:think: :think: :think:
Have you tried all the IS f4 lens in low light without tripod ? It work ?
,,,,,,,,
boy2man said:
Have you tried all the IS f4 lens in low light without tripod ? It work ?
,,,,,,,,
24-105L... is it worth the money?
- Thread starter Hoky
- Start date
- Status
satay16 said:hmmm..... .just wondering.
the 28-135 IS is much cheaper and from reviews i had seen so far, it is not bad a lens. so what's the main thing keeping pp back from buying it rather than the 24-105L? (other than having an L lens to show off)
i dont have the 28-135 but i read some reviews where it lost out in sharpness to the 24-70L. so i guess thats why ppl are going for the 24-70L or 24-105L.
madmacs said:
24-70mm vs 24-105mm.. other than the f2.8 vs f4 IS .. which is better for night shoot?
f4IS ? :think:
I beg to differ...f2.8 does produce a much more blurred background than f4 at the same focal lengtth,shinken said:
same subject, same distance.
EUGSEOW said:
Wa really can get that cheap? Even Oracle is selling at S$2020....you sure the difference so much?
EUGSEOW said:
I just checked YGDragon website, it's SGD19++ converted. Japan's prices can range up to a few hundred dollars in difference. You really need to know the exact shop to get from.
Yes, well worth the money. I've had the lens for almost 4 months and have been very satisfied with the results. It's fine (for me) as a walk around lens since I prefer close crops / fill-the-frame shots. The weight is fine too, once you get used to it. My only two complaints are: (1) it's not wide enough; and (2) it can attract attention, especially with the lens hood attached.
If you are shooting at night, you should be using a tripod and probably shooting at slow shutter speeds. If you are using a tripod, the IS on the 24-105 is irrelevant and should be turned off in any event. The larger aperture size on the 24-70 means that you can (1) shoot 2x as fast on the 24-70 than on the 24-105; and (2) get more significant bokeh and thinner DOF.
matthewgjs said:
If you are shooting at night, you should be using a tripod and probably shooting at slow shutter speeds. If you are using a tripod, the IS on the 24-105 is irrelevant and should be turned off in any event. The larger aperture size on the 24-70 means that you can (1) shoot 2x as fast on the 24-70 than on the 24-105; and (2) get more significant bokeh and thinner DOF.
ShutterBugL said:
The 24-105 will definitely be on my shopping list once I upgrade to FF.... It's just not wide enough for my shooting style with my current 1.6x crop.
if you're shooting photos for critical applications, like for jobs and not for hobby, you need to know that this lens vignettes very badly.
to make it useful, you need to consider spending another $500 on DXO to correct it.
DXO does a great job, but that raises to total cost by quite alot.
cheers
to make it useful, you need to consider spending another $500 on DXO to correct it.
DXO does a great job, but that raises to total cost by quite alot.
cheers
saperboy said:
isn't this what I just said ? post processing is required, except the distortion and vignetting can't be easily fixed, and I'm recommending DxO as an effective way to deal with it.
I think the idea here is not that it can be done, but that you need to spend $$ to get it done. Same as saying that you can drive as fast as a F1 racer, you only need a F1 car.saperboy said:
Think you should check out some raw/jpeg debates. Those pros likely to shoot raw are those shooting in studios, and they wouldn't be touching the 24-105 with in a studio I think. Not those doing events.
- Status
Similar threads
