canon 24-105mm HOW GOOD

Ralphmyster

Ralphmyster

Messages
415
Name
Graham
Edit My Images
No
Hi si the price tag of 600 upwards really worth this lens .Coz i been told to buy one any help thanks
 
A gorgeous piece of kit and a good all rounder ideal as a one lens option for weddings etc on a 5d or arguably even a smaller sensor camera. Not as sharp as you mighrt expect. The f4 max aperture is a little small for defocussing fussy backgrounds in natural portraiture where 85 1.8 is far superior.
 
Ralphmyster said:
Coz i been told to buy one any help thanks
Click to expand...

Has whoever told you to buy one actually used one or owned one? Its a decent lens but as pointed out it depends what you want to use it for.
 
You can read many reveiws but it real people who use them i would rather listen too thanks well i got to take some portrait pic's at my gal's karate club did some test shots today with my 60mm canon. sharp but seemed like i had to get in close
 
as said deepends what its for. I had one and loved it, but had to decide between keeping that or my 28-70 so kept the latter as it was better for what I needed. may get another when the time is right though
 
For me, it's the best lens I have ever owned.
Ok the F4 could potentially be a bit limiting, but otherwise my copy is incredibly sharp, even at F4.
It's so versatile, and built like a tank!

Has IS and USM, and excellent range. Is compatible on full frame......
The good points go on..........

The best 600 odd quid I have ever spent (Thanks to Euan!)
 
I've had mine for almost two years. It's very good at virtually everything - but doesn't absolutely excel at anything (but then, no lens does). It's beaten by the 24-70 L for sharpness and the extra stop of light; my Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 was also sharper when stopped down. However, as an outdoor walkaround, it's not really been off my 5D since I've owned it. For a full-frame camera, it's probably the best general-purpose lens around, with the extra reach and the IS. There are folks here who use them in studios for portraits too. Feel free to check my Flickr profile if you want some example shots :)
 
canon 24-105mm HOW GOOD = VERY!
 
phototuition said:
Good point Euan. I've used one for three years. John
Click to expand...

Was it your advice the OP is referring to?

One thing is for sure, it will be a huge step in image quality over your 18-55 from the 400d kit.
 
I recently bought one as a walk around when the 24-70 didn't give quite enough, and for daylight, didn't need the F2.8. The IS is great, and haven't had a lens with it since the 18-200 OS sigma, and forgot the difference it can make. The F4 can be a little slow, but you know that when you buy it, does the job it's meant for, if I want faster the that, i use a different lens. It's a good all rounder from my point of view, and have never found an issue with the sharpness, but thats just my opinion, as soon as you start comparing it to primes, you run into problems
 
Okay, I'm going against the tide here, and going to say in my honest view, I was not at all impressed, nor would I ever buy one, even if it had a bargain price tag.
I hired one for the day to use at my last wedding a few weeks ago, as the 24-70mm 2.8 was completely out of stock for hiring everywhere, so I settled for this one. And before at weddings I had just used my 35mm f/1.4L and 70-200mm f/2.8L, so wanted just one more to fill the gap. Anyway, it produced sharp images, sure, as to be expected from L-glass, was fast and quiet, however the fact it's f4 is just a killer for me. I shoot mainly people, and a bit of product work, but that's it, no landscapes or anything. Its bad for shooting indoors, at night, and no nice bokeh results.
The range is nice, however I would recommend the 24-70mm f/2.8 over it any day, without even thinking about it.
....For me, it was kind of like having a plate of bland vegetables (okay bad analogy!), nothing wrong with it, in fact good, just would never choose it over the other options!
 
yes, I was underwhelmed by the 24-105 too.

I bought one to go on a 1Dmk2, then sold it for a tamron 2.8 which was much sharper. When I changed to a 5D I went back to a 24-105 to get a bit wider, hoping that i'd just had a dodgy copy of the 24-105 but this one was very similar, so I sold it for a 24-70.

the 24-105 is good, but the 24-70 is amazing.
 
My copy was very good pin sharp fast IS f4.0 L quality, it really dont get much better with a zoom, I have the 24-70 now and it is a step up from the 24-105 but not such a HUGE deal in IQ IMO

Grab one you will love it
 
I have to say as a walk about lens the 24-105 is a fantastic lens, had one sold it to buy the 24-70 f2.8 which is a step up but lacks 35mm off the long end, decided the £200 price difference on a used lens was better spent on a macro so now have a 24-105 again and love it to bits.
Sigma 24-70 f2.8 HSM is a good lens but at £750 i would not even consider it, 24-70 f2.8 macro @ £325 is a good standard lens but cant compare to L glass.
 
Another "underwhelmed" here...it vies with the 28-135 for the dubious prize of having the worst IQ of any lens I own....pity because the FL range is very useful.

Bob
 
^^^ agree with above, as I too own the 28-135mm, and only step up is the L-glass sharpness.
 
Count me in on this one, I agree with the obove. its ok as a light travel lens but thats about it.
 
Ralphmyster said:
You can read many reveiws but it real people who use them i would rather listen too thanks well i got to take some portrait pic's at my gal's karate club did some test shots today with my 60mm canon. sharp but seemed like i had to get in close
Click to expand...

Is the light good enough for F4 in the karate club? If you need 2.8 or faster (especially as I assume they will be moving) or to isolate if busy backgrounds then this could all be moot.

I guess you could up the ISO as well if faster shutter speed required but if you need 2.8 it's all over as such...
 
I used this lens recently alongside my 17-55 and grew to love it that when I had to return the 24-105 I decided to sell the 17-55 and buy the 24-105 to replace it. I think the colour is fantastic, and sharpness is pretty good too. I used to have a 24-70 and wasn't very impressed with it. The 24-105 is a great every day lens and the IS works a treat for low shutter landscape shots
 
jerry12953 said:
Apart from the barrel distortion, which is quite bad in the 24 -35mm area, I find it a good lens. I use it a lot.

The barrel distortion is particularly noticeable if the horizon appears in any of your shots - eg seascapes - but it can be removed in software.
Click to expand...


Really? I've just shot lots of landscape shots last weekend using this lens and my 10-22. You get distortion with the 10-22 and the 10-16 end, but I've not seen any with the 24-105 at the 24 end. I've just gone through all my shots to check.

I use this lens extensively and is mostly the one I use for product shoots in the studio for it's versatility. We do have large products though, not intricate small parts.

As always - it depends on what you are going to use this lens for and with what camera. On my 50D it's my general walkabout lens and is on the camera most of the time. It's not wide enough sometimes, but then I do have the 10-22 as well to cover that. The IS works great, I've had great hand-held shots at 1/15th at night.
 
Like most things with photography the perfect solution is either out our price range or just does not exist.

With lenses we would simply all walk round with a 20mm to 400mm super dooper zoom with USM IS etc etc... but the truth of the matter is that zooms in any way involve an optical comprimise... some very slight now I admit but they do... Also the wider that range is the more design etc has to go in and the more optically challenging it will be for the design boffins.

In its zoom range... if thats the range you need... which for a lot of canon users is the range we need...me included... then its the best in the class as you only have the 28-135mm as an alternative... otherwise you step up to the 24-70mm which is optically better... but comes with the problem of a more limited focal range... a big problem for me as means carrying about another lens and when I travel i like and need to do it as light as possible!

Its the best comprimise lens there is!
 
Looking at Marks post above he seems to have hit the nail on the head with regards to the 24-105. I'm trying to plan my next lens upgrade and the one after that and feel a little bit in a quandry about what to get regarding a walkabout type lens. I currently use a 28-135 as my main lens and cant help but feel the 24-70 just too restrictive, but knowing it seems to sit head and shoulders above the 24-105 regarding quality and low light performance, I just dont know what to do myself.

:bang:

If I can accept the F4 of the 24-105 over the F2.8 of the 24-70, surely the quality of the 24-105 isnt that bad? :shrug:
 
It's a great lens mines tack sharp when stopped down to f4.5 onwards, distortion can be a bit of a pain at 24mm but otherwise a great general use lens.
 
Clearly a "love it or loathe it" lens from the responses here.

Hongsta299 said:
It's a great lens mines tack sharp when stopped down to f4.5 onwards......
Click to expand...

Using an analogy like "tack sharp" implies that it's at the top of the tree. The reader would presume that you're of the opinion that it equals or surpasses your 100/2.8 macro in its abilty to resolve fine detail...unless you have an analogy higher than a "tack" to use on your sharpness scale.

Bob
 
This is the thing about the lens, its either so soft that people detest it, or considered so sharp that people wouldnt go anywhere else. I know to a certain extent its all subjective, but the comments seem quite extreme!
 
I have the 24-105L and find it a very good all round lens. I must say I haven't tried the 24-70 as I prefer the extra reach.

I tend to use the lens at around f7 to f10 and don't have any sharpness concerns. Not compared it with my 100mm Macro but must try it sometime!

If in doubt hire one, and compare. OK you've got the hire cost, but that's a lot cheaper than the depreciation of having to trade in a bad choice

You might want to read the following side by side review of the 24-70 and the 24-105

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/28-105.shtml
 
Marcus Geezer said:
I currently use a 28-135 as my main lens and cant help but feel the 24-70 just too restrictive, but knowing it seems to sit head and shoulders above the 24-105 regarding quality and low light performance, I just dont know what to do myself.
Click to expand...

Well, I love my 24-105 as my main walkabout.

On my 40D it produced this, handheld at 1/15s f/5.6 at 32.0mm iso3200
92257485.jpg


or this
1/13s f/9.0 at 32.0mm iso800 - (no idea why at f9?)
92257494.jpg
 
Actually, and remembering my decisions, one of my major decisions on the 24-105 rather than the 24-70 was the weight of the 24-70. At the time I couldn't see myself walking about all the time with nearly a 1kg lens on the end
 
Great lens - very flexible and the IS really helps. I dont use mine as much as I could - working at full frame it doesnt go as long as i'd like and I tend to favor the 70-200. My wife however uses this lens almost exclusively with her 30D and loves it.
 
It has its limitations ('only' f4 & the bokeh isn't as good as primes and f2.8 zooms) and I'm sure pixel peeping will reveal higher quality on primes. It's not the lens I jump to when trying to do more 'artsy' shots due to the smaller maximum aperture relative to my primes and the 16-35.

Having said that I don't hesitate to use it wide open and could certainly print @ 20"x16" wide open without hesitation. The last time I used it for a large number of shots was a wedding - the shots were lovely and clear - the couple were very pleased with the results. I guess I'm saying in real world use I'm delighted with it.

Phil
 
There is no such thing as the perfect lens......manufacturers would do themselves instantly out of a job if they produced one that pleases all!!


It really does depend on what this lens for . As daylight-use, walkabout lens, it's great, but the 24-70 f2.8 is definitely sharper, IMHO and overall better.........apart from the lack of reach!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top