Lens Conundrum - Length v Quality

wibbly

wibbly

Messages
5,216
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
Yes
I've been considering a longer length of lens for some time now, with a 70 - 200 f4 Canon in my sights. The only thing that I'm a little concerned with is lack of IS (at that range) and no f2.8 which I'm kind of used to. Of course the IS could be rectified but in real terms I can't quite stretch that far at present. :|

However, what has occurred to me having finally got the green light from 'er indoors is to consider the 24-105 Canon lens. Here's the reasoning behind it.

At present, I have a nifty 50mm and a Tamron 17-50mm, so I'm pretty confined with focal length. By adding the 24-105mm, I'm obviously not adding much at the short end, but obviously adding from 50mm to 105mm. On a crop body that gives me a good increase on what I already have - and having never had such a long length as 70 - 200, I'm not really going to miss it am I? :suspect: ;)

Now then, the other point I have in mind. As future proof goes the 24-105mm will help me in my quest to scratch the itch I have to go FF at some point in the future.

So, any comments, recommendations etc?
 
You have a 50mm f1.8 and a 17-50mm f2.8 why buy a 24-105mm f4 unless you intend to sell the 17-50mm f2.8 ?

On a crop sensor you lose the wide angle capabilities of the 24-105mm, yes its a good lens, ideal for FF, but not cropped, or at least 1.6x crop.

The 70-200mm f4 (non IS) is a fantastic lens, can take a 1.4x TC without too much issue (other than the normal loss of an f-stop, so 98-280mm f5.6 and a hit on autofocus speed), but its a great lens and by far superior that canon other offerings in that range like the 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS or 55-250mm f4-5.6 IS lenses.
 
My (albeit Nikon) 70-200 2.8... my most used lens by a long way, but it does depend on what your subjects are.

I will say though, don't worry about poxy IS, you don't need it at 200mm with a light lens like the Canon 70-200 f4, not at all. Just keep an eye on your shutter speeds and compensate accordingly.

The 24-105 I have used and despite being a useful general purpose focal length its actual optical performance is a bit meh at best and as Pete says, on a crop body its a very awkward length too.
 
At 70mm+ the 70-200 (all of them) are significantly sharper wide open. 24-105 is a bit of a mega-zoom, with associated trade-offs. It's your call if you need the best long-ish lens, or just something to fall back on.
 
Thanks guys, really appreciate the feedback.

I think maybe my thinking is a little off here, so will have a re-think. I have an offer of a non IS 70-200 Sigma for a couple of days so may have have a go with it and see how I get on with it. :)
 
Don't see any point with the 24-105 if you have the Tamron. If you keep both then it's a big overlap, whereas if you sell the Tamron you may find 24mm isn't wide enough.

The 70-200 f/4L IS wouldn't cost you much more used than the 24-105 so maybe try to stretch to that?

desantnik said:
I will say though, don't worry about poxy IS, you don't need it at 200mm with a light lens like the Canon 70-200 f4, not at all.
Click to expand...

Sorry but total rubbish.

Whilst IS may not help with moving subjects, with static ones it can be a godsend, both in terms of low-light shooting with a slow shutter speed and in terms of framing. If no-one needed it, why would Canon sell it?

The IS version of the F4 is also sharper, weather sealed and has circular aperture blades.
 
Vertigo1 said:
Sorry but total rubbish.

Whilst IS may not help with moving subjects, with static ones it can be a godsend, both in terms of low-light shooting with a slow shutter speed and in terms of framing. If no-one needed it, why would Canon sell it?
Click to expand...

No, they sell it because they make you think that you need it.

Its perfectly possible to get around using it, it was a technology developed for when ISO400 was a noised to hell mess, not for today's equipment.
 
Vertigo1 said:
Whilst IS may not help with moving subjects, with static ones it can be a godsend, both in terms of low-light shooting with a slow shutter speed and in terms of framing. If no-one needed it, why would Canon sell it?
Click to expand...

A tripod cheaper :D than IS
 
desantnik said:
No, they sell it because they make you think that you need it.

Its perfectly possible to get around using it, it was a technology developed for when ISO400 was a noised to hell mess, not for today's equipment.
Click to expand...

While I agree that non-IS is very nice lens and worth every penny, the IS can make a big different in certain circumstances. Getting a sharp shot at 1/20s 200mm with non-IS w/o tripod wouldn't be possible. And I'd rather shoot at the lowest possible ISO regardless the camera; regardless how good they are you can easily tell ISO3200 from ISO200.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top