Using a 24-105L at 105 a lot, waste of money?

microbike

microbike

Messages
116
Name
Tim
Edit My Images
No
Hi chaps, I'm on day 2 of using this Canon 24-105L with my 5D mkII, and enjoyed it today on a portrait shoot. Forced myself to use only this lens, rather than my comfort zone of three primes (20mm/50mm/105 Sigma, BTW Sigma doesn't work on camera any more, dunno why, it's brand new, tried several, all close focus by a foot).

Anyhow, I noticed I was moving around less, which was quite relaxing (lazy!). But I did notice I was at the long end (I mean the 105mm full reach) a lot of the time, to get that nice portrait blurred background effect.

Just a thought, but am I wasting my time with the 24-105L if I'm always at the 80-105 end? Am I pushing the lens too hard by always working at 105? Would I be better with a 70-200 for portraits, or "even better" (perhaps) the new IS 100mm Macro prime L?

Thoughts? Ponderings? Just thought I still really prefer my 20mm prime for architectural (less vignetting, less barrel distortion, same quality). Still love my 50mm 1.4 for lots of reportage stuff. Gonna say goodbye to Sigma. So I'm a little restless with this 24-105L. Hmmm.
 
I like the 16-35 zoom for wide landscapes as you can't always get the fov you want by foot-zooming, I like the 24-105 as a versatile walkaround and the 70-200 as studio lens + a 'catch the kids running about' lens. The rest of the time I prefer primes....
 
That's because the 24-105mm won't focus any closer than 45cm its not a macro lens. You really need a prime like the 100mm f2.8 macro for closer work.

The 24-105mm f4 is a walkaround lens for full frame camera's
 
I reckon you want to try a 135mm f/2. The 24-105 is a nice lens (I've got one too). But... if you're mostly at the tele end, and wide open to take out the background, and you like primes too, then the 135 would suit you perfectly, it's a superb lens.

cheers
 
I'd say seriously consider either the 70-200 f/4 or the f/2.8. I'm guessing you'd pay the extra for the 2.8 for portrait given your mention of trying to get nice oof background. I'm considering getting the 24-105 for portraits at events, but that would be on a 1.6 crop body, not full frame. I guess it also depends if you are ever shooting groups and singles mixed together. If it's just for studio work, rather than mobile events type stuff, i'd say better go with a longer lens, either the 70-200 or a 135ish prime.
 
Bill Roberts said:
I reckon you want to try a 135mm f/2. The 24-105 is a nice lens (I've got one too). But... if you're mostly at the tele end, and wide open to take out the background, and you like primes too, then the 135 would suit you perfectly, it's a superb lens.

cheers
Click to expand...

Seconded - 135L is a blinder - great wide open, staggering @ f2.8 and beyond.
 
Reading between the lines, I think your restlessness might well turn into frustration. If you're running out of reach, and you like blurry backgrounds, then a 24-105mm f/4 lens is not going to do it for you. 100mm macro won't either.

If you like primes, 135 2 has got to be in there for some wonderful bokeh, but the nice out of focus backgrounds come with very shallow depth of field (obviously!) which can be a bit of a liability. You can often get a very similar isolation effect by moving back with a longer lens where the narrow field of view creates the same sort of look even though DoF hasn't actually changed.

The obvious choice is one of Canon's splendid 70-200s. The range means you'll have plenty of reach and won't need to shuffle around foot zooming all the time. F/4 or f/2.8 versions according to how you like your bokeh :)
 
Thanks chaps.
Q: will either the 135L or the 70-200L double as a studio lens for close up & products? (I often photograph products between the sizes of a jam jar up to a large rucksack - tablestop stuff. And occasionally food).
 
microbike said:
Thanks chaps.
Q: will either the 135L or the 70-200L double as a studio lens for close up & products? (I often photograph products between the sizes of a jam jar up to a large rucksack - tablestop stuff. And occasionally food).
Click to expand...

Yes - the 135L has a good close-focussing capability.

Phil
 
Macro lenses
Canon EF 50mm f2.5 Macro Lens Minimum focus distance 23cm
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM Lens Minimum focus distance 30cm
Canon EF 100mm f2.8 USM Macro Lens Minimum focus distance 31cm

Tamron 90mm F2.8 SP Di Macro Lens Minimum focus distance 29cm
Sigma 105mm f2.8 EX DG Macro Lens Minimum focus distance 32cm
Sigma 150mm f2.8 EX DG Macro Lens Minimum focus distance 38cm

Primes
Canon EF 85mm f1.8 USM Lens Minimum focus distance 85cm
Canon EF 100mm f2 USM Lens Minimum focus distance 90cm
Canon EF 135mm f2 L USM Lens Minimum focus distance 90cm
Canon EF 200mm f2.8 L USM MKII Lens Minimum focus distance 1.5m

Zoom
Canon EF 70-200mm f4 L Non IS / IS USM Lens Minimum focus distance 1.2m
Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8 L IS USM Lens Minimum focus distance 1.4m

Peter
 
microbike said:
Thanks chaps.
Q: will either the 135L or the 70-200L double as a studio lens for close up & products? (I often photograph products between the sizes of a jam jar up to a large rucksack - tablestop stuff. And occasionally food).
Click to expand...

I traded my 100 2.8 macro when I got the 70-200L 4 IS. I use it with a set of Kenko tubes which cover me right down to 1:1 and all points inbetween. Compared to a macro prime, the flexibility on magnification and range is very welcome. I like a bit of table-top and often go down to about 1:3 - works perfectly, IS helps a bit too. Quality is superb. Not sure it's the ultra macro choice, but I don't do bugs and flea portraits ;)

And it's a great portrait lens. You might want the DoF at f/2.8 though, which is sometimes nice, but the 2.8 version weighs a ton. If weight isn't a huge problem, and it's within budget, then the 2.8 is one of those fantastic lenses that just delivers, works so well pretty much anytime anywhere, and is just a pleasure to use and own.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top