24-105L... is it worth the money?

[fWord]

Has the price of this lens come down substantially since its first release? Or is it holding it's value well and attracting a crowd of its own despite the cost? In the past I practically ignored the announcement of this new lens, but after reading some reviews of it recently, I see that there is indeed a reason to get excited about it...the IS, weather sealing and range sounds attractive. Although it isn't too wide on a 1.6X crop camera, it's comparable to many other fixed-lens cameras that have a focal length starting at 38mm, and is arguably 'walk-around'.

Only thing is, if on a budget, is it worth spending so much money on a DSLR and a lens just to get a 'walkaround' range? But image quality, responsiveness etc is stil a big advantage over a usual compact.

 

[mutabor]

I purchased 24-105 few days ago from CP. The price was $2150 (cash payment). I really like the lens, bought it to replace my 17-85mm and there is noticeable difference in the pictures quality.

 

[fWord]

I purchased 24-105 few days ago from CP. The price was $2150 (cash payment). I really like the lens, bought it to replace my 17-85mm and there is noticeable difference in the pictures quality.

It looked very interesting and I was considering this at one stage. Seems like the price has not come down much. The last one in the price list here was $2200.

 

[Bug]

Considering the lens too. FYI- There is a MO for the lens @ $2050.

 

[fWord]

Considering the lens too. FYI- There is a MO for the lens @ $2050.

Thanks for the heads-up. Out of money at the moment though, so I'll have to save for a long more time.

 

[Hoky]

Considering the lens too. FYI- There is a MO for the lens @ $2050.

I was quoted by AP for $2120 only (incl GST).

 

[weekh]

Just buy lah!

Else u'll be missing the shots possibly taken with this lens.

The question is are your images worth the price difference.....

 

[shinken]

weekh : *clap clap clap*

I see you post photos taken by LX1, I feel like buying LX1. I see you post photos taken by 24-105, I feel like buying the lens. Amazing eye you have. I hope I can acquire a fraction of your capabilities someday.

 

[weekh]

Go and buy this lens and the LX1.

 

[CSlye]

Hi,

Bought this lens recently and I'm lovin it!

Cheers!

 

[holeinone]

If anyone is looking for this amazing lens, I am selling a brand new one in B&S. :thumbsup:

 

[DeltaOmega]

I'm not going to be able to tell you whether you'll think it's worth it, but I can tell you that I upgraded from the 28-135 IS to the 24-105 L IS. I was thinking long and hard about whether to choose the 24-70 or the 24-105 for my walkaround lens, and I went for the range and convenience. I am happy with the quality the lens produces as well.

Is it worth S$2190? For me it is, but you have to make up your own mind.

By the way, If you'd like to buy the 28-135 IS for a reasonable price, I've got a used one for sale

 

[madmacs]

Ah! Damien, of course...
The 24-105 has IS. That will help 3 stops. You still want f/2.8 for that?

i would go for 24-70 f/2.8 too. IS is just to help you hold the cam steady. not really important if you can find adequate support.

 

[holeinone]

The problem is most of the time, you wont be able to find adequate support. A heavy lens like the 24-70 will also mean that it takes greater effort to hold it steady.

Some people want the f2.8 for better dof but you can also get a nice blury background by shooting the subject at longer focal length, which the 24-105 will have 35mm more at the tele end.

 

[madmacs]

The problem is most of the time, you wont be able to find adequate support. A heavy lens like the 24-70 will also mean that it takes greater effort to hold it steady.

Some people want the f2.8 for better dof but you can also get a nice blury background by shooting the subject at longer focal length, which the 24-105 will have 35mm more at the tele end.

why not? you can always kneel and use one knee to support your arm/cam, or use lamppost, fence or tree. mind you long ago before the time of IS people were already getting sharp pics. it a matter of learning the right techniques.

of course if you often use the 70-105 range then 24-105 will be more suitable.

 

[weekh]

why not? you can always kneel and use one knee to support your arm/cam, or use lamppost, fence or tree. mind you long ago before the time of IS people were already getting sharp pics. it a matter of learning the right techniques.

of course if you often use the 70-105 range then 24-105 will be more suitable.

If u've all the time with the subject waiting for u, then u can slowly set up your tripod.
And using a lampost, fence or tree will mean having your perspective dictated.

IS has its credits, certainly helps and definately has and advantage over a non-IS.

Have said that, neither the 24-105 or 24-70 is perfect. I'm still waiting for a smaller and lighter f2.8 lens with IS in this zoom range.

That's why I liked the LX1 so much!

 

[JediForce4ever]

Weekh, are you using a FF camera?

 

[shinken]

Good answer.

But I can't keep buying whatever equipment that you use to create stunning photos

Sorry to OT yet again. But I'll cast my vote in favour of 24-105 as well. 24-70 is sharp, no doubt. Possibly sharper by many people's standard. F2.8 is also good. But 24-70 is also very heavy. The versatility is simply not there. For people who pay to shoot models, or just use their camera for some visit to sentosa, the weight is fine. But if we're talking about a whole day's mobile shoot, 24-70 is heavy. And the weight makes it difficult at the end of the day. Whatever added stability it gave becomes added burden.

weekh: you have a gallery? I think I'd pass the 24-105 and LX1 for now, and be contended with ogling at your gallery and trying to imitate your shots

 

[eng_keow]

Have you considered a Tamron SP AF24-135MM F/3.5-5.6 aspherical macro as a walkabout lens?

 

[madmacs]

If u've all the time with the subject waiting for u, then u can slowly set up your tripod.
And using a lampost, fence or tree will mean having your perspective dictated.

IS has its credits, certainly helps and definately has and advantage over a non-IS.

Have said that, neither the 24-105 or 24-70 is perfect. I'm still waiting for a smaller and lighter f2.8 lens with IS in this zoom range.

That's why I liked the LX1 so much!

so how did they do it in the old days?