Canon 24-105L on a crop

bl0at3r

bl0at3r

Messages
3,911
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
Yes
Is this a sensible lens for a crop? How does it compare to 28-70 2.8?

Been lucky enough to borrow a 24-105L from work - could have also borrowed the 5D2 body to go with it but resisted the temptation, as I don't want to start giving myself a headache wondering whether I should sell 7d to fund a 5d2 :bonk:

Anyway, I currently have a 17-85mm and a sigma 10-20 - so thought maybe I'd go for the 24-105 as my walkabout lens, sell the 17-85 and have the siggie for landscapes etc

I have also tried a 17-55 2.8 which is widely regarded as the best efs lens and is obviously a stop faster too at 2.8 a whilst this was impressive I am strangely drawn to the red ring :thumbs:

Comments or suggestions appreciated
 
I borrowed one of these and thought it was a superb lens. I think mine had IS and was f4 and it gave excellent results. The focal range was ok but nothing dramatic. I wish they would do a 2.8 IS version but that would be HUGE dosh!
 
I find 24mm on a 1.3 and 1.6 crop wide enough for most things and I think the 24-105 is a good choice of walkaround, especially if you have the siggie in your bag for when you really want the width.

Phil
 
24nmm is actually considered very wide on full frame - unfortunately, on a 1.6X crop sensor the 24-105 becomes an effective 38.4mm - 168mm, so it's hardly wide at all at the wide end. I shot a wedding where I was comfortably dealing with large groups with the 17-40L, while the second shooter using a 24-105 couldn't fit them in at all.(Both of us on 1.6 crop bodies)

Having said that, I've borrowed a 24-105 and it's a tack sharp lens which gives lovely natural looking colour. I was very impressed with it. No2 Son uses one on a 50D and he loves it.
 
it's a tack sharp lens which gives lovely natural looking colour
Click to expand...

AMEN to that! :D
 
micloi said:
I used one on my 50D and found that it was not wide enough most of the times.
Ok when you can step back, but some times it is not possible to do so.
Click to expand...

That's what I was worried about - I'm happy to have the Sigma for specifically going out and doing UWA stuff - but I don't want to keep swapping lenses when 'walking about'
 
24-105L is brilliant on full frame - there's nothing else quite like it. Got it :)

17-55 2.8 is brilliant on crop format - there's nothing else quite like it. Had it :)

:D
 
bl0at3r said:
Is this a sensible lens for a crop? How does it compare to 28-70 2.8?
Click to expand...

Where you impressed with the results?

I've got a 24-105L, it's a cracking lens, if I need to go wide it's for landscapes and buildings and my 10-22 fits that role.
I ignore comments saying that L lenses should only be used on full frame bodies because if I didn't, I wouldn't own a 70-200L IS f/4 and this also a fantastic lens.

This is the first photo I took with my 24-105 and my jaw dropped when I first saw it.
It never ceases to surprise me when I see the level of sharpness / detail in a photo taken with the 24-105L.

I know 800x600 images are not ideal as examples but hopefully, these will tempt you :)

4502997132_c1e7d146c8_o.jpg


Another from a recent holiday.

4735320267_b0e5f5f4bf_b.jpg
 
I use the 24-105 as my walkabout lens and seldom do I find it not wide enough for general use. There are few occasions where I can't take that extra step back and the longer end is quite handy. That said if I know I'll be needing something wider the 10-22 comes along with me and I don't mind changing lenses.
One reason I bought the 24-105 to use with my 7D is the weather sealing so that I don't have to worry while out n about here in sunny but sligtly damp Scotland, if they bring out a similarly sealed 17-55 f2.8 then I'd have a decision to make :thinking:
 
Both lenses are superb. On a crop I'd go for the 17-55 even if it doesn't have the red ring! You can smile to yourself knowing you have one of the best lenses out there. Some people say it flares a little too much, but I loved it because of what you could do artisically with sun flare. If I went back to a crop, I'd get another 17-55 as that range is spot on for a walkabout lens and having f2.8 is cool.

That said on my 5d2 the 24-105 is a gem.
 
wavefront said:
Both lenses are superb. On a crop I'd go for the 17-55 even if it doesn't have the red ring! You can smile to yourself knowing you have one of the best lenses out there. Some people say it flares a little too much, but I loved it because of what you could do artisically with sun flare. If I went back to a crop, I'd get another 17-55 as that range is spot on for a walkabout lens and having f2.8 is cool.

That said on my 5d2 the 24-105 is a gem.
Click to expand...

Completely agree with everything you have said. The absence of a red ring doesn't stop the 17-55 being a truly great lens. If I ever had need of a crop body again then I would have to budget for one again.

Last holiday I *only* took the 24-105, I had real reservations about leaving the 17-40 and 70-200 (f4) at home. No need to worry though, the 24-105 is the ultimate walk-a-round for FF in my opinion. Have a look at my Flickr for a small sample of the shots I took with it (I'm still wading through the other 2000+). Earlier shots on my Flickr have example of the 17-55 on my old 40D.
 
For weddings I use mostly 24-105 on 7D & keep a 16-35 on a 5D I find that the combination is preferable to the much heavier 70-200 on 7D & 24-105 on 5D that i used to use...

Al'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top