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
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.
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>
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.
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.
[:O] How many lenses do you have??? [:P]
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
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote