Printable View
Hi all,
Now that I have the money for a general purpose lens I need some advice. Does anyone here use a 24-105 on a 1.6 body? I know it's primarily designed for FF but as long as the IQ seen on a FF body holds for 1.6 I am strongly considering it. All advice and information is greatly appreciated :)
And let's try not to start the 24-105 vs 24-70 debate again. I said try [:P]
thanks,
brendan
I have the 24-105 and use it on the 7D. I would say that in comparison to a FF it may be even better in some respects. As many have said, the 24-105 can have some issues when shooting wide open at the 24 side of things, however minor they may be. Most of these are no longer issues on a 1.6 body since all the problems are on the edges of the frame. I would highly recommend getting your hands on one.
I have the 24-105 on my 40D and I'm happy with it. I don't have a FF (yet) so I cannot compare IQ.
I can't help but mention the 24-70 (sorry) because ever since I got a 70-200 f2.8 I've questioned whether I would prefer that lens. At the time I purchased the 24-105 it was on a whim and I had no intention of investing too much money into photography equipment (how times change).
I have found occasions when I'd like something wider but as a general purpose lens I think it's excellent.
It's a good place to start. You might find yourself wishing for something both faster and wider if you shoot indoors a lot. For that, I really prefer the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM.
Similar to another poster I have the 24-105 on a 40D. I really like it though I admit that I sometimes miss the stop of aperture but for those situations I usually pull the trusty primes.
Main reason I chose the 24-105 was the wider range of focal length for the cost of 1 stop. Compared to the 24-70 or 17-55 it reduces the number of times I would have to change for my 70-200 which on the fly is very useful. This is particularly the case if I go travelling and want to take only one lens
Thanks for your opinions everyone; it seems like I'll probably rent the lens for a week.
John, I do understand your philosophy of getting a fast zoom, but I'd rather buy the 24-105 for its build quality (yes, I do have L disease) and then get a 50 or 85mm prime for lowlight.
I considered the 24-70 but lack of IS and weight dissuaded me. I know there will probably be an IS version but it'll cost too much ($1800?).
brendan
Quote:
Originally Posted by bburns223
Makes sense, Brendan. The physical build quality of the 17-55mm is very good (quite similar to myEF 100mm f/2.8<span style="color: red;"]LMacro IS USM, in fact), but what it lacks, IMO, is the weather-sealing of the 24-105mm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jnort002
This is a great point - I was out shooting my toddler hunting for Easter eggs a while ago, and changed from the 17-55mm on the deck to the 100mm lens in the back yard, and I didn't need the 17-24mm range, nor f/2.8. But for the early morning exploration of the Easter basket in the house, I definitely needed to be wider than 24mm.
So, I think the two lenses would serve different but complementary purposes (for me, at least). The 17-55mm makes an idealindoorgeneral purpose zoom lens, with the fast aperture and especially with the wider FOV (especially supplemented with my EF 85mm f/1.8 for ambient light close-ups). The 24-105mm would make an idealoutdoorgeneral purpose zoom lens (on a crop body), where you could part with a stop of light and you would have room to back up if necessary, and more need to zoom in.
<div>I got my 17-55mm last October, just when it started to get cold. Since much of the New England 'winter' (which is pretty long - late fall to late spring, sometimes!) is spent indoors, I wouldn't part with that lens. But, now that the weather is getting nicer and more time will be spent outdoors, this discussion is making me really want to add the 24-105mm f/4L to my kit!</div>
<div></div>
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
That's halfway a deception in my opinion. Both are made of plastic, but the 100 macro is made of a higher grade "engineering plastic" and if I am right its build quality is superior (at least reviewers claim it's not built like an L lens, [:P] I dunno). The 17-55 also has a dust problem. Weather Sealing is huge to me, I am eager to finally get a combo (7d, 24-105, filter) that I can feel comfortable using in whatever conditions may arise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bburns223
Not that I've seen. I've read about that, yes. You can read lots of complaints on forums, of course - keep in mind that most people with a problem of any kind are more likely to be vocal about it than those that don't have any issues. (Try this - if you happen to have a car without engine problems, Google "your car year/model" and "engine problems" - for an older car I put 175K miles on before trading it in, that search pulls up 2.5 million hits, but I never had any sort of engine work, other than oil changes and tune ups).
I've used my 17-55mm in some very dusty environments and not had an issue. Having a UV filter probably helps there, I suspect. I have metal-barreled L-lenses, a plastic-barreled L-lens, and a some non-L lenses. The 17-55mm is better-built than the EF 85mm f/1.8, and comparing the 17-55mm and the 100mm L macro, as I said, they are more similar than different. The one big difference that I notice is that the hood on the 100mm L macro is easier to install/remove than the hood on the 17-55mm. But then again, the hood on the 17-55mm goes on and comes off more easily than the hood on my EF 200mm f/2.8<span style="color: red;"]L II USM prime.
Mostly, though, it's about choosing the optimal focal length to meet your needs. Sometimes even 17mm isn't wide enough, and I need to change to my EF-S 10-22mm to capture the full impact of a scene.
I would really recommend renting first in your case - having only the 300mm to compare might make it harder to judge what focal lengths you'll need most. You mentioned that you rented other lenses in the past - check out the EXIF data from those shots, and that may help guide your choices.
Good points John. Thanks for your help.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
[:O] How many lenses do you have??? [:P]
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
Yeah, I know. I just decided that if I need lowlight capabilities, I'll buy a proper lowlight prime. And wide angle? 14mm f/2.8! I was a bird photographer primarily but then decided to try my hand at other types of photography. And lighten my wallet [8o|]
So I'll rent the lens, and go from there.
brendan
Quote:
Originally Posted by bburns223
Fewer than I want... [:D]
Quote:
Originally Posted by bburns223
Yeah, the EF 35mm f/1.4L is on my short list, too...
I currently do not use my 24-105 on a 1.6x body, but I did for several years--first on a Rebel XT and then on a 40D. I initially had a 28-135 for my Rebel but found the quality lacking (especially after renting a 70-200 f/2.8L IS), so I got the 24-105 before a trip to England. I was so glad I did. Its a great lens, and I thoroughly enjoyed using it on both of those crop bodies. Of course, after moving to FF, it's like I got a brand new lens--24 was really wide, the DoF I was accustomed to changed, etc, but they weren't aspects I'd missed on my XT/40D. Others have suggested renting, and I think that's a great idea. I've used a lens rental several times to help inform my opinion. Reviews and shared opinions are extremely valuable, but nothing beats personal experience. Best of luck with your decision!
Aaron
Brendan,
While I can not give you any information on the 24-105, I have to defend the 17-55. I have a 50D and my 17-55 is still my most used lens. I also have the 24-70 and when I really need a keeper from only a few shots, I take the 17-55. Granted most of what I do is indoors, I have had zero issues with dust and would dismiss that complaint as an issue. My reason for the 24-70 over the 24-105 was the 2.8 because it is a must for me. Today I took over 200 pictures in church, mostly of our children's choir and all but one were sharp. The one that was not was in a burst where I misjudged movement of the children as they did a dance, but shooting at high speed that is easily done sometimes.
If you shoot in inclement weather or dusty conditions, then sealing is an issue. Since my camera is not sealed on par with the L lenses, that is not a factor for me. If that is not in play for you, then it comes down to what you are doing. If you need to stop action in less that perfect light, as I often do, then you want the largest aperture. If you are shooting still or slow moving subjects in good light then go for the zoom range. With the right lens for the situation I think you would be pleased with results from any of the three. They are the top three recommendations of Bryan.
Good luck choosing. I have been there myself, even when I started asking opinions, I was leaning towards 24-70 and in the end that is what I purchased. For what I do, it has been the right choice. Now, I am debating an upgrade between a 7D and the new 1D Mark IV. Any opinions from your experience with your 7D would be greatly appreciated.
Chris
I had used my 24-105 on a Rebel XT for awhile. I was happy with it. It didn't go very wide, but I had a separate wide angle zoom... Before that I had a 28-135mm, and I'd have problems with group shots if I didn't have the space. Otherwise, at the time, I was heavily medium to telephoto-oriented, so it got me by.
When I finally put it on a full frame camera, my initial disappointment was seeing the vignetting at 24mm, butaccepting that fact, I'm happier with it on a full frame camera.
From a performance standpoint, if you're willing to give up the 'L' classification, I'd lean towards the 17-55 f/2.8 IS. I bought the 24-105 in part becauseof future full-frame compatibility, and partly because I had purchased a 16-35 f/2.8L, which got me hooked on the feel of the L zooms. They're just fun to hold and twist.