Is the 24-105L in SG stores yet?

[dkw]

Just pointing out the usual factors of F4 (is) vs 2.8... never mind if u don't catch on....

Oh, I understand alright, I still find your rationalisations incoherent .

 

[+evenstar]

Now, the MTF charts look appealing...at f8 ;p

 

[dkw]

I don't think i will... firstly because i LOVE bokeh (2.8 vs 4? pls tell me there's no difference) :

There are 2.8s and there are 2.8s, some are better than others for bokeh. This new lens has been touted as having some excellent bokeh, some examples are already up on the net. f2.8 just gives you a more shallow depth of field, it doesn't mean that every f2.8 lens will have better bokeh than every f4 lens. Furthermore, who shoots at f2.8 for every shot, particularly since you claim to need "TONS of detail"?

.... 2ndly i rely on the old school of thought for shooting ie: 1/(lens focal length):

Even so, how does having IS hurt you? I use that rule even with IS as far as possible. f2.8 vs f4 only gains you one stop.

.... and lastly, my job requires detail, TONS of detail actually, hence i use film almost all the time, and thus.... i don't have the luxury to rely on the 80% success rate of IS to provide me with the sharpness for publications of up to 16x20s... bearing in mind that IS has been part of my working life since it first came out...
just my opinion though.... :think:

80% success rate with IS ain't good enough? You must by an elite photographer to have a keeper rate better than 80%, even some of the best National Geographic photogs confess to running through 50+ rolls of film on a single assignment to get maybe 20 keepers. So you are saying f2.8, which gains you 1 stop over f4, gives you a better keeper rate than IS, which can give you 2+ stops advantage? Doesn't make any sense to me....
Being the pro photog you are, using high end equipment and printing 16x20 for well heeled clients, I hardly thought you'd have to stinge on film.

 

[Voyage]

Aiya , some like toyota , some like honda , ....

buy what u like loh, "L"lens stands is for Love, Both r L-grade .... love photography love each other!:lovegrin: :sweat:

 

[F5user]

There are 2.8s and there are 2.8s, some are better than others for bokeh. This new lens has been touted as having some excellent bokeh, some examples are already up on the net. f2.8 just gives you a more shallow depth of field, it doesn't mean that every f2.8 lens will have better bokeh than every f4 lens. Furthermore, who shoots at f2.8 for every shot, particularly since you claim to need "TONS of detail"?



Even so, how does having IS hurt you? I use that rule even with IS as far as possible. f2.8 vs f4 only gains you one stop.



80% success rate with IS ain't good enough? You must by an elite photographer to have a keeper rate better than 80%, even some of the best National Geographic photogs confess to running through 50+ rolls of film on a single assignment to get maybe 20 keepers. So you are saying f2.8, which gains you 1 stop over f4, gives you a better keeper rate than IS, which can give you 2+ stops advantage? Doesn't make any sense to me....
Being the pro photog you are, using high end equipment and printing 16x20 for well heeled clients, I hardly thought you'd have to stinge on film.

I'm not really gonna comment on the equipment based comments mentioned as every person has his own preferences.

Just wanted to point out a few things.

1. i don't necessarily need to step things down to get the detail i want.... hence the price u pay for the lens, and yes... i've been shooting at 2.8 for most part of my life... i'm glad to say.

2. No, i'm not an elite photog by all means, and the issue here is HARDLY about wasting film. It's about time. Unfortunately, i do work for the press, and as most others within the pj industry would know, time is something we absolutely DO NOT have... so, it's not about the price i pay for film, or how much i intend to shoot, it's how much time i have to shoot, hence the 80% factor being critical as it decides my bread and butter.

3. i wish i had "well-heeled" clients... :sweatsm:

 

[mpenza]

should be around $2.1k+....

 

[F5user]

I'm gonna end my contribution or perhaps, involvement within this thread here, as i see it's drawn unecessary flak from certain parties.....

My intention was to perhaps, bring about a little discussion about the ability of this new lens vs the venerable 2.8 series of lenses that have been the mainstay of the photographic industry.

Yes, i'm very aware of the first hand reviews online about the "wonders" of this newly released lens... and yes... i myself, want one so badly as it's really an attractive range.

To those that find my "rationalisations incoherent," :sticktong
but seriously... nothing like a lil bantar once in a while to keep the humour light and fun within a forum...... without the flaming of course. (which this thread has unfortunately attracted)

I'll be receiving my issue of this new L probably in about a week or so and would be glad to post a nice lil review of it throughout my next few assignments.

Till then,
Cheers to all, and happy shooting.

 

[dkw]

I'm not really gonna comment on the equipment based comments mentioned as every person has his own preferences.

Just wanted to point out a few things.

1. i don't necessarily need to step things down to get the detail i want.... hence the price u pay for the lens, and yes... i've been shooting at 2.8 for most part of my life... i'm glad to say.
2. No, i'm not an elite photog by all means, and the issue here is HARDLY about wasting film. It's about time. Unfortunately, i do work for the press, and as most others within the pj industry would know, time is something we absolutely DO NOT have... so, it's not about the price i pay for film, or how much i intend to shoot, it's how much time i have to shoot, hence the 80% factor being critical as it decides my bread and butter. :

Okay, so you work for the press, so time is critical. But you also need detail, so you only use film? Presumably working with film slows you down considerably compared to your competitors who use digital. So do you use film or digital? I can't say I really understand this, so please enlighten me. I also can't say I know of many time-critical reportage shots which routinely need to be blown up to 16x20, with one possible exceptional scenario, and as far as I know, those shooting in that scenario invariably use image-stabilised lenses exclusively.

I don't understand what this 80% thing you are referring to is. Is it that your IS is only working 80% of the time, or that even with IS, you are only getting 80% keepers? If the latter, then as per my original query, I am curious how f2.8, which gains you 1 stop, gives you a better keeper rate than IS which gains you 2+ stops? If I understand correctly, if you are shooting at 1/200 at f2.8, with IS you should easily be able to shoot 1/200 or even 1/100 at f4 for the same focal lengths. You get greater depth of field to boot, and presumably that would be useful in those time-sensitive photo-journalistic 'grab' shots. The issue here is lack of sharpness due to hand-shake, yes? I can accept that for a given focal length, there may be a shutter speed 'inflexion' point at which an f2.8 lens may give you a better result than an f4 lens with IS. But that window is narrow and above it IS doesn't give any advantage and below it f2.8 doesn't give any advantage. For most circumstances, the benefit of IS for inadequate light, so below that window, IS would clearly be superior.

I reiterate, if you are getting 80% keepers, then you are a photo-journalist par-excellence.

To those that find my "rationalisations incoherent,"
but seriously... nothing like a lil bantar once in a while to keep the humour light and fun within a forum...... without the flaming of course. (which this thread has unfortunately attracted)

Who me? Flame? Basically I find your take on this whole issue to be extremely curious. You have taken the position that this lens is somewhat inferior to f2.8 based on 'bokeh' and 'keeper rate'. I have a tele-lens that is f5.6 at the long end which gives the most beautiful bokeh of all my lenses, the legendary 70-200/2.8 IS included. You mention that an 80% keeper rate (which is phenomenol for a PJ) from IS is too poor for you in a time-sensitive setting, but in the same breathe mention that as you need 'TONS of detail' you only shoot film. Furthermore, you do not address the point that f2.8 is only 1 stop faster than f4, and that IS gets you a couple of stops. I'm sorry, it just sounds incoherent to me. Since you are a professional photog and I'm only a novice with 2 years experience with SLRs, I am really curious as to why you've taken such a position. I'm more than happy to learn and have provided above my limited technical understanding of photography, and no, I don't shoot for a living, so i do not know all the scenarios, so if you have a good technical explanation, please enlighten me.

 

[+evenstar]

Unfortunately, i do work for the press, and as most others within the pj industry would know, time is something we absolutely DO NOT have... so, it's not about the price i pay for film, or how much i intend to shoot, it's how much time i have to shoot, hence the 80% factor being critical as it decides my bread and butter.:

Don't the press provide you with camera and lenses?

 

[TMC]

Hmm its his opinion. I dont see the point of having to understand where he is coming from.

I tried the 5D with the 24-105L in the showroom. Seems on the wide end, there is some light falloff at the corners. Even with the 2 stops that you get with the IS, the 12.8mp will show that no matter how steady you are with the camera, the handshake will still show. for that I am certain that my handshake is NOT that bad. :bsmilie:

 

[TMC]

Now I know at least 1 guy has it and now waiting for him to post test pics

 

[F5user]

Okay, so you work for the press, so time is critical. But you also need detail, so you only use film? Presumably working with film slows you down considerably compared to your competitors who use digital. So do you use film or digital? I can't say I really understand this, so please enlighten me. I also can't say I know of many time-critical reportage shots which routinely need to be blown up to 16x20, with one possible exceptional scenario, and as far as I know, those shooting in that scenario invariably use image-stabilised lenses exclusively.

I don't understand what this 80% thing you are referring to is. Is it that your IS is only working 80% of the time, or that even with IS, you are only getting 80% keepers? If the latter, then as per my original query, I am curious how f2.8, which gains you 1 stop, gives you a better keeper rate than IS which gains you 2+ stops? If I understand correctly, if you are shooting at 1/200 at f2.8, with IS you should easily be able to shoot 1/200 or even 1/100 at f4 for the same focal lengths. You get greater depth of field to boot, and presumably that would be useful in those time-sensitive photo-journalistic 'grab' shots. The issue here is lack of sharpness due to hand-shake, yes? I can accept that for a given focal length, there may be a shutter speed 'inflexion' point at which an f2.8 lens may give you a better result than an f4 lens with IS. But that window is narrow and above it IS doesn't give any advantage and below it f2.8 doesn't give any advantage. For most circumstances, the benefit of IS for inadequate light, so below that window, IS would clearly be superior.

I reiterate, if you are getting 80% keepers, then you are a photo-journalist par-excellence.



Who me? Flame? Basically I find your take on this whole issue to be extremely curious. You have taken the position that this lens is somewhat inferior to f2.8 based on 'bokeh' and 'keeper rate'. I have a tele-lens that is f5.6 at the long end which gives the most beautiful bokeh of all my lenses, the legendary 70-200/2.8 IS included. You mention that an 80% keeper rate (which is phenomenol for a PJ) from IS is too poor for you in a time-sensitive setting, but in the same breathe mention that as you need 'TONS of detail' you only shoot film. Furthermore, you do not address the point that f2.8 is only 1 stop faster than f4, and that IS gets you a couple of stops. I'm sorry, it just sounds incoherent to me. Since you are a professional photog and I'm only a novice with 2 years experience with SLRs, I am really curious as to why you've taken such a position. I'm more than happy to learn and have provided above my limited technical understanding of photography, and no, I don't shoot for a living, so i do not know all the scenarios, so if you have a good technical explanation, please enlighten me.

waaa.... ok la... firstly... thanks for taking the time to post such a substantial reply.

Just to clear up a few things. Ok... time sensitive... yes.... admittedly, we deal with dslrs almost 80-90% of the time for coverages now..... yes.. it's much faster than film for relays back to the station, yes... it's excellent for newspaper work, so on so forth... However, the type of press work i do isn't solely restricted to crazy press events..... i can't really elaborate on this for the sake of job safety (colleagues use this webbie too) but the main part of my job scope is tied in with a few weekly govt based journalsdown here within northern california, with every shot being fair game for an enlargement if the client/reader wishes to order. Also, back to the factor of time... the turn around time between publications allows us a bit more slack compared to digital admittedly, with most shots developed and drum scanned over night prior to publication.

Hiya.. regarding the IS...ok la.... that one, .. it's a personal peference anyway.... yes.. though i use IS once in a while, and think that it's one heckofa advantage. let me put it this way. If we deem the situation to be too dark.... me and the old birds here don't rely on IS to shoot the pic... as yes... IS doesn't always confirm sharp pictures when used.(insert 80% rate here) And based on the medium we use.... we don't have much of an opportunity to chimp on our shots, and re take it. So to make it simpler... we treat our equipment as if there's no IS, relying on older methods to ensure sharper pictures... This, though dated, is as i said, a personal preference amongst me and my colleagues... something which i thought i might share with everyone here.

As i said, i won't go into the technological advantages of IS as i believe everyone has already knows about it...

Anyway... I'll be returning to singapore in dec to cover the ultimate event of my lifetime: the birth of my first grandchild... :lovegrin: and perhaps then, we could get together over a cup of coffee... talk about stuff?

Do feel free to drop me a PM if u'd like to talk more about situations, technical aspects, etc of this lens, IS, etc as i don't want to bring this thead OT any further.

Till then, take care.

 

[F5user]

Don't the press provide you with camera and lenses?

Yes they do, but the 24-105 isn't a standard issue as of yet.....

 

[chongqi]

just pick up this L baby from post office, Thank for TMC's great help. Am I the first owner at Singapore;p

 

[leef]

just pick up this L baby from post office, Thank for TMC's great help. Am I the first owner at Singapore;p

P/s quickly do a test and comment the image quality at widest F with yr new babe with 24-70L
Not just f8 cos almost all lens r good at f8

 

[eng_keow]

Wah, so interesting! I am enjoying the discussion on whether a faster lens at f2.8 is better or having IS.

Now, this is my personal opinion, so don't flame me hor.

I still prefer a faster lens at f2.8 compared to IS as even though I may be putting the cam on a tripod, I can't control movement of the subject. If opening up can allow me to use a faster shutter speed and freeze the subject to give details, then why not.

Am I thinking right?

:dunno:

 

[xl1]

IMHO: more light = better, IS, hmm... ok lah if there is

 

[chongqi]

just put some of my test shoots on my website. they are just the test shoot from a newbie
http://www.chongqi.c9t.net/test/

 

[Snoweagle]

Actually the RRP for the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM is $2649.

 

[+evenstar]

Yes they do, but the 24-105 isn't a standard issue as of yet.....

Then I guess press photographers have to work with their current equipment. Don't think the press will issue new lenses unless really necessary. 24-70+70-200 covers the 24mm to 200mm range already..