Opinions: Ditch my 24-105 f/4 L for what? + poll

**digital808** · 01-31-2010, 11:27 PM

Wassup Jordan! I too have a dilemma. I need to find another lens to
compliment my 70-200 f2.8 IS. I was leaning towards the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8.. I was looking into the 24-105 f/4. The only down side to the EF-S is that for the price......it's not an "L" lens. Let me know what you decide. If you decide to get the 17-55........let us know how it is!

**Keith B** · 02-01-2010, 02:27 AM

My experience with the 24-105 and 24-70 showed the 24-105 to be slightly sharper in the center but the 24-70 is much sharper in the corners and handles CA way better on the outer portions of the frame.

Crop users will probably say the 24-105 is superior, but FF users will probably prefer the edge to edge sharpness and better controlled CA.

**Jordan** · 02-04-2010, 05:18 PM

WEll digital,

The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM is practically an L-series lens... it's just not given to title, presumably due to the fact that it's EF-S and there are no EF-S L lenses. It has many of the L parts on the inside. It doesn't feel quite as solid of a build as the L, but other than that and the red ring, it basically is. Optically it's GORGEOUS! I rented it the other day and WOW... I really think I'm getting it. I just sold my EF 24-105 f/4 L IS USM last night and am happy because that will go toward the 17-55. I also have a 70-200 2.8 IS and I think between those two... most everything is covered. I also have a 60mm Macro, the 50 1.4, and two ultra wide angles... a Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 (which will arrive today) and a Tokina 10-17mm fisheye. Between those, and my other lenses... I think I'm covered!

**digital808** · 02-05-2010, 03:04 AM

I just got mines! It is "optically" awesome but the "dust" issue is a problem. I notice I have some specs under the front element. Less than a day old. Because of this, I'm gonna return it. I think in the long run.....it will become a problem. I've read too much stories about this. I don't want to take a chance.

**Chris White** · 02-05-2010, 07:45 AM

I hear a lot of "dust" complaints, but I have never had any issue with dust, and it has been my workhorse for over a year. I have both the 17-55 and the 24-70, but if I could only have one, it would unquestionably be the 17-55. it is truly outstanding and where it really shines is in the low light. I cropped the image below from an image I took the Sunday night before Christmas looking at the decorated village with the family. I hand held this shot at 1/25.

[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.26.60/DPP_5F00_0046_2D00_1.JPG0164-u-crop.JPG[/img]

50D, EF-S 17-55mm IS USM, 1/25, f/2.8, ISO 1600, cropped with DPP

I could not have done this with my 24-70 -- I can not hand hold at 1/25 with sharp results, and certainly not with a 24-105, ISO too high with my 50D. this image is truly sharp at original size. You can see from Mrs. Chris the truism that IS does not stop movement.

Chris

**Tony Printezis** · 02-05-2010, 09:46 AM

Originally Posted by Jordan

but I'm starting to realize that the image clarity isn't up to par with what I want in my photography.

I'm surprised you don't think the 24-105 is sharp. It's one of my sharpest lenses. Yes, it's not as sharp as my 70-200 f/4 IS, but keep in mind that the 24-105 is a wide-to-tele 4x zoom, whereas the 70-200 is a tele-to-tele 3x zoom. And, yes, it is a bit soft in the long end, but I personally appreciate the extra reach when I don't want to carry the 70-200.

Originally Posted by Jordan

I keep saying, an EF 24-70 2.8 L-series with IS would be KILLER!

...at probably $2,000 and with 50% more weight than the 24-105. Nah, I'll stick to my 24-105 me thinks. [

]

Originally Posted by Jordan

The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM is practically an L-series lens...

No, it's not. Yes, IQ is supposed to be very good. But build quality seems to be similar to the 10-22, which I've always found to be subpar for $700 (and at $1,000 for the 17-55 I'd expect nothing but outstanding build quality). I recently dropped my 24-105 from a non-trivial height; it just carried on working and hasn't shown any issues since. I'm sure the 17-55 would have ended up in pieces...

Originally Posted by Chris White

I can not hand hold at 1/25 with sharp results, and certainly not with a 24-105,

Chris, I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here. Why if you can handhold the 24-70 at a certain shutter speed, you cannot do the same with the 24-105? The IS on the latter is wonderful. I've got down to 1/4sec with it on a few occasions and I managed to get great and sharp results. Yes, I had to shoot a few frames to make sure I get at least one good one, but without IS I would have got no good ones.

1/4 sec:

http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA---Air/Lockheed-SR-71A-Blackbird/1574849/L/

1/6 sec:

http://www.airliners.net/photo/US-Airways/Embraer-ERJ-190-100IGW-190AR/1625747/L/

Tony

**Chris White** · 02-05-2010, 03:48 PM

Originally Posted by Tony Printezis

Chris, I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here. Why if you can handhold the 24-70 at a certain shutter speed, you cannot do the same with the 24-105? The IS on the latter is wonderful. I've got down to 1/4sec with it on a few occasions and I managed to get great and sharp results. Yes, I had to shoot a few frames to make sure I get at least one good one, but without IS I would have got no good ones.

oNotPromoteQF />
<w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables />
<w:SnapToGridInCell />
<w:WrapTextWithPunct />
<w:UseAsianBreakRules />
<w

ontGrowAutofit />
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark />
<w

ontVertAlignCellWithSp />
<w

ontBreakConstrainedForcedTables />
<w

ontVertAlignInTxbx />
<w:Word11KerningPairs />
<w:CachedColBalance />
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math" />
<m:brkBin m:val="before" />
<m:brkBinSub m:val=" " />
<m:smallFrac m:val="off" />
<m:dispDef />
<m:lMargin m:val="0" />
<m:rMargin m:val="0" />
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup" />
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440" />
<m:intLim m:val="subSup" />
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr" />
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]-->
<style>

</style>


Tony, you do have a point with the 24-105, since I do not have any
experience with it I was making a calculated leap that I would lose some
quality at slower shutter speeds that the IS would not help me with. This photo
is with my 17-55, which is tied with my 70-200 2.8 IS as my favorite lens; my
keeper rate with both is in the range of 99%. Usually images with those two I
choose not to keep are the "carpenter" and not the "tool"
to use the old saying. I find that with my 24-70 my keeper rate declines significantly
after about 1/100, hand held. Shooting my daughter's basketball games, there is
generally enough light to make the 24-70 very usable without IS. Thus, the
reason I have 2.8's vs. the 24-105 IS is that I am frequently trying to keep up
with moving subjects. Moreover, although I am sure I could get great background
with the 24-105 during the games, the players are moving too quickly for the
f/4 given available light.

Jordan's thread start was his desire to get rid of his 24-105, which he did.
Personally, I have not heard anyone displeased with that lens, until Jordan. I,
like so many, was debating between it and the 24-70 before I got the 24-70. His
main choice it seemed to most of us was the 17-55 or the 24-70. I have both of
these, I like both and I use both for different things. If I could only keep
one or had to get one first, it would be the 17-55.

Having said that if Canon indeed comes out with a 24-70 IS I would look to
trade them both towards it. [

]<span><o

></o

>

In other threads, however, others whose opinions I respect have made a case
that Canon has other needs before the excellent and relatively new 24-70 gets a
rework.

Chris

**Jordan** · 02-05-2010, 04:01 PM

Well said Chris!

I want to make clear that I don't dislike the EF 24-105 f/4 L IS USM, but rather that I would prefer to have a $1000 tied up in a lens that I can make some serious money with (i.e. portraits, weddings, other events etc...) and though the pictures from the 24-105 aren't bad... they are not the quality that I would get from the other lenses... especially in relatively low light. Because of that alone, I would prefer to go with a lens that is faster and a little sharper. I would love to have the 24-105 still... it's a great walk-around lens and vacation lens and such, but I just think that it's $1000 that I could put toward something that will make me more money. I did indeed sell that lens and though I'm sad to see it go, I'm happy to look toward the future and probably put that money into an EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM. The build quality of that lens certainly isn't L-build, but the IQ is INSANE. I baby my lenses... I'm not a National Geographic photographer who is laying in my and trekking through deserts... so I figure it's no big deal. Also, the 24-105 is said to have dust issues (as I think someone above commented). I have heard this from several places, and though I haven't experienced it with mine, it is another point for the "sell the lens" side of the debate. Please don't think I don't like that lens though, I do... just figure my money can be put to better use elsewhere!

- Jordan

www.freshphotohawaii.com

**Tony Printezis** · 02-06-2010, 06:05 PM

Originally Posted by Chris White

I was making a calculated leap that I would lose some
quality at slower shutter speeds that the IS would not help me with.

Originally Posted by Chris White

Shooting my daughter's basketball games, there is
generally enough light to make the 24-70 very usable without IS.

Originally Posted by Chris White

Moreover, although I am sure I could get great background
with the 24-105 during the games, the players are moving too quickly for the
f/4 given available light.

Chris, yes, I actually totally agree with you. If you want to shoot fast moving subjects in low light (as you do), the IS will not help you therefore the f/2.8 lens is the one for you. If you want to shoot stationary subjects in low light (as I do), the IS will definitely be of great help and the f/4 IS lens is the one for you (actually: for me!). This is I think the best way to determine which of the two one really needs.

Originally Posted by Chris White

Having said that if Canon indeed comes out with a 24-70 IS I would look to
trade them both towards it.

Despite what I said earlier, yes, if the price is right I might actually consider it too! I think I'll eventually move to a FF body, so another reason I might consider switching to a potential 24-70 f/2.8 IS would be if the corners on a FF body would be better than with the 24-105.

Originally Posted by Chris White

In other threads, however, others whose opinions I respect have made a case
that Canon has other needs before the excellent and relatively new 24-70 gets a
rework.

I wouldn't be surprised if Canon upgrades the 24-70 soon (and IS would be a non-brainer for it!). The 70-200 f/2.8 IS is not that old and Canon already has a replacement lined up... and the 24-70 is a very popular lens. Personally, there are some other lenses I'd rather see upgraded instead (e.g., 50 1.4 II with a proper USM motor, 17-40 II with better borders on FF, 400 5.6 IS), but a 24-70 replacement with IS would not surprised me at all!

Regards,

Tony

**Keith B** · 02-06-2010, 07:23 PM

Originally Posted by Tony Printezis

Originally Posted by Chris White

Having said that if Canon indeed comes out with a 24-70 IS I would look to
trade them both towards it.

Despite what I said earlier, yes, if the price is right I might actually consider it too! I think I'll eventually move to a FF body, so another reason I might consider switching to a potential 24-70 f/2.8 IS would be if the corners on a FF body would be better than with the 24-105.

The corners on the current 24-70 are already considerably sharper than 24-105 on FF. Much less CA too.

Thread: Opinions: Ditch my 24-105 f/4 L for what? + poll

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Display

Re: Opinions: Ditch my 24-105 f/4 L for what? + poll

Re: Opinions: Ditch my 24-105 f/4 L for what? + poll

Re: Opinions: Ditch my 24-105 f/4 L for what? + poll

Re: Opinions: Ditch my 24-105 f/4 L for what? + poll

Re: Opinions: Ditch my 24-105 f/4 L for what? + poll

Re: Opinions: Ditch my 24-105 f/4 L for what? + poll

Re: Opinions: Ditch my 24-105 f/4 L for what? + poll

Re: Opinions: Ditch my 24-105 f/4 L for what? + poll

Re: Opinions: Ditch my 24-105 f/4 L for what? + poll

Re: Opinions: Ditch my 24-105 f/4 L for what? + poll

Posting Permissions