User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  2
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 26

Thread: Canon 24-105L f/4 IS Lens

  1. #1
    Member TAYLORW619's Avatar
    Join Date
    14 Mar 2010
    Location
    Newcastle
    Posts
    96
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Canon 24-105L f/4 IS Lens

    Hi all,

    I would really like to buy a Canon 24-105 f/4 lens in the next week or so. I can get this lens new for about $1,100 without a filter.

    I am worried about buying this lens and then a new one coming out soon superseding this current one. With all the rumors going around of the 24-70 2.8 IS is it even worth it to buy the 24-105? From what I have heard this is a great lens and a great investment.

    I would like to use it for general photography, using it as a walkabout lens and also use it for a formal I have coming up.

    Would you recommend to buy this at the current time? I'm just not 100% sure I should get it.

    Thanks,
    Taylor

  2. #2
    Account Closed
    Join Date
    22 Nov 2009
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    174
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    All I can say is, if a 24-70 2.8 IS comes out soon it will be much more expensive.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    06 Jan 2009
    Location
    Hobart, Tasmania
    Posts
    118
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It's a great lens, so if that's your budget then get it. It gets great reviews, and is a great walkabout lens for the money.

    The addition of IS to the 24-70 2.8 is well overdue, but the 24-70 is more expensive.

    I tossed up between these two lenses when I got my 24-105 and ended up getting the 24-105 because the zoom range was more important to me than the extra stop of aperture (which the IS sort of compensates for) and marginally better image quality. Plus, the 24-70 was over my budget.

    They're both great lenses, it comes down to what you want (focal length? f/2.8?) and how much you're prepared to spend. You won't get the 24-70 (with/without IS) for $1100.
    Canon 5DmkII + stuff

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    06 Jul 2009
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    559
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    If there is a 24-70mm 2.8 IS coming out it wont probably be on shelves until end of the year at the earilest. Plus it will be at least double the price of the 24 - 105 if not more. Also the 24-105 won't be replaced anytime soon I'd imagine either, definately haven't heard any rumors about that.

    As far as the lens go, it's brilliant. I own one and its a really wonderful lens to use. Good range, great build, not too heavy, it's a bit of a no brainer for a good all round lens. The only thing is what body are you going to use it on? On a crop sensor it isn't very wide, so you'd probably like something in the 10-20mm range if you were used to using something that started at 18mm, food for thought.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    12 Jul 2010
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    274
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I would buy the one available now if I can afford it, and wouldn't wait for the IS version.
    Some people can live without IS (or VR) and save themselves good money by not wasting it on marketing hype (IS and VR should be FREE, as part of lens improvement...) and get themselves another good second lens instead.
    There was a time multi coating on lenses were the leading edge in lens design and the manufacturers just put them on without much marketing hype. IS and VR should be like this.
    Last edited by RaoulIsidro; 15-07-2010 at 2:32pm.
    "The greatest camera in the world is the one you hold in your hands when shit happens." ©2007 Raoul Isidro

  6. #6
    Member
    Threadstarter
    TAYLORW619's Avatar
    Join Date
    14 Mar 2010
    Location
    Newcastle
    Posts
    96
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thanks for everyones opinion.

    I think I will buy the 24-105, it just seems more practical and useful. I would miss the 2.8 aperture but I don't think it is worth it for the extra cash.

    Any extra opinions are always welcome.

    Thanks,
    Taylor

  7. #7
    Account Closed
    Join Date
    05 Jul 2010
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Taylor, the 24-105 will suit you to a tee.

    Good luck with your purchase, and look forward to seeing some of your images from this lens

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    28 Aug 2008
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    1,913
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    good choice mate

    instead of forking possibly 2 grand or more for the new 24-70 IS - whenever that comes out - its a lot more flexible to buy the 24-105 as well as 1 or 2 fast primes for the same amount of money, a much better alternative to cover daylight to low light etc. Believe it or not, an f2.8 aperture doesnt cut it sometimes for low light work

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    06 Jan 2009
    Location
    Hobart, Tasmania
    Posts
    118
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by JM Tran View Post
    good choice mate

    instead of forking possibly 2 grand or more for the new 24-70 IS - whenever that comes out - its a lot more flexible to buy the 24-105 as well as 1 or 2 fast primes for the same amount of money, a much better alternative to cover daylight to low light etc. Believe it or not, an f2.8 aperture doesnt cut it sometimes for low light work
    I was going to say myself, these days I would prefer to get a fast prime over a fast zoom - if wide aperture is what you want/need, primes are wider and sharper when wide (generally).

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    19 Mar 2009
    Location
    Hamilton Brisbane
    Posts
    71
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    great lens good for a walk around too. you can sit around waiting for the next newest best thing or buy something out now that is proven
    |Gear|Canon 5D MkII + Grip |Canon 7D + Grip |Canon 580EXII x 3|Canon EF Fisheye 15mm F/2.8 |Canon EF 16-35mm F/2.8L Mk II | |Canon EF 400mm F/5.6L |Canon EF 70-200mm F/2.8L IS |Canon EF 24-105mm F/4 L IS |Canon EF 100mm F/2.8 Macro |Canon EF 50mm F/1.8 MK II |Sekonic L-358 Lightmeter |Manfrotto 055XPROB Tripod + 322RC2 Head |Manfrotto 628B Monopod | Wireless Remote Flash Trigger PT-04 CN & 5 Receivers| Plus Too Much More (Filters Ect)
    Chris | http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=119829358036800 | http://www.flickr.com/photos/chrisprendergast |

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    07 Jul 2008
    Location
    Riverland
    Posts
    560
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Get the 24-105 -- it is great and will always be a great lens. It was my first lens, and then I bought the Sigma 30 f/1.4 for a fast lens. The two worked well together.
    I have other f/2.8 lenses now -- just for fun
    Graham

    Canon- EOS 7D with BG-E7 grip, 10-22 f/3.5-4.5, 24-105L f/4; Speedlites 580EX II, 550EX, 430EX.
    Sigma- 18-50 f/2.8, 50-150 f/2.8, 120-300 f/2.8, 50-500 f/4.5-6.3 APO DG OS, 30 f/1.4, 150 f/2.8 macro, Sigma APO 1.4x and 2x Teleconverters;
    Kenko Extension tubes; Benro- M-257 tripod & B-1 ballhead; Wimberley- Sidekick.
    Home made "bag" on wheels; heaps and heaps of other minor stuff!

  12. #12
    Ausphotography Veteran rwg717's Avatar
    Join Date
    29 Jun 2009
    Location
    Southern NSW
    Posts
    3,569
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Being the owner of both these lenses, I can certainly recommend both (24-70 non IS) but in your situation the 24-105 is the way to go. Although the 24-105 is not as "fast" as the 24-70L f2.8 it is a lot more flexible.

    Lenses (esp. Canon's L ones) are things that last a very long time, camera bodies come and go and you put them in a corner and use the new model, but you KEEP the lens and since Canon have put such a large amount of work into the EF mount, I think it will be a long time before any change is made to this system.

    Go with the 24-105 now and at $1100 it's pretty good value and think about the new 24-70IS later when some reviews have been done on it, after all, who knows yet, this model might turn out to be a lemon

    Richard
    I've been wrong before!! Happy to have constructive criticism though.Gear used Canon 50D, 7D & 5DMkII plus expensive things hanging off their fronts and of course a "nifty fifty".

  13. #13
    Ausphotography Regular bobt's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Jun 2009
    Location
    Blackburn
    Posts
    1,724
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by TAYLORW619 View Post
    Would you recommend to buy this at the current time? I'm just not 100% sure I should get it.
    I bought one a couple of weeks ago, after extensive research. From what I have read and heard this is the best general purpose lens out there, and thus far I'm not disappointed. there will always be 'better" things around the corner, but if you approach life like that you'll never eat, get married or have a life - you'll still be waiting for the next great thing!

    Oh yeah ... the price is $1600, I paid $1200 - so $1100 is a great deal!

  14. #14
    Member
    Threadstarter
    TAYLORW619's Avatar
    Join Date
    14 Mar 2010
    Location
    Newcastle
    Posts
    96
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thanks everyone for sharing your opinions as this has given me the confidence I need to purchase.

    I do have the 'nifty fifty' 50mm 1.8 so if there is low light I shouldn't really have any dramas.

    My lens line-up will now be

    Canon 50mm f/1.8 Canon 24-105mm f/4 L Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS MK1

    Also considering a lens for sports, which I am investigating now.

    Thanks,
    Taylor

  15. #15
    Member
    Threadstarter
    TAYLORW619's Avatar
    Join Date
    14 Mar 2010
    Location
    Newcastle
    Posts
    96
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Oh, and also I am using a 7D. Even with the crop sensor I think that the 24mm range will still be plenty wide for me at the 38mm conversion. The minimum focal length at the moment is my 50mm and that converted on crop is 80mm so there is a massive difference.

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    06 Jan 2009
    Location
    Hobart, Tasmania
    Posts
    118
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    You'll only want wider really if you want to do a lot of landscape work IMO, and I took some nice landscapes with the 24-105 on a crop body before I upgraded to FF:


    (this was later cropped to remove the sky, but I posted this so you can see what 24mm looks like on a 1.6x sensor)

    It's a great lens, there's a reason it's sold as a "kit" lens with the 5D! Enjoy the new toy
    Last edited by Jimbo; 16-07-2010 at 11:11am.

  17. #17
    Member
    Threadstarter
    TAYLORW619's Avatar
    Join Date
    14 Mar 2010
    Location
    Newcastle
    Posts
    96
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thanks for the example.

    I only intend to do a little bit of landscape work so it won't be an issue

  18. #18
    Member
    Threadstarter
    TAYLORW619's Avatar
    Join Date
    14 Mar 2010
    Location
    Newcastle
    Posts
    96
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hi everyone,

    Just before I buy this, I would like to check one more thing.

    After reading a few threads, it makes me think would I be better off buying primes instead of zooms? The thread with the 135 f/2 shows great results. This would be a very expensive path though wouldn't it?

    Thanks,
    Taylor

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    06 Jan 2009
    Location
    Hobart, Tasmania
    Posts
    118
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think it's good to have a good zoom for the versatility - if I were going on holiday, quite often I wouldn't want to be carrying a bag full of lenses. That being said, my understanding is that primes are generally sharper and have better colour rendition, although these days it can be splitting hairs. To get L series primes that perform better than L series zooms, you're looking at big bucks - a lot of the top L series primes are $2000+ even through the grey market.

    Personally, I'd have the 24-105 and then consider acquiring primes for specific purposes. For example, I'm currently considering (dreaming?) of the Zeiss Distagon 21mm f/2.8 or the Zeiss Distagon 35mm f/2 for landscapes. I'd like to get Canon's 85mm f/1.8 for portraits (quite an affordable lens actually, but not an L).

    I don't think you'll be disappointed by the zoom. There's nothing wrong with having primes but it is more expensive to get a range of focal lengths at the same optical quality.

  20. #20
    Ausphotography Regular bobt's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Jun 2009
    Location
    Blackburn
    Posts
    1,724
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by TAYLORW619 View Post
    buying primes instead of zooms? This would be a very expensive path though wouldn't it?
    In a word.... "Yes".

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •