Is there a 24-105 f2.8ish lens made by anyone ?

S

stevewestern

Messages
5,111
Edit My Images
Yes
I had a 24-105 f4 canon lens and sold it, as it was too slow for a 17-55 f2.8IS. I now have a 5D, and want a lens that is similar but slightly longer, so something like a 24-105f2.8 IS.
Now, this is not made, but is there anything close to it ?
I find the 17-55 too short on my 30d at times, so anything that goes slightly closer would be good, but I also need the wide angle. Aperture is also important, if only so my tired eyes can see what is in the viewfinder so that I know I have missed the focus point.
What can you tell me ??

Also, Mods, where has the 'Need a lens' sticky gone that sat atop of the Camera, Lenses and Accessories section gone ? I need to know !!
 
andrewc said:
nope. I want one too. I have the 24-105 IS f4 L and its good, but an f2.8 would be great.
Click to expand...

Hum - I just bought the 24-105 F4 IS. I think I'd rather have the IS over 2.8 non IS as I was able to shoot 1/8 sec shutter speed last night and get a sharp image. That and the weight difference over the 24-70 f2.8, after all it's only one stop.
 
Steve,

I'd keep a look out for a secondhand 28-70/2.8L
It'll be much cheaper than a 24-70 and I doubt that you'll see any difference on either of your bodies. The 28-70 actually has better flare resistance but marginally loses out in the sharpness stakes.

IS is a usefull tool to enable reduced shutter speeds but the image at f/4 will not be the same as one taken at f/2.8...no matter what speed is used. Subject isolation and bokeh generally improve as the aperture gets larger (for lenses of similar quality, that is).

Bob
 
I've had this debate in my head many times, as I like to take gig pictures and they are often in low light/poor light.

My head says this: faster lenses are better in low light, BUT they are often soft at the widest aperture and to get them sharp you need to be a couple of stops down, at about f5.6 ish., so WHY BOTHER with the fast lens? Then my head says, perhaps the same applies to all lenses (soft when wide open), so to get that "sweet spot" with a slower lens, you might need to be at f8 to find it, so the faster lens is still the best option. Is my head right???

Then there is the issue of hand held............
You have to do that at gigs, so you need something not too heavy (you might be standing for hours to get a good spot in the crowd), with a decent reach, (hard to get a front line location) but long, fast lenses are heavy.

So, a light weight, fast lens is what we all want.........WHY DOESN'T SOMEONE MAKE ONE???

I know its down to glass quality, but surely in this day and age, it's not beyond the realms of possibility?



To answer your question Steve.......the Canon 24-70 f2.8 L is my favorite lens ....until there is a 24-105 f2.8 L somewhere. ;)
 
photostar_1 said:
I've had this debate in my head many times, as I like to take gig pictures and they are often in low light/poor light.

My head says this: faster lenses are better in low light, BUT they are often soft at the widest aperture and to get them sharp you need to be a couple of stops .....
Click to expand...

I think "sharp" is over emphasised in photography and "mood" often gets lost as technical images take over. Why do your gig photo's need to be sharp?...and I mean sharp as in f/8 sharp and not sharp as in f/2.8
I'm not sure what type of gigs you go to...I don't go to any...but I look at it as theatre. Typically there are general lights and a spotlight or two. The whole concept of the lighting is so that you're able to see the surrounds but the spotlight highlights the main feature....surely a photograph should aim to do the same. If the producer wanted to achieve f/8 in lighting terms them he'd always use floodlights.

f/2.8 is your spotlight, f/8 is your floodlight.

Bob
 
Hi Bob,
I think what I am really talking about is DoF. At f2.8, with the bands never still for two seconds at a time, no matter how careful I am, my focal point on the eye often ends up as being on the microphone, or anywhere but where I wanted it.
At a narrower f stop, my rate of "hit" is improved. Does that make sense? also, at some gigs, you are lucky to get just one red, one green and one blue lamp. A spotlight is a luxury only found at "better" venues! :)
 
I wasn't implying that there would be a spotlight, more that the camera would have the effect of being one. The spotlight (if it existed) would highlight the feature in the same way that a large aperture/smaller DOF does.

Bob
 
Canon Bob - I think my main problem with the 17-55 is that on the 30d it is still a bit short - I often want to be a little closer in, and the 24-105 allowed that. However, on the 30d, the 24-105 wasn't wide enough. Now I have the 5d as well, I am wondering about another 24-105 type lens, as it would be wide enough, and slightly longer than the 17-55 is on the 30d, allowing me to be a little closer in to the action. However, while I may not often use it at 2.8 (I have similar problems as photostar 1, in that subjects move to often) but the extra aperture allows me a brighter viewfinder. IS is not too big an issue, but would be nice, and your point in sharpness is very valid - for me, most pictures need mood or atmosphere over sharpness, though focus is important, hence me not being too worried about L glass - I am happy to look at Sigma or any other make if the range is there. I guess my ideal would be something like 24-150, f2.8 or f4, and IS would be cool. Cost under £200, obviously.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top