Canon 24-105mm f4 on a crop?!

O

Olliehoy

Messages
5
Name
Oliver Hoy
Edit My Images
Yes
I currently use a Canon 60d, and can't make my mind up if the 24-105 is the right lens. I would love to upgrade to FF but can't see this happening in the close future, at the moment i have a 10-22 and a 70-200, my photography interests and generally automotive, however i also enjoy landscape photography, i see this next lens as a bit of a filler lens that i would be able to use on holiday/travel along side current lenses. Problem is i keep reading about people saying its not wide enough on a crop, currently i shoot everything wide, but that's due to not having a capable lens.

So the question is,

Do i go for
a 24-105 f4 canon about £450?
or
a 17-55 f2.8 about £600?

I could almost get a 50mm 1.4 with the change?

Any comments appreciated!!
 
Ive recently bought a 24-105 which i use as my main walk about lens on my 60D and love it.
I do wish it was a little wider at times but i am talking about a recent trip to Paris and trying to fit the Eiffel Tower into frame when being so close to it, so i doubt my 17mm would have made a massive difference.
I'm considering a 10-22 at the moment and i think that would be a much better combination than my old 17-85 (although i always found mine to be exceptionally sharper than the reviews say)
You wont go far wrong either way it just depends if you mind the cheaper build quality of the 17-55 but one extra stop and wider or the better build and I'd say ever so slightly better image quality of your 10-22 and a 24-105 combination.
 
My wife has the non-IS version of the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 on her 700D and I have been impressed with the results. I have the 24-105 on my FF and while it's great for me as a walkabout lens it wouldn't be wide enough for her. It is very good though. Depends on what you consider as wide enough.
 
You've got the 10-22 so the 24-105 works great. On a crop it's a little long at the 24mm end but it's almost the perfect walk about lens (it is on a full frame). I still have mine, having used it for 95% of my images on my 50D, it's now most used on my 5D.
Best bit is the 10-22 is so light and small it's no pain carrying it, and the 24-105 is such a good lens it's a no brainer to buy. I've shot handheld, in the dark at 1/8 sec.

If you're always going to be cropped then the only other lens I'd consider would be the 15-85. I bought one for my sons 600d and it's a great lens.
 
Problem i have with something like a 15-85 is would it make my 10-22 redundant, obviously 10mm is still a fair bit wider but would i be tempted to leave it at home a lot? This decision is giving me head aches!! The other thing is for the price of the 24-105 in comparison to a 17-55. £150 more for an extra 7mm that the UWA covers. Do i sound like I'm trying to convince myself?
 
i don't want to stay cropped, but FF isn't in budget yet and i don't want to be buying a lens just because i may one day go FF.
 
24-105 is a lovely lens - I've always said that if I were only allowed to keep for lens for my 7D that would be it. And incidentally, I also found it to be a perfect complement to the 10-22 and 70-200.
 
Hi,

If your going to get a full frame body in the future then get the 24-105mm lens. If your not then you should get the 17-55mm. It is very good! I bought one about 5 years ago and sold it recently for roughly the same price. The speed of focusing, the clarity of the glass with minimal chromatic aberration. The 24-105 does have said problem but only really noticeable on a ff body.
 
I'm a huge fan of the 17-55 on a crop and also the 15-85

If it was one lens only I wouldn't entertain the 24-105 unless weather sealing was important.

Given you've already got 10-22 - as long as f4 meets your demands I'd go for it.
 
The 24-105 is a good lens and I was in your same position when I started out. I researched it to death and found other then the build quality the 17-55 beat it hands down. Im not interested in debating this but that's what I found . I shot both of them and ended up with the 17-55 and absolutely loved it. That lens stayed on my camera most of the time. It was perfect for me because it was wide enough for landscape and smooth portrait bokah was always available. I hated getting rid of it when I went full frame and ended up spending 2400 u.s to replace it (24-70II). If I had to do it all over I would go with 17-55 without even thinking about it. Don't let the lack of a red stripe fool you, it's a great lens .


Sent from my iPhone using Talk Photography Forums
 
shaylou said:
TIm not interested in debating this ...
Click to expand...

LOL,

I guess it's really down to what, or how you shoot. On a full frame the 24-105 is the obvious walkabout lens - that's why it was shipped as the kit lens. For me on a 50D crop it worked because I looked at the shots I mostly took and they fell within that range and I had the 10-22 to back it up. As I said, the 10-22 is a good light lens so it's easy to always have in the bag or pocket.

I discounted the 24-70 because of the weight. yes the extra stop could have been handy, but I've handheld the f4 IS lens down to crazy shutter speeds ok.
I looked at the 17-55 but (depending on what you shoot) the lack of range doesn't work really as a walk about lens and you find yourself constantly changing between that and the 70-200, which is why I bought my lad the 15-85. He's only ever going to use crop, works a lot in video and it's a brilliant walkabout lens for just one lens.

My 24-105 is now 7 years old, been used in all weathers, abused and kept working, producing great images. One thing to note with this lens is you do get zoom creep when the lens is dangled downwards pointing, it winds out to the longest. Not an issue to me but something to be aware of.
 
I had this consideration a few years back as I have the 10-22, but I chose to go with the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 for my walkabout lens as I wanted the option to travel light and just go with the one lens from time to time, and I was concerned that 24mm would not be wide enough if I was being lazy and not wanting to carry an extra lens.

As it happened though, I went to Norway a few years ago and flew with Ryanair with limited hand baggage allowance, so borrowed a friend's 28-135 and used that in conjunction with my 10-22, so a two lens option like that would be ideal for me for a short holiday when looking to keep luggage to a minimum.
 
Well I think I'm convinced on the 24-105, I've come to the decision with the help of all of you that while the 17-55 may have better image quality I won't miss what I've never had. The 'L' is cheaper and makes a better single lens option. It's also easier to carry a 10-22 and a 24-105 than a 17-55 and a 70-200. Thanks for the help all, question now is do I also add a 50mm f1.4 incase of low light!
 
Add the Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art. Great lens on a crop and ff alike. Would make a good combo with a 24-105 for low light.
 
24-105 is a great lens, I was FF as a main and used a 60d as a 2nd camera and it worked well on both systems.. also when me and a friend did tests on a crop the 24-105 sees more at 24mm than Canon's kit lens does at 24mm so it is slightly wider than you might think.

with your current lenses I would say 24-105 is as perfect as you will find, no point considering EF-s lenses if you are looking at FF in the future.
 
I doubt it sees more on a crop, the difference was probably the effect of focus breathing, 24mm should be the same on both.
 
Olliehoy said:
Well I think I'm convinced on the 24-105, I've come to the decision with the help of all of you that while the 17-55 may have better image quality I won't miss what I've never had. The 'L' is cheaper and makes a better single lens option. It's also easier to carry a 10-22 and a 24-105 than a 17-55 and a 70-200. Thanks for the help all, question now is do I also add a 50mm f1.4 incase of low light!
Click to expand...

I've got one - rarely use it if I'm honest, but again it depends on the type of shooting you do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top