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

[saperboy]

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.

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.

well if you're going to shoot in-studio you shouldn't be using this lens anyway... preferebly, you should be using prime lens.

 

[rueyloon]

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.

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.

well if you're going to shoot in-studio you shouldn't be using this lens anyway... preferebly, you should be using prime lens.

I'm starting to see a pattern in the way you reply !! lol
you're now saying the same exact thing that unseen is saying.

 

[saperboy]

I'm starting to see a pattern in the way you reply !! lol
you're now saying the same exact thing that unseen is saying.

^

well let me clear my point here... FOR ME I feel that this lens is worth it, but I can also say that this lens is not the GREATEST. It comes down to personal preference and personal opinion for liking and disliking this lens or any other lens. As a walk-about lens, again, FOR ME, this is quite a good lens to own. Now, when it comes in-studio shoot, FOR ME it is better to bring along a prime lens. Actually it always depends on the situation, lets not generalise things (just like the way you generalise my point of view just now), lens have their own uses and purposes, and we all already know this. This is my last post on this thread. That's my opinion and if anybody dislikes it, well tough, that's life. PEACE!

 

[kenrai]

Interesting to see so much debates about this lens. IMHO ... Will there any other L-glass with IS in this useful range? If not, then basically there isn't any choice then -unless canon decided launch a new lens with f/2.8 and with nicer range to kill this particular product. Perhaps that is why Canon didn't produce a 70-200mm f/4 with IS, since it will compete directly with 70-300mm f4/5.6 IS or even the 70-200mm f2.8 IS. Therefore, each lens should have its unque usefulness in the Canon product portfolio.

 

[CYRN]

Interesting to see so much debates about this lens.

Cuz this lens has a little more than it's fair share of flaws for it's price.

 

[kenrai]

Cuz this lens has a little more than it's fair share of flaws for it's price.

I understand where you are coming from … let’s look at it from the dollar perspective then. We can take the 70-200mm f4 as the benchmark so the L-glass will cost about S$1300. Typically IS will command another S$400-S$800 – so we take the average at S$600. Therefore, you will get 1300 + 600 = S$1900 of tangible benefits and another S$200+ worth of intangible benefits like its uniqueness (since we don’t have choice wat, who ask you to choose Canon!?), then the price is almost there already liao…:bsmilie:

 

[CYRN]

I understand where you are coming from … let’s look at it from the dollar perspective then. We can take the 70-200mm f4 as the benchmark so the L-glass will cost about S$1300. Typically IS will command another S$400-S$800 – so we take the average at S$600. Therefore, you will get 1300 + 600 = S$1900 of tangible benefits and another S$200+ worth of intangible benefits like its uniqueness (since we don’t have choice wat, who ask you to choose Canon!?), then the price is almost there already liao…:bsmilie:

It's not only the price.

It's got pretty bad distortion and vinetting for a L.

The thing is that most who use it on a 1.6x body would not be too bothered. But when you put it on a 1.3x or FF. It's just worse.

 

[kenrai]

It's not only the price.

It's got pretty bad distortion and vinetting for a L.

The thing is that most who use it on a 1.6x body would not be too bothered. But when you put it on a 1.3x or FF. It's just worse.

Hmm ... but the reviews seem to suggest otherwise though ... also heard that this lens is designed for 5D ...

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_24105_4_is/index.htm

 

[CYRN]

Hmm ... but the reviews seem to suggest otherwise though ... also heard that this lens is designed for 5D ...

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_24105_4_is/index.htm

I quote...

Well, there're also downsides like pronounced barrel distortions and higher than expected CAs at the wide-end of the zoom range. However, the package remains extremely attractive if you can live with the rather unattractive zoom range on an APS-C DSLR - similar to other 28-xx or 24-xx zooms this lens is really more meant for 1.3x or FF (D)SLRs.

They were using 350D for testing and already mentioning about the distortions.. what about the 1.3x or FF that they mentioned the lens seems more suitable. Wouldn't the distortion and vinnetting be worse? Resolution isn't everything.

 

[kenrai]

i see. thanks for the pointer. will check on more reviews about this. thx

 

[rueyloon]

I'm using it on a 5d, it is a very useful lens, but as I mentioned, the vignetting is very bad. I'll try to post a photo when I can.

cheers

 

[CYRN]

Practically... I pretty much concur with the 2 links.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/28-105.shtml

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/24vs28.shtml

 

[CYRN]

I'm using it on a 5d, it is a very useful lens, but as I mentioned, the vignetting is very bad. I'll try to post a photo when I can.

cheers

Is the range good for wedding on a 5D?

 

[kenrai]

Practically... I pretty much concur with the 2 links.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/28-105.shtml

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/24vs28.shtml

Hi, there are also many discussions in the other forum like one below ... in general it appears that many seemed to like it while some don't ... so I guess I have to get a copy and try it myself! But tough leh ... no one seems to be letting go in the B&S section for a very long time already ... wonder why?

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=16842733

 

[jykw]

Interesting development of late. I thought the opinions on this len would have been settled by now. :think: From what I see in the forums, it is either you want to and/or like to use it, or you don't like it one reason or another.

For the record, I like my copy and am still learning. Still on the learning journey for SLRs.

 

[shinken]

The only draw of this lens for me is the range. I use 17-40 mainly for my works on a 1.3 crop. 40 is definitely too short, and even 70 would not be long enough to make the switch, considering its extra weight. The range is really very, very nice. A constant aperture of F4 helps a lot too.

But the price and all the feedback on its optics is holding me back. The vignetting doesn't affect me all that much for my application, but the distortion would, as I shoot human subjects. I've seen this lens perform extremely well for landscape (excellent, actually). But that's shooting at very small apertures, which I won't be using. I haven't seen many impressive shots floating around on human subjects, not enough to convince me to "experiment" by throwing 2k.

Oh well... we can always count on Canon to sell volumes by not offering too much of a choice.

 

[nemo]

Anyone bought this lately and can tell me the current price? CP with 12 mths 0% interest looks interesting...

 

[tanwn]

current price is around $2150 to 2190. I just bought one and it's a great looking piece of glass. Amongst all the black body red ring lens, this is the most sexy lens and holding it makes u feel on cloud nine. Picture quality wise, i think it speaks for itself.

 

[bonifas]

$2000++++ for an f/4 lens is a waste of money to me. The 70-200/4L is about half the price.

agree 70-200mm f/4L plus 17-40mm f/4l become a perfect combination.. IMHO

 

[tanwn]

but 70-200 does not have IS and u need to carry 17-40 too. Best walkaround is still 24-105, one lens for all. Not too big and long also.