24-105 is a "consumer" L lens so I actually don't have very high expectation from it's image quality. I get it for "rough" use and hopefully it will not fail as easily as a non-L lens. I have a few non-L lenses that failed on me a few times(screws drop out, aperture stuck and etc). That is one reason that I will never buy a Non-L or 3rd party lens.
Canon 24-105L Lens
- Thread starter MetalBird
- Start date
- Status
Alex chong
Member
Lightning, sounds like you have a serious grudge against this lens. :bsmilie:
No grudge, just to warn people who expect superb image quality from it will be disappointed (compare to what 24F1.4/35F1.4/85F1.2/135F2 and etc). If someone is able to use the 55-250mm lens properly, it can match the image quality of the 24-105.
I have some friends who "thought" L lenses all produce image quality that are way better then non-L and the 24-105 have disappointed them. Cos a lot of them saw the image quality of L-lenses produced by L primes and expect the same performance.
Why I buy 24-105 is not for the image quality, but for the weather sealed and L build plus cheap price tag. So that together with the 1D...I can shoot in all weather conditions and I am confident that the camera can take the abuse, and no dust or moisture will enter my camera body.
Last edited:
Alex chong
Member
TBH, I agree with you. My 70-200 f4 IS shoots amazing photos. I love this lens. As for the 24-105, the distortion at the wide end is abit too much. But I love it too. Just not as much as the 70-200. I would probably have gone with the 24-70 if that has IS.
Well, the definition of "useful" focal range is subjective. There are people of use 10-22 as walkabout while there are also others who prefer 70-200. It depends on what you like to shoot. Only you can tell what is useful to you and nobody else.
ramian
Member
I agree!! I love the 55-250 and know what kind of pictures are possible with it. As mentioned in my previous post(s), I was always finding the 55mm end of it not wide enough and I rarely found myself shooting beyond 150mm, hence my persuit of a lens covering the focal range provided by the 24-105.
Well, you sir are a pro. The 24-105 is *^$@(% the most expensive lens I would have ever bought. Anway, I'm not getting it because it is an L, but rather for its focal range and because it has IS.
Of course. My point was that even though I tried explaining to people why I felt I needed a lens in a focal range that was actually useful to me, they still recommended me those 2 relatively more popular lenses. People seem to think that they are the magic bullet for great photos.
Have got a question for you folks.
I viewed a copy of this lens today and saw a few specks of white on the inside edge just beyond the ridged sides if you look through the front element. Aren't L lenses supposed to be weather sealed? I know the 24-105 needs a front filter for the weather sealing to be effective, and the seller did mention that he had one on most of the time. So, is this par for this lens?
Last edited:
Weather sealing does not mean there will be 100% no dust inside. In any case, don't forget when you zoom in and out, already dust will be there. In fact, even when one buys lenses new, dust is already there. Either you have to be very observant or you just can't see it cos it's so small. But that kind of dust will never affect your image quality. We don't live in a dust-less world.
If you are a beginner to photography or just about to buy your first L lens, try not to get too paranoid with the dust issue. As for choosing your lens, I see no point in you asking around. Many beginners and those with excess cash fall into this trap. There will be no final answer.
For eg, some claim blatantly that XYZ lens is crap (when in fact, many winning images and pros use that lens). Others claim you need f/2.8 zoom. Some claim they only use primes. Yet others say xx mm focal length is not wide/long enough. You are going to beat yourself up crazy absorbing all the different opinions. The best solution to find out what you need is go out and shoot more yourself. You will naturally know what you need.
How can you compare a zoom with prime lenses? No offense but that's kinda ridiculous. Unless you have the erroneous expectation (like your friends) that just becos the 24-105 is an L, it should perform as well as, if not close to even L primes. I think a more reasonable comparison would be 24-105 against the 24-70 or other zooms in that range.
Zooms and primes serve different purposes. There are occasions where primes will not be able to do the job of a zoom. It all depends what is your priority (and paranoid about).
I don't have to use the 55-250 "properly" and I could take images as good as the 70-200 f/4L IS for some instances. So I'm not sure if that leads to the conclusion that the 70-200 f/4L IS is also a crappy lens?
limwhow
Senior Member
You would have gone on the 24-70 had it had IS.
May I ask your opinion: Is it that you feel that the 24-70 is better than the 24-105 in certain other ways?
(I use the 24-70. I admit that it was the 2.8 for which I like. Its sharpness I'm happy with. Just that it has not got the reach of the 24-105. Until today I am still not sure if I had made the right decision to forego the 105mm zoom.)
limwhow
Senior Member
Well, I must say, you are the first person I hear this.
I thought being -L is 'that's it!' already. Never thought to hear that '-L' is still not good enough.
But honestly, I still treat my 24-70 with respect. I guess I am in no rush to change to 24-105. It is heavy, no doubt. But like what my good friend said - just do more weights training lor...
There are L lens that cost about $1000 and some $150000....so they are not made equal. Also I am not suggesting that more expensive = better, cos I like my 135F2L.:bsmilie:
Last edited:
iMac08
Senior Member
Count me in....:thumbsup:
ramian
Member
I'm not worried about dust as much as I'm worried about fungus. Do notice that I did not mention dust in my post above; those white specks I noticed did not look like dust.
Sorry for the OT.
limwhow
Senior Member
Yes, of course. Agree, agree.
Alex chong
Member
I read alot of reviews and 24-70 has been praised by many users and the IQ is according to some unbeatable. But its the IS that gets some if not most people switching to 24-105. I agree with them. From shots that I have done, the IQ from 24-105 is not as good as my 70-200. The thing is, no matter how hard I try to microfocus adjust it, my 70-200 takes much sharper shots at the same focal length. And reviews by users (which you can find via online searches) speaks for themselves.
ShutterCentral
New Member
One method is to use a torch light and shine thru the lens. You will be able to see very clearly whether is there any scratches, dust or fungus.
There is bound to be dust on the lens so do not be so sensitive about that. Most importantly, look out for fungus and scratches.
FYI, fungus will not grow overnight.
- Status
Similar threads
