24-105mm f4 L IS on a crop

dangermoose

dangermoose

Messages
164
Name
David
Edit My Images
No
Hi all,

I debating a lens addition in the coming weeks and have read great things about the Canon 24-105 f4 L.

My question is that the overlap with my 70-200 F4 L might make the latter almost redundant. As I understand it, on a crop body such as mine (30D) the 24-105 would equate to something more like 38-160ish.

Does anyone have any experience of these lens' and what is the general consensus. I'd consider selling the 70-200 if the 24-105 could give me some of the reach, I don't necessarily need the entire range although the picture quality I get from the 70-200 always impresses me.

Any thoughts?

Edit: my day to day lens is the Tamron 17-50 2.8
 
Its a good lens but like you said, it can sometimes be a bit too long...

My current walkabout is a 17-55 and its a cracking lens, saying that im buying a 24-105 when I get home from my holidays which will probably replace it. Add a 10-22 to it and you've got a nice range covered.
 
It depends what you want from the lens. You lose its wide angle capability, but not bad as a general walkaround lens, but for me personally, wasted on a cropped sensor. For me the 17-55mm f2.8 would be my choice, gives you abit more flexibility (or Tamron 17-50mm f2.8), the 70-200mm f4 just a great little lens, still use mine, even though I've also got his bigger brother (f2.8).

Not a great fan of the Ultrawide lenses (very limited use), I have the 10-22mm and it gets very little use (and it ain't cheap), although I've heard good things about the 11-16mm Tamron, which is suppose to be superior....

I also have the 24-105mm, but that resides with my 1D and works well as a walkaround lens, only a 1.3x crop, rather than 1.6x crop of the XXD range.
 
It depends what you want from a lens. To some people, 24mm on the wide end is more than enough. Once upon a time a focal length of 50mm was very popular...
 
70-200 is a 112 - 320mm equivalent so I'd not consider selling that! The 24-105 and 70-200 are my two most used lenses.
 
trencheel303 said:
It depends what you want from a lens. To some people, 24mm on the wide end is more than enough. Once upon a time a focal length of 50mm was very popular...
Click to expand...

Interesting, having been through my recent shots on the tamron most are taken at 50mm, I've been thinking about getting a nifty fifty and selling the tamron but not so sure, the Tamron is a decent lens for the money and if I replace it, it needs to be with something worthwhile.

EOS_JD said:
70-200 is a 98 - 320mm equivalent so I'd not consider selling that! The 24-105 and 70-200 are my two most used lenses.
Click to expand...

Good point! The 70-200 is great although if I'm honest as a newbie I do sometimes feel a little self conscious walking around with it!
 
the f4L is only a small lens.... Try walking around all day with the 70-200 f2.8L IS or 100-400 or something like a 600 f4L IS - A friend bought one of them and that is BIG!

Don't worry about others.
 
I recently bought 24-105 to compliment 10-22... So far I am happy with the choice but I didn't get to use it much yet...
Hopefully this weekend I will have plenty of opportunity...


if you have 17-50 and 70-200, do you really need something in between?

Although if you don't use the wide end of 17-50 often, 24-105 might make a great walkaround lens for you..
 
24mm is not wide enough for walk about general photography (tourist locations etc) on a 1.5/1.6 crop however for a journo shooting pics of people on pretty much any Canon body, its spot on.

Ok, so its only f4, but combine it with a speedlight and bish bash bosh, job done.

Thats why you see the journos with them - oh and its pretty light too.

If you want a tourist/hobbyist lens, stick to a 18-55ish f2.8 kinda thing - thats perfect on a crop.
 
What's wrong with your 17-50? Most people would say that's the perfect walkabout range on a 30D and an ideal partner to a 70-200. Whereas the 24-105 is generally considered too long at the wide angle end on a cropper.

Secondly, you seem to be comparing actual focal length and effective 'reach' focal length on your crop format 30D (1.6x). You must compare like with like, in which case a 70-200 is equivalent to 112-320mm on full frame - not much overlap.
 
HoppyUK said:
What's wrong with your 17-50? Most people would say that's the perfect walkabout range on a 30D and an ideal partner to a 70-200. Whereas the 24-105 is generally considered too long at the wide angle end on a cropper.

Secondly, you seem to be comparing actual focal length and effective 'reach' focal length on your crop format 30D (1.6x). You must compare like with like, in which case a 70-200 is equivalent to 112-320mm on full frame - not much overlap.
Click to expand...

The tamron is a great lens and whilst I rarely use the wide end I keep comparing the image quality to the 70-200.

For me, the ideal would be a lens that gives me an actual 24-105 range so maybe the only option is get a 5d! :bonk:
 
24-105 on full frame is equivalent in terms of field of view to 15-66mm on a Canon cropper.

The new Canon 15-85 is very good and should deliver image quality comparable to your 70-200. Even better is the 17-55 2.8.
 
EOS_JD said:
70-200 is a 98 - 320mm equivalent so I'd not consider selling that! The 24-105 and 70-200 are my two most used lenses.
Click to expand...

Ditto.
I'm using a 24-105L IS f/4 on a 50D and I am more than happy with it.
It does the job for me as a walkabout lens as I prefer the extra focal length to the wide end.
If I need to go wider it's generally for landscapes and architecture and my 10-22 fits the bill.
I also have a 70-200L IS f/4 and I find the overlap between the two lenses is fine.
 
I have been considering selling my 70-200 f4L but after spending a couple of days outside the Houses of Parliament shooting the unfolding events I found the combination of the 24-105L and the 70-200 unbeatable.
As has been said it's horses for courses. It's no good trying to do landscapes with a 24-105 on a 1.6x crop.
 
HoppyUK said:
The new Canon 15-85 is very good and should deliver image quality comparable to your 70-200. Even better is the 17-55 2.8.
Click to expand...

:eek:
Cor, I didn't think the 15-85 was that good!
 
footman said:
I have been considering selling my 70-200 f4L but after spending a couple of days outside the Houses of Parliament shooting the unfolding events I found the combination of the 24-105L and the 70-200 unbeatable..
Click to expand...

Yup, two lenses that are tools of the trade of a working journo.
 
I have the 17-55 f/2.8 IS as my walkabout lens........and the IQ is amazingly good. I have considered maybe swapping it for a 24-70 f/2.8 or 24-105 f4 IS but losing the wide end is the main deiciding factor on a crop body. Also, the difference between f/2.8 and f4 is quite noticable.

I have this paired with a Siggy 10-20 and 70-200 L f4 IS and I find all 3 lenses compliment each other very well..........it's just a little annoying having to change lenses but nothing we can really do to get around that.
 
The 24-105 is great not because its uber sharp or lightning fast focusing or f1.8 or anything, its just that its most suited to journo work... much sharper will be things like the 17-55 IS or the Sigma 18-50 etc... if you want to take nice photos use one of those, if you want to take news photos of people, use the 24-105.
 
I have a 24-105 on my 5Dmk2 most of the time and love it.

I had a 17-55 f/2.8 on my 40D most of the time and loved that too.

If I still had a crop body, it would be the 17-55 f/2.8 every time.

Incidentally, I started with a 17-85 (which I never really liked) and then a Tammy 17-50 (which I loved the IQ of). I ultimately traded up to the 17-55 as the focus speed (and low light hunt), lack of full time manual focus and the missing 5mm off the long end started to annoy me.
 
lauy said:
I have the 17-55 f/2.8 IS as my walkabout lens........and the IQ is amazingly good. I have considered maybe swapping it for a 24-70 f/2.8 or 24-105 f4 IS but losing the wide end is the main deiciding factor on a crop body. Also, the difference between f/2.8 and f4 is quite noticable.

I have this paired with a Siggy 10-20 and 70-200 L f4 IS and I find all 3 lenses compliment each other very well..........it's just a little annoying having to change lenses but nothing we can really do to get around that.
Click to expand...

Its certainly worth a look and I've added it to my list for consideration. I've heard only excellent things about that lens. I don't suppose you have any images handy that you've taken with it?

desantnik said:
The 24-105 is great not because its uber sharp or lightning fast focusing or f1.8 or anything, its just that its most suited to journo work... much sharper will be things like the 17-55 IS or the Sigma 18-50 etc... if you want to take nice photos use one of those, if you want to take news photos of people, use the 24-105.
Click to expand...

I actually had the 24-105 on my camera earlier today so that was interesting. I know I haven't used it for more than 10 minutes but I think you are selling it a tad short by saying its only good for 'people' shots. I do understand your point though.

I might try and get my hands on an 17-55 IS and see how that works for me, best to play it safe and not rush into anything!
 
What type of subject do you normally shoot? Take a look at my flickr, a lot of the shots on there are taken with my 17-55, you can check the EXIF data on the page to see what settings etc.
 
hashcake said:
Ditto.
I'm using a 24-105L IS f/4 on a 50D and I am more than happy with it.
It does the job for me as a walkabout lens as I prefer the extra focal length to the wide end.
If I need to go wider it's generally for landscapes and architecture and my 10-22 fits the bill.
I also have a 70-200L IS f/4 and I find the overlap between the two lenses is fine.
Click to expand...

Just a simple "me too" from me on the above with slightly different fill-in lenses.

Ian.
 
lauy said:
What type of subject do you normally shoot? Take a look at my flickr, a lot of the shots on there are taken with my 17-55, you can check the EXIF data on the page to see what settings etc.
Click to expand...

I shoot a variety of stuff but I'm still finding my feet with it at the moment. I want to push myself to become more skilled and have a long way to go!

I want to explore more abstract subjects and try new things so it may be best for me to wait a little until I have a more distinctive style. On the other hand, the main reason I started looking into the 24-105 is that the Tamron doesnt always give me the reach I want.

:shrug:
 
dangermoose said:
I shoot a variety of stuff but I'm still finding my feet with it at the moment. I want to push myself to become more skilled and have a long way to go!

I want to explore more abstract subjects and try new things so it may be best for me to wait a little until I have a more distinctive style. On the other hand, the main reason I started looking into the 24-105 is that the Tamron doesnt always give me the reach I want.

:shrug:
Click to expand...

If you find the Tamron doesn't always give reach you want then a Canon 17-55 would seem like a pointless choice to me.
 
dangermoose said:
Thats my worry, while I do have the 70-200 I don't want to have to change lens' every 5 minutes.
Click to expand...

Use a second body if you find yoursel changing a lot. 17-55 on one and the 70-200 on another :)

I generally use the 24-105 and 70-200 on crop cameras but with my purchase of the 5DII, it will be 24-105 on the 5DII and the 70-200 on the 40D. basically 24-200 covered 9apart from a tiny amount i wouldn't notice.

Can you do that?
 
desantnik said:
The 24-105 is great not because its uber sharp or lightning fast focusing or f1.8 or anything, its just that its most suited to journo work... much sharper will be things like the 17-55 IS or the Sigma 18-50 etc... if you want to take nice photos use one of those, if you want to take news photos of people, use the 24-105.
Click to expand...

The 24-105 is most suited for jurno work?
Sorry but I totally disagree and I am sure many people will.
For those that don't need the width but want the focal length it's a great walk about lens.

If they eyes are not nice and sharp and crisp, then I don't know what they are.
I also doubt that the 24-105 is any less sharp than the likes of of the Tamron 17-50 as well.

4502997132_c1e7d146c8_o.jpg
 
If you think 50mm is not enough........55 is not much more......I also sometimes think 55mm is little too short so end up changing to my 70-200 more than I want to.....but I suppose that's why the lens is there! Otherwise, I'd end up not using the 70-200 as much.

The main drawback is that the 24-105 is an f4 and if you're already used to an f/2.8.......going to an f/4 could be a bit annoying as you will have to push ISO up. If you don't think you would miss the 17-24mm focal range too much or the loss of light from f/2.8 to f/4, then the 24-105 is the obvious choice.

They just need to bring out a 17-104 L f/2.8 IS USM and then everyone would be happy !
 
hashcake said:
The 24-105 is most suited for jurno work?
Sorry but I totally disagree and I am sure many people will.
For those that don't need the width but want the focal length it's a great walk about lens.

If they eyes are not nice and sharp and crisp, then I don't know what they are.
I also doubt that the 24-105 is any less sharp than the likes of of the Tamron 17-50 as well.
Click to expand...

the 24-105 is a fantastic walk around lens suited tio many types of work and is one of the sharpest L lenses. Maybe loses a stop of light compared to the 24-70 or 17-55 IS but is equally as sharp as anything I have - and I have some sharp lenses.
 
lauy said:
They just need to bring out a 17-104 L f/2.8 IS USM and then everyone would be happy !
Click to expand...

Well, perhaps a 10-400 2.8 would be better, then I would just need that, but only if it was razor sharp and weighed less than my 18-50 :D

Has the OP tried just going out with one lens and making do with whatever he's got on? I have a few lenses and whilst usually I have several concealed about my person (together with flash and tc's) sometimes its quite refreshing to pick just one and leave the rest behind - to force yourself to make the most of just one. Even more fun when its something really counter-intuitive to your subject (eg a fisheye for motorsport or a long prime for architecture etc)
 
I've got a 24-105L and it takes the vast majority of my pics - I find it really sharp and a super walkabout lens. I had it on a 450D beforehand and now on my sparkling new 7D. :D

To compensate for the 'not so wide' 24mm end (TBH I don't find 24mm to be too long most of the time) I bought a Tokina 12-24mm when I was in NY earlier this year -this really is a great lens. I bought this because 24mm was too long when shooting the skyscrapers from the ground. I wanted the 11-16mm but B&H didn't have it in stock, no regrets on the purchase at all though. :thumbs:

I've also got a 70-200L f/4 as well as a 100-400L on the way, along with a 1.4x extender and some macro tubes - so I guess I've got all my bases covered. Hopefully I won't need to spend any more on lenses for a while (he says not believing a word he says!)

In summary - the 24-105 is a superb lens that you won't be disappointed with if you buy it.
 
desantnik said:
Has the OP tried just going out with one lens and making do with whatever he's got on? I have a few lenses and whilst usually I have several concealed about my person (together with flash and tc's) sometimes its quite refreshing to pick just one and leave the rest behind - to force yourself to make the most of just one. Even more fun when its something really counter-intuitive to your subject (eg a fisheye for motorsport or a long prime for architecture etc)
Click to expand...

Not a bad idea, in fact I almost bought a nifty fifty the other day so it will make me work a little more. My main trouble these days is finding time when I don't have a 3 year old and an 9 month old on my tail! :baby:
 
Haven't got much to compare it to but I use a 24-105 on a 450D, wouldn't be without it.
Previously used the 18-55 kit lens and quite often found it didn't have the reach I wanted.

I always figured a strong line up for a crop would be:
Tokina 12-24 (could go 11-16 but leaves a bit of a gap)
24-105
100-400

and possibly a 70-200 for a bit of overlap in the middle.
 
I'm surprised the 24-70 2.8L hasn't been mentioned. I have one on my 40d and love it to bits. The 2.8 gives a DOF that an f4 lens can't match and allows shooting in lower light. The 24-105 does have IS, but that (as has been repeated countless times) is only any good for stationary objects.
 
I mentioned the 24-70 L f/2.8........personally for me, if I was to change from my 17-55 f/2.8 IS for whatever reason, I'd go for the 24-70 f/2.8 over the 24-105 f4 because of the f/2.8. The extra focal range I can get with another lens..........the f/2.8 just simply can not be achieved with an f4 lens.
 
The 24-70 f2.8 is, well, shorter (focal length) and heavier/bulkier.

Class piece of glass (well, the Nikon one is anyway LOL) but not really something you just take out for a random walk - its too heavy for that.

The 24-105 is fine weight/bulk wise and probably if you are outdoors you don't need the f2.8.

Thats not to say the 24-70 serves no purpose, it definitely does, but I think this thread has been about trying to work out whats best for what job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top