Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
  

Archive 2013 · Jump on this 24-105L deal?
  
 
taylorman22
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · Jump on this 24-105L deal?


I've been looking at swapping out my kit lens for a Tamron 17-50, Canon 15-85, or possibly even a Canon 24-105L. The 24-105L hasn't been much of an option though because of price. Anyway, I'd be using it with a 40D.

Today I stumbled across a 24-105L for $600. It's owned by a professional photographer and it has a couple of minor dings around the front edge, but nothing major and it doesn't affect the threads at all. They're asking $600 shipped. Take it or save the $100 and buy a 15-85?



Jan 02, 2013 at 08:47 PM
cputeq
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · Jump on this 24-105L deal?


Depends, really. All three of the lenses you mention are completely different, and serve different needs.

For me, I would go with a Tamron 17-50. f/2.8, to me, is a hell of a lot more important in this range than the longer or wider lenses. Plus, I owned it when I shot my 40D and it was a pretty good lens (unfortunately at the time I was a horrible photographer)

The 24-105 is actually a pretty good "event/walkaround" lense for crop bodies, not nearly as weird as one would think but at f/4 max on a crop, is fairly unexciting.





Jan 02, 2013 at 08:51 PM
taylorman22
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · Jump on this 24-105L deal?


True. All of the ones I've seen have been over $700. A $350 Tamron or $500 Canon 15-85 would probably better suit the 40D though I suppose


Jan 02, 2013 at 08:55 PM
taylorman22
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · Jump on this 24-105L deal?


cputeq wrote:
Depends, really. All three of the lenses you mention are completely different, and serve different needs.

For me, I would go with a Tamron 17-50. f/2.8, to me, is a hell of a lot more important in this range than the longer or wider lenses. Plus, I owned it when I shot my 40D and it was a pretty good lens (unfortunately at the time I was a horrible photographer)

The 24-105 is actually a pretty good "event/walkaround" lense for crop bodies, not nearly as weird as one would think but at f/4 max on a crop, is fairly unexciting.



What kind of photography did you use the Tamron 17-50 for? Just as a general walkaround lens?



Jan 02, 2013 at 08:56 PM
Gochugogi
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · Jump on this 24-105L deal?


I use the 15-85 IS on a 7D and the 24-105L on a 5D2. Both are excellent zooms and approximately equal in terms of IQ. Of course it is up to individual taste, but I'd find the 24-105 range on APS-C lacking at the wide end. The IS of the 15-85 is a little better and includes panning mode. Build quality is similar in terms of smoothness of zooming, switches and plastic weight. The L zoom has slightly better MF (thicker ring) whereas the 15-85 has slightly smoother zooming. And, of course, the L optic has weather seals and prettier cosmetics.

My reviews:

http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/canon_efs15-85.htm
http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/canon_ef24-105.htm



Jan 02, 2013 at 09:09 PM
cputeq
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #6 · Jump on this 24-105L deal?


taylorman22 wrote:
What kind of photography did you use the Tamron 17-50 for? Just as a general walkaround lens?


Yep, basically.

Again, though, it was really early in my photography "life" so I didn't know what the heck I was doing, but I knew I was shooting a lot indoors and so f/2.8 vs f/4 is pretty huge.


I do take back my earlier "blanket" recommendation, though - if I mostly shot outdoors and not sweeping landscapes, I think I'd go for the 24-105. Having f/4 at the long(er) end of the 24-105 vs the 15-85's f/5.6 is pretty nice. Yes, you're "stuck" at around a 40mm FOV with that lens on a cropper, but that is already what a lot of people use anyway for a general "normal" lens (hence the 40mm 2.8's popularity).

Also, it'll set you up for FF if you ever move up to that, say a cheap 5D2 or even cheaper 5Dc later on.



Up to you, of course - I have no idea what sort of photography you're shooting for (ha pun!)
You could just as easily want to shoot wider, which the 15-85 of course is much better at than the 24-105.
Both lenses (really all 3) have good IQ, so I really think it's a matter of just getting the focal range / speed you'll use the most.




Jan 02, 2013 at 10:42 PM
skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · Jump on this 24-105L deal?


taylorman22 wrote:
I've been looking at swapping out my kit lens for a Tamron 17-50, Canon 15-85, or possibly even a Canon 24-105L. The 24-105L hasn't been much of an option though because of price. Anyway, I'd be using it with a 40D.

Today I stumbled across a 24-105L for $600. It's owned by a professional photographer and it has a couple of minor dings around the front edge, but nothing major and it doesn't affect the threads at all. They're asking $600 shipped. Take it or save the $100 and buy a 15-85?


I don't see the point. You give up sooo much on the wide end for what? A red ring? The thing isn't even quite as sharp as a tamron 17-50 2.8 or 28-75 2.8 or probably the sigma 17-50 OS either or canon 17-55 IS 2.8. Some say the 15-85 IS is similar but you get what is a much better range for most people on APS-C. I'd go for anything I mentioned other than the 24-105.

If you are way into the 50/75-105mm part of the range you might be better with a 55-250, 70-200, 70-300 sort of lens anyway.



Jan 02, 2013 at 11:41 PM
taylorman22
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · Jump on this 24-105L deal?


skibum5 wrote:
I don't see the point. You give up sooo much on the wide end for what? A red ring? The thing isn't even quite as sharp as a tamron 17-50 2.8 or 28-75 2.8 or probably the sigma 17-50 OS either or canon 17-55 IS 2.8. Some say the 15-85 IS is similar but you get what is a much better range for most people on APS-C. I'd go for anything I mentioned other than the 24-105.

If you are way into the 50/75-105mm part of the range you might be better with a 55-250, 70-200, 70-300 sort of lens anyway.


I agree. It's the red ring that's tempting, and that's not good...lol. Any of those lenses will work great for the crappy shots I get I used to own a 55-250 and never used it, but the more I use my camera, the more I wish I had more reach than the 55mm on my kit lens. I'm kind thinking about keeping my kit lens and buying a flash. That will help indoors. Then, buy a 70-200 f/4L or a 70-300 since it's cheaper. The 70-200 would make a great landscape lens, macro stuff, and portraits.



Jan 02, 2013 at 11:47 PM
AGeoJO
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #9 · Jump on this 24-105L deal?


I like the 24-105mm even on a crop body. Yes, you are short on the short end but you gain on the long end. At an effective FL of 170mm, it is no slouch either. Keep also in mind that it is a FF lens, unlike some you listed and it is a really good one at that. If you decide to go for FF later on, you already have that first lens for that format. Yes, I know it is an f/4.0 but still, on a crop body, taking advantage of only the center part, you basically get the creme of the crop IQ performance of that lens and at that price, it is hard to beat. That's my take anyway .


Jan 02, 2013 at 11:59 PM
skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · Jump on this 24-105L deal?


taylorman22 wrote:
I agree. It's the red ring that's tempting, and that's not good...lol. Any of those lenses will work great for the crappy shots I get I used to own a 55-250 and never used it, but the more I use my camera, the more I wish I had more reach than the 55mm on my kit lens. I'm kind thinking about keeping my kit lens and buying a flash. That will help indoors. Then, buy a 70-200 f/4L or a 70-300 since it's cheaper. The 70-200 would make a great landscape lens, macro stuff, and portraits.


If you like more reach on the main lens more than low DOF and quick aperture than I'd go for the 15-85 IS otherwise the tamron 17-50 2.8.

Or as you say keep the kit and add a longer lens first. Which kit do you have? 18-55 IS?



Jan 03, 2013 at 12:00 AM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



taylorman22
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · Jump on this 24-105L deal?


skibum5 wrote:
If you like more reach on the main lens more than low DOF and quick aperture than I'd go for the 15-85 IS otherwise the tamron 17-50 2.8.

Or as you say keep the kit and add a longer lens first. Which kit do you have? 18-55 IS?


Yeah, I have the kit, 18-55 IS II. I've been reading articles from people who say they use their 70-200 as a walkaround lens since it's so versatile. I'm kind thinking of maybe just using the 70-200 outside and the 18-55 for wide shots along with the flash indoors.



Jan 03, 2013 at 12:02 AM
cputeq
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #12 · Jump on this 24-105L deal?


70-200 versatile? I dunno about that. I'd hardly call a 2.85x zoom "versatile."

Great for events, portraits and compressed landscapes? Sure I'll give you that, but I'm not sure many people would consider it a "walk-around", whether crop or FF body.


Then again, you gotta realize a LOT of photography is purely subjective. Maybe some people really do like walking around with a long, incredibly conspicuous white lens hanging off their camera as a walk-around - I guess if the bulk/weight didn't bother you, and you took a lot of event-like shots, portraits, and compressed landscapes, it would be perfect .

Me, I'd probably use something like a 24-105, which seems much more of a walk-around solution IMO, whether crop or FF body.




Jan 03, 2013 at 03:03 AM
Gochugogi
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · Jump on this 24-105L deal?


cputeq wrote:
70-200 versatile? I dunno about that. I'd hardly call a 2.85x zoom "versatile."

Great for events, portraits and compressed landscapes? Sure I'll give you that, but I'm not sure many people would consider it a "walk-around", whether crop or FF body.

Then again, you gotta realize a LOT of photography is purely subjective. Maybe some people really do like walking around with a long, incredibly conspicuous white lens hanging off their camera as a walk-around - I guess if the bulk/weight didn't bother you, and you took a lot of event-like shots, portraits, and compressed landscapes, it would be perfect .
...Show more

I use an EF 70-200 4L IS USM as a walk around very frequently on my 5D2. It's actually a small lens and only a wee bit longer than my 24-105L, but a lot smaller in diameter. The 24-105 is 670g whereas the 70-200 is 760g, so I can barely feel the difference in weight. My 70-200 is not white but, instead, is somewhere between light gray and off-white. I often shoot in dense urban locations--Honolulu waterfront and harbor--and nobody gives me a second look and it is certainly not more conspicuous than my 24-105 with hood.



Jan 03, 2013 at 03:49 AM
cputeq
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #14 · Jump on this 24-105L deal?


Gochugogi wrote:
I use an EF 70-200 4L IS USM as a walk around very frequently on my 5D2. It's actually a small lens and only a wee bit longer than my 24-105L, but a lot smaller in diameter. The 24-105 is 670g whereas the 70-200 is 760g, so I can barely feel the difference in weight. My 70-200 is not white but, instead, is somewhere between light gray and off-white. I often shoot in dense urban locations--Honolulu waterfront and harbor--and nobody gives me a second look and it is certainly not more conspicuous than my 24-105 with hood.


Noted, which is why I typed what I did - you're apparently one of those photographers Also, I realize the f/4 is lighter/smaller than the 2.8, which may or may not be the version specified by the OP?


I would also venture to say it really depends on where you're shooting as to whether a certain combo looks conspicuous.

Take for instance your location vs mine. You're in dense, urban Honolulu -- generally thought of as a touristy area on the whole and certainly one having plenty of photographers. Meaning, more than likely, the people are accustomed to see white (or light grey or off-white or whatever color one choose to call) Canon lenses.

Now consider where I currently live - Shreveport, LA. Yes, there are a lot of movies shot here, and while we're not exactly a 3rd-world type of location, seeing a large camera and white lens walk around is extremely attention-getting. When I shot with my DSLR / 70-200 combo, people made it a point to move out of my way all the time because they thought I was either on a pro shoot or with the news...then they'd start looking for what I could have been possibly interested in with such a huge rig, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.




Edited on Jan 03, 2013 at 04:00 AM · View previous versions



Jan 03, 2013 at 03:59 AM
taylorman22
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · Jump on this 24-105L deal?


Nevermind my original question I've decided against the 24-105L. It looks like I'm going with a couple of Tamrons. Thanks for the help!


Jan 03, 2013 at 03:59 AM
Gochugogi
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · Jump on this 24-105L deal?


You probably haven't been to downtown Honolulu and the waterfront but it ain't no Waikiki and there are few tourists. However, there are lots of druggies, homeless, hoes and Chinatown is funky and third world (smells like pee everywhere). Great for street shooting, very photogenic and sometimes you gotta be ready to run like the wind! Drug dealers and gamblers hate the sight of cameras (hence longer zoom).


Jan 03, 2013 at 04:13 AM
erikburd
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #17 · Jump on this 24-105L deal?


Gochugogi wrote:
You probably haven't been to downtown Honolulu and the waterfront but it ain't no Waikiki and there are few tourists. However, there are lots of druggies, homeless, hoes and Chinatown is funky and third world (smells like pee everywhere). Great for street shooting, very photogenic and sometimes you gotta be ready to run like the wind! Drug dealers and gamblers hate the sight of cameras (hence longer zoom).


Sounds just like San Francisco, especially the urine smell...



Jan 03, 2013 at 04:59 AM
Gunzorro
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #18 · Jump on this 24-105L deal?


That's a nice deal on the 24-105, provided the lens isn't banged up too badly. But only if you plan to go to full frame soon. Otherwise, the 15-85 is far more versatile on crop bodies.


Jan 03, 2013 at 06:04 AM
skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · Jump on this 24-105L deal?


cputeq wrote:
70-200 versatile? I dunno about that. I'd hardly call a 2.85x zoom "versatile."

Great for events, portraits and compressed landscapes? Sure I'll give you that, but I'm not sure many people would consider it a "walk-around", whether crop or FF body.

Then again, you gotta realize a LOT of photography is purely subjective. Maybe some people really do like walking around with a long, incredibly conspicuous white lens hanging off their camera as a walk-around - I guess if the bulk/weight didn't bother you, and you took a lot of event-like shots, portraits, and compressed landscapes, it would be perfect .
...Show more

I actually used a 24mm + 70-200/300 as a walk-around pair often and the 70-200/300 often get used rather a lot of the time, more than the 24mm by a good deal. For nature/outdoorsy stuff 70mm+ isn't rare at all.



Jan 03, 2013 at 06:38 AM
cputeq
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #20 · Jump on this 24-105L deal?


skibum5 wrote:
I actually used a 24mm + 70-200/300 as a walk-around pair often and the 70-200/300 often get used rather a lot of the time, more than the 24mm by a good deal. For nature/outdoorsy stuff 70mm+ isn't rare at all.


True, but in such a situation I'd think a 28-300 would be more useful

I think we just have differing ideas of what constitutes a "walk-around" lens - nothing wrong with that!




Jan 03, 2013 at 04:18 PM
1
       2       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password