24-105 on a 7D?

lemme see if I can find some example shots.

I use a 24-105 on a 7D and I have been thrilled with the results. Check out my flickr link below if you want to see examples. Every recent shot with the exception of the safari shots is on a 24-105.

Sportidi wrote in post #10714666
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.

The 24-70 is nothing more than a compromise. Not as good of range as the 24-105. The 24-105 is a better outdoor lens. And a 35L will whip the 24-70 up one side and down the other for low light/indoor. 2.8 is not good enough for low light. I would rather have the 24-105L and 35L by a long shot. I would take the 24-105 or 35L before the 24-70 everytime.

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...

The Tamron 17-50 is a better lens than that 24-70 on your 7d. And the sigma 30 1.4 is WAY better for indoor. You could have both for the cost of the 24-70.

jantzer wrote in post #10714747
The 24-70 is nothing more than a compromise. Not as good of range as the 24-105. The 24-105 is a better outdoor lens. And a 35L will whip the 24-70 up one side and down the other for low light/indoor. 2.8 is not good enough for low light. I would rather have the 24-105L and 35L by a long shot. I would take the 24-105 or 35L before the 24-70 everytime.

My only problem with the 24-70 is that it is very large if you aren't going to use it in a studio. Since I carry my camera and equipment everywhere I go I went F4 on both my lenses and I rent 2.8 or quicker if and when I need them which is rare.

c2thew wrote in post #10714702
The images that the 24-105 felt too snapshotty and didn't create the pop that you achieve when shooting at 2.8.

due to separation, or something else?

thanks?

my issue there is the range. It'd be a great ONE lens solution, no doubt (as wood tamron's 17-50 with or w/o VC for a lot less) but if I'm going to be carrying my 10-22 for wides anyway, the 24-105 (or 70) gives me a lot more reach. 160 effective is nice and long in a smallish package. when you look at the 17-55 as a 23-55 2.8 IS it takes a lot away from it no?

The other option is a tamron 28-75. Tiny, light, inexpensive. But it's the IS and range that have me leaning towards the 24-105. Sealing wouldn't be a bad thing either since I'm around water/snow all the time.

Ben. Our needs were exactly the same. I bought the 24-105L and it was the right choice for hiking on the 7d. Keep a prime for bokeh shots. I kinda think it's too short on my 5dii now and wonder if I could get by with a 17-40 and 70-200 instead. Or sell the 5dii and keep the 24-105. lol

I'm going to do a landscape comparo on 2 seperate tripods hopefully this weekend and will let that determine what I am going to do.

OneFastt996 wrote in post #10714774
My only problem with the 24-70 is that it is very large if you aren't going to use it in a studio. Since I carry my camera and equipment everywhere I go I went F4 on both my lenses and I rent 2.8 or quicker if and when I need them which is rare.

Hi Mike! Wow, your baby is growing!

jantzer wrote in post #10714993
I kinda think it's too short on my 5dii now and wonder if I could get by with a 17-40 and 70-200 instead. Or sell the 5dii and keep the 24-105. lol

17-40 & 70-200 on FF is AWESOME for landscaping. I have a 100-400 now but came from a 70-200 and 300. I need the extra reach for sport shooting and don't want to have both lenses, but otherwise that'd be my ideal FF setup, maybe with a 50 tossed in the middle.

John_T wrote in post #10715208
Hi Mike! Wow, your baby is growing!

Hi John! Indeed he is, and I haven't posted a photo of him in the last few months either so expect him to be huge in the next ones.

i loved using the 24-105 on my 7D. Great walk around lens (used it in DC before I sold the 7D). Very sharp and great colors. I prefer it to the 24-70.

Thats it...I'm buying a 24-105L...............aft​er I get a 24-70L mkII

bokeh to me is very important.

AlanU wrote in post #10715780
Thats it...I'm buying a 24-105L...............aft​er I get a 24-70L mkII

bokeh to me is very important.

When bokeh's important, use your 35L or another prime. When it's not, you can't beat the 24-105L.

jantzer wrote in post #10714768
The Tamron 17-50 is a better lens than that 24-70 on your 7d. And the sigma 30 1.4 is WAY better for indoor. You could have both for the cost of the 24-70.

Thats a big call. Does anyone else agree with this?

Sportidi wrote in post #10718855
Thats a big call. Does anyone else agree with this?

If the value placement is on the focal length, then... maybe. Depending on your personal tastes for focal length, and what other lenses you have available, it could be considered "better". For me, it would be considered better, because that focal length is my cup 'o tea. For others, maybe not.