Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1 2 3 4

end

Archive 2014 · Convince Me On a 24-105 f/4L

gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #1 · p.5 #1 · Convince Me On a 24-105 f/4L

Shield wrote:
You may not want to try the 24-70 II 2.8; it'd knock your entire feet off for sharpness.

No question that the 24-70 can produce somewhat higher resolution, especially at f/4, that may be visible to pixel-peepers who compare very closely on their computer screens. (And super-especially at f/2.8!) However, based on my own experience using both lenses, when it comes to actual results the f/4 lens can produce excellent image quality, and if you do a lot of smaller aperture stuff (landscape, anyone?) the differences will be hard to see on screen and impossible to see in a print.

These are lenses that are best suited to somewhat different uses.

- The 24-70 f/2.8 L II excels at the largest apertures, and does give you an additional stop for subject motion in low light and slightly blurrier out-of-focus background/foregrounds. It is a very fine lens, indeed.

- The 24-105mm f/4 L IS also produces excellent image quality, though it cannot match the 24-70 at the largest apertures if you are a pixel peeper. (If you make prints of your f/4 shots from both, you can produce excellent work from either.) Its longer 105mm focal length and larger overall focal length range make it a bit more flexible, and image stabilization gives your several additional stops in low light when camera stability is the limiting factor.

When I choose to use the 24-105 for its larger FL range and IS, I may have that niggling concern in the back of my mind that when I produce a 24" x 36" print I may be able to detect some small differences that other viewers won't see. When I choose to use the 24-70 I miss the added reach and the IS and I know that I won't be able to push low light boundaries quite as far in handheld photography.

Dan

Edited on Apr 15, 2014 at 09:34 AM · View previous versions

Apr 15, 2014 at 09:06 AM

Gunzorro
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.5 #2 · p.5 #2 · Convince Me On a 24-105 f/4L

fraga wrote:


	http://fstoppers.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/edges.jpg

Full article:
http://fstoppers.com/fs-review-sigma-hits-success-again-with-24-105mm-f4-os-hsm-lens

Fraga -- Sorry, but looking at the overall scene that this example is taken from, I'd say the Canon is out of focus -- the selection is just left of center, midway to the edge -- it should be in sharp focus. Either that Canon sample needs MFA or a trip to Canon for adjustment. The Sigma looks very good, but I don't see any results in the article that show it convincingly better than my Canon.

Definitely calls for more testing, and more A-B comparisons.

Apr 15, 2014 at 09:16 AM

fraga
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #3 · p.5 #3 · Convince Me On a 24-105 f/4L

No reason to apologize, Gunzorro!

The reviewer does state that he considers the sigma as being better optically.
However, as we all know, the reviews are only truly valid for the tested samples.

I have read several sigma reviews and this one was one of the best, others say that optically the sigma and the L are approximately at the same level. This one gave a clear advantage to the sigma, but it might be that the sample of the L used was somehow sub-standard.

The contrast and colors do seem a little better on the sigma, though.

Apr 15, 2014 at 09:38 AM

Gunzorro
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.5 #4 · p.5 #4 · Convince Me On a 24-105 f/4L

Shield wrote:
You may not want to try the 24-70 II 2.8; it'd knock your entire feet off for sharpness.

I've used the new 24-70/2.8 II. It is very, very good, but not out of this world IQ to equal its stratospheric price. I've kept my original 24-70L and stocked up on some good primes (24 IS, 35 IS) that equal or surpass the new 24-70L II (with the added benefit of IS).

If the new 24-70L II sold new for $1500, that would be a game-changer. With used (near new) 24-105L IS for under $700, and sometimes down to just over $500, it is simply a spectacular value.

Apr 15, 2014 at 12:34 PM

Tom Dix
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #5 · p.5 #5 · Convince Me On a 24-105 f/4L

Ralph Conway wrote:
My first 24-105 was a good and well used lense before I purchased a 100 L. I alrady shot the 70-200 4.0 L IS and the 50mm (first canon, then Sigma 1.4).
Compared to the primes and the 4.0 zoom I was not happy with the WA zoom and its performence any longer.

BUT: This has changed when I purchased the 6D with a 24-105 (again) as a kit.
I planed to sell it and exchange it with a Tammy 24-70.

I am not sure if I will do, because this (new) lens on a 6D works just great!

Happy to hear that you now own the 6D! Hope you are enjoying it Ralph.

Apr 15, 2014 at 12:49 PM

skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #6 · p.5 #6 · Convince Me On a 24-105 f/4L

gdanmitchell wrote:
No question that the 24-70 can produce somewhat higher resolution, especially at f/4, that may be visible to pixel-peepers who compare very closely on their computer screens. (And super-especially at f/2.8!) However, based on my own experience using both lenses, when it comes to actual results the f/4 lens can produce excellent image quality, and if you do a lot of smaller aperture stuff (landscape, anyone?) the differences will be hard to see on screen and impossible to see in a print.

These are lenses that are best suited to somewhat different uses.

- The 24-70 f/2.8 L II excels...Show more →

I gotta disagree that 24-105 vs 24-70 II differences near 24mm for landscape at say f/8-f/10 are almost impossible to notice on screen and impossible in print. At least for typical copies of each (and I've personally handled like 5 of each). Maybe some don't care, but that's another matter.

I even see a difference between 24-70 f/4 IS and 24-105L under those circumstances.

Apr 15, 2014 at 02:22 PM

skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #7 · p.5 #7 · Convince Me On a 24-105 f/4L

kakomu wrote:
It appears to have been a one day thing. Otherwise, pricing trends have kept it at $1150 and higher (currently at $1500).

The price I refer too probably was a one day thing. But I've seen it for $1000ish on a regular basis. and more recently the dips have been to $950 or even $899. It started regularly dipping to $1025 now and then at Adorama and here and there months upon month ago. Sure, if if you had to have it on the spot most often you'd have been $1150+ but if you were willing to wait like 1-8 weeks you've been able to get it for like $1000 and it's been like that for a long time.

Apr 15, 2014 at 02:26 PM

skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #8 · p.5 #8 · Convince Me On a 24-105 f/4L

fraga wrote:


	http://fstoppers.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/edges.jpg

Full article:
http://fstoppers.com/fs-review-sigma-hits-success-again-with-24-105mm-f4-os-hsm-lens

My problem with the Sigma is that it's larger and heavier than the 24-70 f/2.8 II and yet the 24-70 f/4 IS, on sale, can be had for not much more (and this lens is noticeably smaller and lighter than the 24-70 f/2.8 II) and the 24-105 is somewhat smaller and lighter and can be had for a few hundred less (although it might not be as sharp at a few focal lengths near wide open, not sure the sigma really does so much better stopped down, while some of the others do do noticeably better than the 24-105L when they are stopped down).

I'm still curious to see PZ review of it. And it's true I've never tried one myself, perhaps I'd be more impressed. Sigma's MTF charts and some early samples I saw looked less than hot though so I'm still in reserving judgement mode on the scattered reviews out praising it a lot. But again even if it is better than the 24-105 to a significant degree, that still doesn't make it much larger and heavier and taking larger filters than the 24-70 f/4 IS.

Apr 15, 2014 at 02:32 PM

skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #9 · p.5 #9 · Convince Me On a 24-105 f/4L

jj_glos wrote:
I thought this as well, I don't even notice mine at all.

Maybe you are just not use to what a totally silent IS unit is like though? Or shoot video and realize that what you think is soft is actually a quiet roar near a mic?

All I can say is the two 24-70 f/4 IS I've seen both had noticeably quieter IS than the 5 24-105 I've ever handled.

Apr 15, 2014 at 02:35 PM

ssc45
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #10 · p.5 #10 · Convince Me On a 24-105 f/4L

To answer the OP, the 24-105 is my walk around lens. I like the overall utility that the lens provides. It is a nice zoom for most of my common "walk around" trips etc. This includes car, bike, boat shows and average outings. I generally have other gear with me, but this is my most used lens. I like the IS and the focal range. I have used it for many landscape outings.

I find it to be sharp enough and produce good colors. As to the negatives, it has barrel creep, and barrel distortion at the wide end. There are other lens that are sharper at the edges.

I had started a thread about renting and trying out the 24-70v2. It took off like a train wreck. Bottom line was that I didn't see it was worth the money for me. However, being my own worst enemy, I purchased this lens. I have been doing my best to use this lens for many different situations. I will say it is a bit sharper at the edges, less barrel distortion and no creep. However, I favor my 24-105 for its overall utility and will probably sell the 24-70v2.

Cheers, Steve

Apr 15, 2014 at 03:54 PM

jj_glos
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #11 · p.5 #11 · Convince Me On a 24-105 f/4L

skibum5 wrote:
Maybe you are just not use to what a totally silent IS unit is like though? Or shoot video and realize that what you think is soft is actually a quiet roar near a mic?

All I can say is the two 24-70 f/4 IS I've seen both had noticeably quieter IS than the 5 24-105 I've ever handled.

I don't shoot video, that's true. However my ears do work fine and I can't hear the IS on my 24-105 in a church environment. My 70-200 mkII I can definitely hear! The OS on my old 150-500 was by far the loudest I've used.

Edit: I'm not saying the 24-105 is silent, but it's not what I would call noisy either. On the rare occasions I use the IS I just don't notice it, or find it intrusive.

Apr 15, 2014 at 04:03 PM

kakomu
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #12 · p.5 #12 · Convince Me On a 24-105 f/4L

As to the sound of the IS, it wouldn't matter much to me for video work, because I would prefer to use a lavalier mic for typical audio or set an external mic to boom mode.

Apr 15, 2014 at 04:24 PM

johnctharp
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #13 · p.5 #13 · Convince Me On a 24-105 f/4L

kakomu wrote:
As to the sound of the IS, it wouldn't matter much to me for video work, because I would prefer to use a lavalier mic for typical audio or set an external mic to boom mode.

The boom mike option, even with a small powered stereo mic on the hot shoe, works very well with the 24-105L for portable video in my experience.

Apr 15, 2014 at 04:34 PM

Ralph Conway
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #14 · p.5 #14 · Convince Me On a 24-105 f/4L

Tom Dix wrote:
Happy to hear that you now own the 6D! Hope you are enjoying it Ralph.

off topic:
I purchased it in January, Tom. I just did not want to start a "finally I got it" - thread.

After selling my beloved 5D II it costs me € 1100 including kit lens and brought back the investigation with it´s first shooting. After three month now I still miss the joystick sometimes. Else it gives me all I expected and some more. This body in my opinion is excellent and for my needs the best choice and pure pleasure.

Back to topic

Apr 17, 2014 at 01:51 AM

Lobohowler
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.5 #15 · p.5 #15 · Convince Me On a 24-105 f/4L

ssc45 wrote:
To answer the OP, the 24-105 is my walk around lens. I like the overall utility that the lens provides. It is a nice zoom for most of my common "walk around" trips etc. This includes car, bike, boat shows and average outings. I generally have other gear with me, but this is my most used lens. I like the IS and the focal range. I have used it for many landscape outings.

I find it to be sharp enough and produce good colors. As to the negatives, it has barrel creep, and barrel distortion at the wide end. There are...Show more →

It comes down to whether you put more premium on focal length versatility or the improvement in performance, particularly wide open and at 24 mm. Many pro photographers use the 24-105 and produce great images. Many of us love to analyze equipment to death and to differentiate various offerings and convince ourselves that we need better equipment (part of having gas, gear acquisition syndrome). I think that many times the skill of the photographer, especially in terms of image composition and post-processing, is a bigger factor in the success of an image. I'm not denying the importance of 2.8 vs 4.0, sharpness, vignetting, etc.; it just seems to me that both of these L lenses are great tools capable of producing outstanding images. If you need/want the extra reach and that is more important than better performance at 24 and f2.8, then go for the 24-105 - it is quite capable.

Apr 17, 2014 at 08:46 AM

Rajan Parrikar
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.5 #16 · p.5 #16 · Convince Me On a 24-105 f/4L

Lobohowler wrote:
It comes down to whether you put more premium on focal length versatility or the improvement in performance, particularly wide open and at 24 mm. Many pro photographers use the 24-105 and produce great images. Many of us love to analyze equipment to death and to differentiate various offerings and convince ourselves that we need better equipment (part of having gas, gear acquisition syndrome).

One can use "many" and "some" in a sentence to claim virtually anything and sound like a sage. So here's a freebie with "some" - some of us here recognize that this is a gear forum and do not hesitate to offer our opinion and personal experience with the gear we have used. Many of this some have no affliction of gear acquisition syndrome.

Apr 17, 2014 at 09:59 AM

1 2 3 4 5 end
FM Forums \| Canon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 4 5 end

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.