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

[CSlye]

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

IMHO ... there is no "perfect" configuration. It depends on what you shoot, where you shoot, how you shoot, when you shoot and how often you shoot. These variables plus how much you are willing to spend will lead to different "perfect" configurations. As George Soros puts it ... "people often seek perfection in this imperfect world" ... Cheers!

 

[SFS]

i'll survive with just this lens only.

 

[kenrai]

i'll survive with just this lens only.

Yup, the range is pretty useful - good for portait and landscape. For me, I use this range of focal length about 70% of the time.

 

[EiRiK]

does the IS drain battery alot faster?

 

[kiwi2]

Hmmm... This lens is really mysterious!! I've never heard of any lens, L especially, where opinions differ so much. Maybe some have higher standards than others, do specific work and most importantly, I think some use FF which will show the flaws of the lens more easily than 1.6x sensor DSLRs.

I have yet to see how bad the vignetting and distortion is in real life shots. Would appreciate if someone could just kindly post here if there are any.

 

[matthewgjs]

Not a problem to me.. this lens really works well and its sharp.. maybe i got a super sharp one. Not much visible vigenetting and distortion when taking buildings and landscape.

Just tat this lens is in the middle of nowhere (range).

:thumbsup:

 

[satay16]

yeah...not wide yet not tele. to reach wide, getting a 17-40 overlaps with this lens. to reach tele, 70-200 also overlaps this lens. guess this lens is extremely useful to FF cams, but definately not 1.6x.

 

[David]

Not a problem to me.. this lens really works well and its sharp.. maybe i got a super sharp one. Not much visible vigenetting and distortion when taking buildings and landscape.

Just tat this lens is in the middle of nowhere (range).

:thumbsup:

Hi matt,

R u using a FF DSLR or 1.3/1.6x?

 

[kenrai]

IMHO, the range is good for general purpose but great as a portrait lens. When you are shooting a subject model ... you maybe able to shoot full body, full body plus background and closeups without changing lens with that range ... btw i am on 1.6 crop

 

[loki]

IMHO, the range is good for general purpose but great as a portrait lens. When you are shooting a subject model ... you maybe able to shoot full body, full body plus background and closeups without changing lens with that range ... btw i am on 1.6 crop

Hi,


Yeah got to agree that the range is good for general purpose lens. BTW, I have the 24-70 L 2.8 sometime I think 70mm is to short at the tele end.


Cheers
Loki

 

[matthewgjs]

Hi matt,

R u using a FF DSLR or 1.3/1.6x?

No its the 1.6x

 

[SFS]

does the IS drain battery alot faster?

yes, it does lor

 

[Danntbt]

IMHO, the range is good for general purpose but great as a portrait lens. When you are shooting a subject model ... you maybe able to shoot full body, full body plus background and closeups without changing lens with that range ... btw i am on 1.6 crop

F4 not good enough for potrait, as bokeh is not as nice compared with 2.8, seriously considering this lens though, and the pricing from TongEh at 1700 Grey is tempting.

 

[paisatge]

I would definitely get it for street photography.
If I'm tight on budget, 28-135mm would be the lens

 

[kenrai]

F4 not good enough for potrait, as bokeh is not as nice compared with 2.8, seriously considering this lens though, and the pricing from TongEh at 1700 Grey is tempting.

Wah, dare not to say something against a pro leh … IMHO the additional 35mm should give you more background blur. Mounted on a FF, the low noise at high ISO should give you sufficient speed. 1700 for a grey set? Maybe shld consider since there are not many owners who are willing to let go this lens in the B&S threads. Cheers!

 

[CYRN]

IMHO, the range is good for general purpose but great as a portrait lens. When you are shooting a subject model ... you maybe able to shoot full body, full body plus background and closeups without changing lens with that range ... btw i am on 1.6 crop

Canon should consider 24-105f2.8 L IS. ;p

 

[Razor54]

Canon should consider 24-105f2.8 L IS. ;p

Wow!!!:bigeyes: :thumbsup:

That'll be really nice....but I can imagine the weight of the 2.8 glass on the monster...:bsmilie:

 

[kenrai]

Canon should consider 24-105f2.8 L IS. ;p

Will rob the bank to buy this lens! :bsmilie:

 

[CYRN]

Wow!!!:bigeyes: :thumbsup:

That'll be really nice....but I can imagine the weight of the 2.8 glass on the monster...:bsmilie:

I tink shouldn't be heavier than the 70-200 2.8 IS L. :sweat:

 

[CYRN]

Will rob the bank to buy this lens! :bsmilie:

you worn't be the only one.