24-105 L - good choice ????

[mikew09]

Looking at purchasing a 24-105L in the next couple of weeks. I am looking for a good walk around lens and from what I have read this is the lens to get - it cetainly is the focal lenght I am after.

I really like my Tamron 17-50 but just find it too short for as a general walk around. My buddy just bought this lens and I had a quick play ith it on my 50D and it appears to be a very sharp and nice lens - just doing the need full and checking with those experienced with this lens that it is up to the expectations of the reviewsI have read.

Cheers,

Mike

[pmack]

good lens, though 24mm on a cropped body is not all that wide so not the best walkaround lens IMO. I tee'd mine up with a 10-22mm and it worked fairly well.

[Scotty72]

good lens, though 24mm on a cropped body is not all that wide so not the best walkaround lens IMO. I tee'd mine up with a 10-22mm and it worked fairly well.

Other than the fact it is not overly wide, it is a brilliant lens.

[Tricky]

Agree with Pmack - great lens, but on a cropped sensor body not quite wide enough on its own... paired with a 10-22, its a very versatile combo. On a full frame, I'd imagine it would be perfect.

[Xenedis]

It is a very capable lens, and has a good and useful focal range.

The only negative thing (depending on your viewpoint) that can be said about it is that it's only f/4, and on an APS-C camera, 24mm isn't very wide. The hood is also useless at doing what lens hoods were designed to do, other than at the 24mm focal length. The hood is designed for that focal length, so it's quite useless at 105mm.

If you don't want or need a one-stop brighter f/2.8 aperture, and/or you don't want a wide view (on an APS-C camera its framing is equivalent to around 38mm), it won't fail to deliver. It's sharp, well built and priced sensibly.

[mikew09]

Hmm, it is interesting comments around being not wide enough, maybe I have the wrong idea as to a walk about lens as I find my 17-50 a little short at times for what I want in a walk around.

I was toying with the idea of a wide angle before looking at the 24-105... Was considering the Tamron SP AF 10-24 Wide angle but though I would get more use out of the 24-105 as my Tammy 17-50 serves me well for landscape.

[pmack]

The hood is also useless at doing what lens hoods were designed to do, other than at the 24mm focal length. The hood is designed for that focal length, so it's quite useless at 105mm.

i rarely use hoods, so not too sure why you say it's useless at 105mm, is it because it's not deep enough?

[Xenedis]

Well, I'm a seascaper and I shoot my 'scapes almost exclusively qt 16mm (full-frame), so for me, 24mm (even real 24mm) isn't wide enough. :-)

For a "walk-around" lens, the 24-105 will suit. It's not ultra-wide, but I'd prefer to have the true 24mm framing than a crop. It comes down to personal preference.

[Xenedis]

i rarely use hoods

It's sensible to use hoods, because they:

1. reduce or eliminate flare;
2. increase contrast; and
3. protect the business end of the lens from impact damage.

so not too sure why you say it's useless at 105mm, is it because it's not deep enough?

Bingo. You'll notice that telephoto lenses have deep hoods. The longer the focal length, the deeper the hood.

On the 24-105, the hood attaches to the end of the lens, which happens to be the part of the lens which extends from the barrel, so no matter what focal length, the distance between the objective element and the end of the hood will always be the same.

On the 24-70/2.8L, the hood attaches to the lens barrel, and not the rim of the lens which extends and contracts.

The 24-70 uses a "reverse-zoom" feature, where the lens is physically longest at its shortest focal length. To zoom out to 24mm, the barrel extends. To zoom in to 70mm, the barrel contracts.

Because the hood is not attached to the moving part of the barrel, when zooming out to 24mm, the objective element extends towards the end of the lens hood, and is positioned at a suitable distance from the edge of the lens hood to match the 24mm focal length.

When the lens is zoomed in to 70mm, the objective element is recessed deeply, and the hood therefore provides a greater depth suitable for that focal length.

This is unique to the 24-70; no other zoom lens with an extending barrel (including the 24-105) in the Canon EF lens lineup incorporates this clever design feature.

Because of the lack of this design in the 24-105, its hood is only useful (for preventing flare and increasing contrast) at 24mm. It is a shallow hood, meaning that at 105mm, it is not useful or suitable for the focal length.

[mikew09]

Well, I'm a seascaper and I shoot my 'scapes almost exclusively qt 16mm (full-frame), so for me, 24mm (even real 24mm) isn't wide enough. :-)

For a "walk-around" lens, the 24-105 will suit. It's not ultra-wide, but I'd prefer to have the true 24mm framing than a crop. It comes down to personal preference.

Hmmm - Now I am starting to question myself if 24 mm is too wide :-). I have asked my mate to bring his back in this week so we can go and play again.

Thanks for the info.

[Mircula]

Hey, interesting thread.

I think as well that the 24 on cropped is not wide enough, but that always depends on what you want to shoot while "walking around"...

Another question, what other options are there for the same quality and focal lengths as the 24-105 just with a bit of a wider end?

[mikew09]

Hey, interesting thread.

I think as well that the 24 on cropped is not wide enough, but that always depends on what you want to shoot while "walking around"...

Another question, what other options are there for the same quality and focal lengths as the 24-105 just with a bit of a wider end?

yep, good question. Interested myself.

[TOM]

24mm on most cropped sensors is about a 35mm equivelant in a full frame. 35mm, along with 50mm are the two most commonly used focal lengths of all times......perfect for general/street/documentary photography. I hardly even shoot wider than 35mm and longer than 75mm, but that's irrelevant, it depends on how YOU see.

[mikew09]

Hmmm - actually glad I started this thread. Now I do take a fair bit of landscape / country style photos and I think that is my prefered gene but like most I am still trying to discover myself and photography preference. With the talk about not being wide enough and such now I am wondering if I should not go the other direction.
I have the 70-200L, my much loved Tammy SP AF17-50, a 50mm Nifty - hmmm all on the longer end for my cropped sensor 50D.
I was in Teds today having this discussion and spoke about the newish Tamron SP AF 10-24 wide angle lens. Have looks at some reviews and it seems to rate pretty well.

Anyone had any experience with this sucker - it is going to be either the 24-105 whcih nows seems to be to much over lap with what I have or the Tamron 10-24.

[TassieSnapper]

get it. I have it. I love it. Its an awesoem lens.

[Xenedis]

Hmmm - actually glad I started this thread. Now I do take a fair bit of landscape / country style photos and I think that is my prefered gene but like most I am still trying to discover myself and photography preference. With the talk about not being wide enough and such now I am wondering if I should not go the other direction.

What this says to me is that you haven't defined the 'problem', so therefore you shouldn't try to implement a 'solution'.

Unless you know what you want, and can identify a gear-based shortcoming that is preventing you from achieving what you want, it doesn't make a lot of sense to start spending money on gear. You seem to be fairly well covered as far as focal lengths, so my advice is to keep exploring your photography, and once you find a gap your gear cannot address, look into a solution.

I hope this helps.

[jeffde]

24-105 is a great portrait lens but as above not a wide angle on a crop sensor - Re hoods even at 105 it eliminates some flare which can increase contrast - thats why they provide them and i use it all the time when outside. IMO

[TOM]

sorry, didn't know that you had those lenses currently, so now I'm not sure what you're hoping to acheive with the 24-105? you have that range covered. wide angle lenses are designed to get you closer, not to fit as much in as possible. study some classic landscape shots, look at Mr Adams portfolia, and decide whether you need that super wide angle lens. i agree with Xenedis, you easily go out and buy heaps of gear, and lenses a common 'want', but you really need to develop a style, then you can go hell for leather on the exotic glass. an experienced photographer will often use only two or three main focal lengths for almost their whole work, and this can sometimes be covered with one zoom lens if you like to shoot them.

[mikew09]

What this says to me is that you haven't defined the 'problem', so therefore you shouldn't try to implement a 'solution'.

Unless you know what you want, and can identify a gear-based shortcoming that is preventing you from achieving what you want, it doesn't make a lot of sense to start spending money on gear. You seem to be fairly well covered as far as focal lengths, so my advice is to keep exploring your photography, and once you find a gap your gear cannot address, look into a solution.

I hope this helps.

Good advise I think, pretty much how I started looking at this today as the thread gave me need to think around this. Like you say, I considered today that 24-105 is just an overlay of what I already have to a degree, so gave a little more thought to what I am mainly photographing and the only short fall I seem to have is a wide angle for landscape, and quite right you are - do I really need to spend the money at this point for my style of landscape photography.

I also read tonight comments around whether a wide angle is really warranteed for landscapes - helpful, ta.

[mikew09]

Just like to say thanks to all who have commented - the comments have changed my thought process a bit, especially around 24mm on a cropped sensor and whether I am really going to get the benefit against the cost of this great lens.