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

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
  

Archive 2013 · Canon 24-105: You guys were right
  
 
taylorman22
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · Canon 24-105: You guys were right


Jeff Nolten wrote:
The 40D is a nice camera with liveview, dust shaker, and very clean images at low ISO. I think it would only fetch a few hundred dollars. Why not keep it? Put a 55-250, 70-300 or 100-400 on it. Nice complement to the 24-105 on the 5D.


True. Ill only net about $300 for it. That seems to be going rate.



Jan 15, 2013 at 01:36 AM
skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · Canon 24-105: You guys were right


So the one time in my life I've ever suggested that maybe the 24-105 actually was the way to go (I'm to the point where I am probably considered a pest for constantly avoiding any lens BUT this one).... I was wrong.

To be fair, you did keep on stressing that you never shot wide and loved to shoot 80-100mm though....



Jan 15, 2013 at 03:05 AM
Wobble
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · Canon 24-105: You guys were right


taylorman22, come to Atlanta with your 24-105 and I will let you put it on my 5Dc so you can actually see the difference side by side with your 40D. Wait, for the price of a plane ticket, you can have your own.


Jan 15, 2013 at 03:14 AM
taylorman22
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · Canon 24-105: You guys were right


skibum5 wrote:
So the one time in my life I've ever suggested that maybe the 24-105 actually was the way to go (I'm to the point where I am probably considered a pest for constantly avoiding any lens BUT this one).... I was wrong.

To be fair, you did keep on stressing that you never shot wide and loved to shoot 80-100mm though....


Very true It just happened that the places I went on Saturday really needed wider than 24mm. That's probably not gonna be the norm. I shot some more with it tonight. I'm gonna hang onto it and after tax return time, I'll probably buy a used 5dc or 5dII and a 70-200 for the 40D.



Jan 15, 2013 at 03:19 AM
taylorman22
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · Canon 24-105: You guys were right


Well, I went to Best Buy tonight to look at some stuff and while there I stopped by the cameras. They happened to have a 6D with a 24-105 on it...nice camera! Since I've been debating on possibly getting a 17-55 and selling the 24-105 I was interested to try some of the lenses there. Other than the 24-105, all they had was the 18-55, 18-135, and 28-135.

I have to say, I don't know that I could go back to one of those lenses after having the 'L' lens, regardless of image quality. There's something about the way the 24-105 feels that makes me wanna keep it. It just feels solid in my hands, it has a nice weight, the glass is big (77mm), it's smooth, doesn't rattle, etc.....all in addition to great IQ. The 18-135 and 28-135 just rattled and felt like they were going to fall apart. Granted, they're demo lenses and get beat on all day, so it's not a fair comparison, but I don't think I can sell the 24-105 unless the 17-55 build quality is MUCH better than the 18-135/28-135.



Jan 16, 2013 at 12:23 AM
RogerC11
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · Canon 24-105: You guys were right


17-55 build quality equal to or worse than the lenses you mentioned. Its heavier also.


Jan 16, 2013 at 01:19 AM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · Canon 24-105: You guys were right


taylorman22 wrote:
Well, I went to Best Buy tonight to look at some stuff and while there I stopped by the cameras. They happened to have a 6D with a 24-105 on it...nice camera! Since I've been debating on possibly getting a 17-55 and selling the 24-105 I was interested to try some of the lenses there. Other than the 24-105, all they had was the 18-55, 18-135, and 28-135.

I have to say, I don't know that I could go back to one of those lenses after having the 'L' lens, regardless of image quality. There's something about the way the
...Show more

I wouldn't go too overboard with build. Other than the delicate 50mm 1.4 from Canon or the disastrously designed 70-300 IS Original Dot I've never had a lens go bad (with the 70-300 IS they were actually ALL bad right out of the box, the internals sagged if not shot in landscape orientation!), not even an ancient 35-70 kit lens from the dawn of the age of EOS. If you want to shoot in heavy rain or snow and such the L build can be nice though.

And build doesn't always hold up to falls better. You might drop a lens onto pavement and dent in metal and need an expensive repair on a well built lens and simply crack off a cheap little front plastic piece on a tamron that you can put back on yourself for $10 for all you know. And the 24-70 was said to easily go out of alignment over time from a little knocks over the years so sometimes something apparently well built is actually no better or even worse built than some seemingly worse built stuff. Of course the opposite can be the case too.

I'd focus most of all on what focal length you want and what speed you need and then image quality and then convenience and then build myself.



Jan 16, 2013 at 01:27 AM
sonofjesse2010
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · Canon 24-105: You guys were right


On a crop I liked the 10-22 and 17-55 and 70-200 combos.

The 24-105 is a fine lens, just never did use it on crop personaly.



Jan 16, 2013 at 01:38 AM
mirageII
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · Canon 24-105: You guys were right



I went for the 10-22 + 24-105 lens arrangement (17-55IS was getting a bed rep for dust at the time)

Often when I am carrying only the 24-105 I can get the wide shot by shooting two frames (with the camera in portrait orientation) and stitching in photoshop. Sometimes this looks even better than the one I could have taken with the 10-22 as the perspective isn't quite as drastic (if that's the right way to phrase it).

Sometimes though only a wide will do.

The only time I actually wish I had the 17-55 is when I'm indoors e.g. for a birthday party. This is where the wider aperture and wider angle is important (to me)






Jan 16, 2013 at 03:13 PM
Bearmann
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · Canon 24-105: You guys were right


Be aware that on the same camera, 105mm at f4 will provide more background blur than 55mm at f2.8.


Jan 16, 2013 at 04:09 PM
taylorman22
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · Canon 24-105: You guys were right


Bearmann wrote:
Be aware that on the same camera, 105mm at f4 will provide more background blur than 55mm at f2.8.


I didn't realize that. That's good to know! The 24-105 is giving me everything I need except a little on the wide end. I'm really thinking about adding a Canon 10-22. Just not crazy about spending another $500



Jan 18, 2013 at 04:19 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · Canon 24-105: You guys were right


taylorman22 wrote:
I didn't realize that. That's good to know! The 24-105 is giving me everything I need except a little on the wide end. I'm really thinking about adding a Canon 10-22. Just not crazy about spending another $500


That can be a good combo for some folks who want to cover a good wide range with a minimum number of lenses.

Dan



Jan 18, 2013 at 04:58 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