Printable View
i intend to upgrade my kit lens EF-S 18-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS to EF 24-105 f/4 L IS USM, the previous lens helped me well to learn at the first beginning but then I considered the quality so i consider the 24-105, but before i do so I'd to have opinions about this 24-105 for general purpose lens. I mostly make photos on the beach.
Sounds like a good choice to me, since you have your 10-22mm to cover your wide angle, and 70-200 to cover the long end. Since you mostly take pictures on the beach, so I don't think 24-70 f/2.8 would be ideal for your use. I say go with the 24-105! The IS will come in handy.
The 24-105mm will not be a very big jump in IQ from your kit lens because it's not optimised for 1.6 crop cameras like your rebel, a much better alternitave is the 17-55mm f/2.8 or 15-85mm. Both are sharper than the L.
John.
John may be right. It'd be worth taking back to back photos 18-135 versus 24-105 just to make sure you are getting the IQ jump you're after. The 24-105 will probably be significantly sharper in the corners wide open at any focal length.
Dave
I am sure there are others with more experience regarding the L series sealing characteristics, but I know of people who have had issues with the sand and salt water spray negatively affecting the EF-S (non-weather sealed) lenses. If you are going to be at a beach, it might be a consideration.
Recently I was able to take some beach shots, and when I got home there was a film of salt spray on my lenses, one was the 24-105 and the other the 70-200. Both cleaned up very easily with a lens wipe, but not sure what the 17-55 would do in the same situation.
My 17-55 just arrived Friday, so haven't had much time to compare it, but so far it appears nearly identical IQ to my 24-105 and 17-40. My impression so far is that the 17-55 is a lot more fragile than either of the other two L lenses, but takes great pictures!
I am using a crop sensor camera (60D).
Hope this helps!
Brian
If you do get the 24-105 I am sure it can handle a lot of what you want to do at the beach, but, you may also want to invest in a lens in the 10-20mm range (Sigma or Canon, but the canon is prefered if you have the money). There are some shots that you may want to get were you need the wide angle lens for.
That is the beauty of the 17-55... it is very sharp, fast, and wider. However, you do need to be careful with the lack of sealing at the beach (bad weather is great for beach shots)
I find my 24-105 handles most everything I want for landscape on a crop body, but there are a few times when my 10-20mm comes in handy. When I first got the 10-20, I did not use it much, but I find myself using it more and more.
Pat
I have the Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5. I don't use it very often, but when only a wide angle will do, I'm very glad it's in the camera bag.Quote:
Originally Posted by conropl
Incidentaly you can get one at Adorama for 890 with USA warranty and free shipping. That isn't much more expensive than when it comes as a kit. Just food for thought.
Dave.
I have the 24-105 on my 7D, had it on my 40d and am not sure what people are talking about with the IQ not being very well... don't believe it. It was awesome. Straight from the camera the contrast and sharpness is great! I still sharpen in a bit but it an excellent lens. I've had a couple of recent outings with the lens and what amazes me with it is that I can crop in a lot without affecting the image, unlike my 28-135. Let me know if you want any sample shots.
I should note that I have the Canon 10-22 lens as well for the times when I need for width.
I have seen shots taken by Juza with a 60D and 24-105mm and it was good but not as good as a 17-55mm f/2.8 or 15-85mm, same holds true for the 17-40mm L except its even worst than the kit lens, check the ISO crops. If it's good enough for you thats great but there are sharper options out there if IQ is a deciding factor. FWIW unless you have a weather sealed body weather sealling is negated.
John.
Seems to have been a limited time deal - it's back up to the regular $1149 now. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Johnston
I don't know that anyone is saying the IQ of the 24-105mm on APS-C is not good, it's just that there are other lenses that are slightly better. I've tested both the 24-105mm f/4L IS and the 16-35mm f/2.8L II on my 7D, against the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, and while the first two are very good, the 17-55mm is slightly better (in addition to being a more generally useful focal length than either of the L lenses since one lacks a wide AoV and the other lacks a telephoto AoV).Quote:
Originally Posted by Photog82
I have a 7D and several lenses. My favorite all-around lens is the 24-105 f/4 L IS USM. On a crop frame camera it works great for me. Very sharp, weather sealed and IS to boost. Not a fast lens so you'll need something else for low light and action, but for me this lens stays on my 7D most of the time.
I mostly use primes (L and Zeiss) on a 5D MkII, my only zoom is the 24-105 f4. For me is a workhorse, very useful and reasonable image quality. But, if you are going to use it on the beach, you may expect a lot of flare. It's the major drawback of this lens.
24-105 is my first L lens. It gives good pictures(not tack sharp pics) when shot outdoor, but when shot indoor and when light is of the essence it fails miserably.It does a slimy job when compared with the pics taken with primes or lenses with big apertures. I have the canon primes 24mm,100mm and 135mm and 50mm(sigma) and when I compare the pics taken with 24-105, this lens does not even come close with the pics I took with primes. If you have a good camera like 5D series, I would strongly recommend you to get primes or lenses with big apertures.
I have the 10-22 3.5-4.5 Canon, 17-50mm 2.8 Tamron, 24-105 L Canon, and 70-200 2.8 L Canon lenses (also a 30mm 1.4 Sigma and 120-400 Sigma) and if I'm doing a lot of walking around in a decently lit area and don't want to change lenses it's the 24-105mm I use. I don't see myself buying the 24-70mm 2.8 L Canon as good as I am sure it is. If I didn't already have the 10-22 and the 24-105 I would. Obviously I don't really need any filling in between those and my next purchases with either by the 50 or 85 1.2 L's or a 100-400 L Canon.
Finacee has the 17-55 2.8 EF-S canon, 100mm 2.8 Canon. Both those lenses are impressive for not being L glass. I think my Tamron is a better value if you aren't a professional as it is smaller, lighter and around 35% of the cost of the canon 17-55 EF-S. I've never actively done side-by-side comparisons of the 17-55 and 24-105 Canons... I'll have to give it a shot some day.