Printable View
So I just bought a 24-105 f4 from canon to replace my 24-70 2.8L I.
Some may call me crazy, but I have found that I am not carrying my camera around as much anymore due to the fact my 24-70 is just so heavy and non-discrete (hey everyone look at me, I'm a photographer!!).
I'm not really shooting weddings anymore so I hardly use the 2.8 aperature.
Anyone else make this move? Think i'll regret it?
I bought the 24-105 about five years ago, took it back a few weeks later and bought the f/2.8.
I just can't see this move for a weight savings, it doesn't look like enough to matter.
For the IS maybe, not weight.
I suppose I forgot to mention the bonus of the IS. I feel like having IS will prompt me to take my camera to more places (spur of the moment outings) than in the past.Quote:
Originally Posted by HDNitehawk
I tend to always use a tripod when doing most of my shoots (Landscape is my most shot subject). I tend to miss a lot of shots because I don't want to or dont have time to take out my tripod and set up for the shot. However, IS would allow me to narrow the aperture a bit more and take lower ISO shots that I couldn't have done hand held otherwise (This is in a situation where I don't have my tripod with me, mind you).
So, I guess what I'm saying is, The IS should allow me to take more shots in situations that I am ususally less comfortable, and it will weigh less, and will be more insconspicuous than the 24-70.
Dave I am going through the same dilemmas you. I have been seriously considering replacing my 24–70 mm with the 24–105 mm for about two years now. I had the lens in my cart at the last refurbish sale but I didn't pull the trigger at the right time. Now if I buy it I'll lose $100. I want to sell my 24–70 mm lens before I buy the 24–105 mm. I am finding it hard to part with due to the difference in cash from when I paid to what I would sell it for now. I didn't use it that much for a long time because I prefer primes but I'm forcing myself to use it more often now. I do love the lens but it is so heavy to carry around all the time. My wife refuses to use my camera because that lens so heavy. if I were to get the 24–105 mm I believe it would be better suited for my landscape photography and what I would use it for photographing my kids. I would definitely use the IS much more than I used it 2.8 aperture. I also plan on getting the 6D sometime in the near future so the loss of one stop of light really won't hurt me much comparing it to the noise level on the 7D.
I bought mine refurbished on Canon's website. You can use code PUMPKIN2014 (only good for today) right now and get it shipped for 780.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayson
Assuming you get what 24-70s are typically going for on EBAY 800-950. Then you should come out ok maybe even on top.
I parted with an older EF 28-70mm f/2.8 L USM and picked up an EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM soon after. For my needs, it works really well.
Why?
1) I have several wide aperture primes if I need to shoot in low light – Sigma 35/50mm Art, Canon 85mm f/1.2 L II – so the f/4 maximum aperture isn't terribly limiting
2) The focal length range makes the 24-105mm lens an excellent choice when photographing posed shots at a wedding (bridal party formals, etc)
3) Its focal length range also makes it a good studio lens, especially when you're set up in relatively space-limited areas. You can set up a tripod and choose dramatically different framing between 24mm and 105mm without having to move the camera.
I really think the 24-105 f/4 IS L is an under appreciated and under valued lens. Maybe not in this thread, but overall.
That said, I am likely going the other direction. I bought the 24-105 as part of the kit with my 5DIII. It has been a good lens for 2 years but I picked up the 24-70 II in June and think it is the way I'll go. Three primary differences:
- f/2.8 aperture. While not posted here, I actually shoot a lot of family indoors. I decided the extra aperture was beneficial both for lower light and thin DoF. I will say, I have been burned using the f/2.8 a few times due to the small DoF. To an extent, for random shots around the house, it seems that it is tough to beat f/4-8 and a flash.
- Extra sharpness and contrast
- Faster AF in low light/utilizing the f/2.8 AF points on the 5DIII.
The 24-105 f/4 L is a very good lens, so I can understand those selecting it as their primary general purpose zoom. I still sometimes waver as the 24-105 was really very good. The IS was ok (2-3 stops), not as good as the IS on my old 15-85 (solid 4 stops). I am actually tempted by the new 16-35 f/4 for IS.
I am wondering, do you really find the 24-105 that that much more discrete on a 5DIII than your 24-70? Very good lens, no doubt, but comparing 24-70 I vs 24-105, the 24-70I is 0.1" wider and 0.6" longer. The 24-70II is 0.2" longer and 0.2" wider.
I understand what you mean, but if you want to be discrete, I'd be tempted to go with your 50D or maybe another crop camera. I noticed a big difference in how I am perceived as soon as I went to a 5DIII. With my 7D, I think I must have blended in with other photographers with Rebels and xxD camera bodies. But people do notice the 5DIII, with L-bracket, and either the 24-70II or 24-105 mounted on it. I get a lot more random questions about photography now than I used too.
I almost invariably use lens hood when I'm shooting, and I agree though the lens is only 1.5 inches shorter with hood on and almost the same when extended. The hood shape of the 24-70 just seems to make it so noticeable (despite being quite functional.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kayaker72
Thanks. Just looked at the numbers and the hood mounted on the 24-70 I and it also explains why my perception is different. I also use the hood, but the 24-70II and 24-105 are almost exactly the same max/min lengths with hoods mounted. But go back to the 24-70 I and there is a 1.5" difference at the "min." Looking at the pictures, that is absolutely noticeable.
From a different direction - I started with the 24-105, later bought the 24-70 v2. Still have and use the 24-105 as a single lens option for the IS and the longer zoom range. Have also been starting to use it more often in portrait sessions again as it is more kindly to skin textures, which means less effort to process, and any time I want a wider aperture I go to a prime anyways as 2.8 isn't as much of a jump as I am usually going for in that instance.
Definitely use the 24-70 for landscapes and product shots so no regrets there.
I guess it all comes back to deciding which is the better tool for what you want to do.
I have two 24-105's. Prior to my first 24-105 I had a 24-70 f2.8 Sigma. I found myself spending most of my time at 70 wanting more. The 24-105 was a big improvment mainly because the Sigma was so soft. I did not notice much difference in weight. I shoot a 1DsIII with 24-105 plus flash bracket and flash. Weight does not bother me much. I do regret buying the second one. If I had it again I would have a 24-105 and a 24-70. I shoot weddings with the f4 and do not see the big deal. If I need faster I use a prime.
I've had two 24-105's, bought one used, sold it when I bought a new copy with the 5DII kit. Good wide open, better stopped down. I bought the 24-70/2.8 II, and much prefer it. Ended up selling the 24-105 for lack of use. The 24-70 II IS sharper and has less distortion at the wide end. I do have fast primes, but having an f/2.8 walkaround lens is useful, to me more so than the extra 35mm of tele.
I didn't suggest the 24-70 II because it will cost you 2-3x as much as the lens you are talking about.
if it were me I would sell your 17-40 and the 24-70 I and try and get the 24-70 II.
You gain nothing on weight or being discrete.
It sounds like you had specific reasons why you wanted to make the move. I usually find that as long as I dwell on a decision long enough that I know and will remember the reasons I made that decision, I do not end up regretting it. The 24-105 f/4 is 10 oz lighter and is more discrete with hood mounted, then you are likely in good shape. If you aren't using f/2.8 anymore, the 24-105 is a very good lens and 2-3 stops IS is nice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Johnston
The only consideration would have maybe have been to go to the 24-70 II.
I've had a 24-70 2.8 II for about 18 months on my 6D, I'd love to find a small high quality alternative for when I'm hiking - been toying with a 40mm pancake or the 35mm IS but feel I'd be missing out somehow.... I've trained my brain to leave the 16-35 & 70-300 at home though, felt like I was yomping with a full Royal Marines battle pack !
I started with a 1D3 and a 24-105 back in '07. Four months later, added a 70-200/2.8IS, and eight months after that added a 16-35/2.8II. Eight months after that, I rented the 24-70/2.8 and had to have it. Once I finally got it, the 24-105 moved to my wife's bag, which moved her 28-135 to the shelf, and I've never looked back. f/2.8 gives me so much artistic power, and stop-action benefits too. Plus, I feel like the 24-105 is a great lens but without any magic...even the old-model 24-70/2.8 has a certain sparkle to it.
Now that I've "gone Black Rapid" (none of our cameras have traditional straps now), I have occasionally grabbed the 24-105 for true one-lens no-bag adventures. Nonetheless, a 24-70/2.8II is on my wishlist, which will move the old model 24-70/2.8 to spare/remote duty.
Not to jack the thread, but.... I am thinking something similar w/ the 70-200 in its lens bag on my belt makes a pretty big spread - then again with a few more syllables and wayward thoughts I have my whole backpack :) ......Quote:
Originally Posted by peety3
My general assessment has been: the 24-105 is a great "starter" lens. Once one has a 70-200, especially if it's a f/2.8 model, I feel the 24-70 makes a lot more sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busted Knuckles
I got a 24-105 about 1.5 years ago in a 5D MKIII kit. it's alright. the IS enables me to shoot 1/25th or even a bit slower handheld and get decently sharp exposures most of the time, it's not too large and the focal length makes it suitable for just walking around. but I've never been wowed by anything in particular this lens does. it's just a nice generalist. if weight and size are your main concern, the 24-105 is a good answer. but personally I would suggest the 50mm 1.2 due to the superior images you can produce when merely walking around.
Like a lot of people I got the 24-105 as a kit lens with my 6D. I'd heard good and bad about it - but mostly good. If Bryan says it's one of his top recommendations, that's good enough for me. Plus at the time - the rebates were crazy - and I got the 6D with the 24-105 and a Pixma Pro with 13x19 paper for $2k. At the time that made the lens almost free!
The first copy was bad, but not quite bad enough that I thought something was entirely amiss at first. Luckily I did have 1 other lens (Sigma 70-200/2.8 OS) that wasn't a crop lens I could put onto the 6D to be sure it wasn't me, the camera or both. The Sigma was so much sharper it wasn't funny. Of course, a lot of people (not here) suggested I MFA the lens, and that it was normal. After putting it onto my 60D, and my Sigma 17-50 was so much sharper I thought that this was certainly not "to spec". So I returned it. When I received the new kit (Adorama said I had to send the whole thing back) all I can say is wow, what a difference. Now it compared with the Sigma. With some micro adjustment, it was wonderful.
Some months later I bought the EF 24-70/2.8 II when those crazy double dip rebates were happening. All I can say is that lens is everything it's cracked up to be. So many people have said that they've gotten rid of their 24-105 after they bought the new generation 24-70. And I have to say - why? Seriously more than once I've had to look at the EXIF data to be sure what lens I've shot with over the course of a few days. The 24-105 is just that good. Ok, when I do 1:1 comparison shoots on a tripod, yes, I can tell the difference. But I'm looking at the edges, and the CA is a little more pronounced. Certainly, things like color and the micro contrast is superior on the 24-70, but we're talking side-by-side comparisons.
Bottom line, if I'm grabbing the camera to run out of the house, the 24-105 is my lens of choice. There's not even a second where I doubt that decision. The 24-70 spends a lot more time in its little gray bag. The 24-105 is a little smaller, a little lighter and has a lot more reach. Unlike my 60, the 6D doesn't need f2.8 all the time. And after I micro-adjusted the 24-105, it is truly superb. If I had to make a decision one day and get rid of one of those 2 lenses... It wouldn't be an easy decision I tell you what.
Canon sometimes gets it right right out of the gate with some lenses. Most recently the 16-35/4L IS. And the old 17-40/4L. That's why they still make it! And of course, the 24-105. It's a classic. I'd be real interested if they decided to make a new version of this lens - but honestly, I don't think they can. The improvement in performance (IQ and IS) would only be incremental, and the price would be a lot higher.
So, I received my 24-105 a few days ago.
First Thoughts,
... I love this thing. This is only my second lens to ever have IS, and I can honestly say I didn't know what I was missing. Framing is easier, I can get shots of still subjects in lower light that I couldn't get before.
The lens is sharp, and since it was refurbished I got a new Canon Pinch Lens Cap.
The extra 30mm or so on the long end over the 24-70 I have used more than I thought already. I had the opportunity to do some Physician portraits at the end of the week, and shot them all at 105mm. I was using off camera speedlights to light the images and was shooting f8-f11, so no real advantage was to be found if I had used my 24-70 (for the aperture i mean), but once again, the IS just seemed to make framing and really nailing the focus so much easier.
The image sharpness, the color, the contrast were all terrific. The difference in my short experience between these qualities when compared to the same on the 24-70 are essentially equivocal.
I can't say enough about how happy I am that I got this lens. There is a reason Bryan's review said "if I[Bryan] had only one lens, this would be the one." I am in the same boat. It just does so much.
Bonus: Wife said I can keep the 24-70.... Just in case.