, if the 24-70 was so much better, why'd they make the coffee cup the 24-105?

The defining point for me is 2.8...you can't beat it under low light/indoor conditions.

I can't answer the question re; the coffee cup...that would have to be answered by Canon.

Sportidi wrote in post #10714666
The defining point for me is 2.8...you can't beat it under low light/indoor conditions.

right, but in those situations I'm using primes. 2.8 is not fast enough for me anyway for low light, so why carry the weight, lose IS and pay more for it when used outside?

the only reason is separation, but I'm wondering how big a different it really is.

I've tried the 24-105 and currently own the 24-70. The images that the 24-105 felt too snapshotty and didn't create the pop that you achieve when shooting at 2.8. IS was a nice factor for the lens and the flexibility was awesome. But for my needs the 24-105 was just ok.

I've seen your work Ben and it's definitely very unique. If you need a casual lens for times when you aren't going for uber creative landscape shots, then pull the trigger on the 24-105.

but since you are on the 7d, don't rule out the 17-55. It may not be an L, but the image quality looks pretty darn remarkable.

the 15-85 suffers from CA which you will find when pixel peeping.