Hrow wrote:
Nice shots with the 24-105! Keep them coming.
On IS... IMO, the IS on the 24-105 is a Godsend. I understand the arguements of those who question its value so maybe it is just one of those things you have to experience. My biggest bitch about the 24-70 is that handheld once I drop below 1/100 sec I know I am losing image quality because of camera shake and thus move to a tripod. This is both good (in most cases as it slows me down in addition to adding stability) and impossible (sometimes a tripod is just totally impractical.)
Being able to shoot at F11 in fading light because you have IS is just as valuable to some as being able to shoot at 2.8. Depends on whether you need to stop motion or gain additional DOF. I find myself in the latter situation far more more often than the former because of what I shoot but obviously, this is a very personal decision that is totally dependent on subject matter and style.
I can see your point here-nicely (and cordially) stated. Certainly depends on shooting style.
I did notice, say on the 70-200 2.8 IS that the weight of that lens could make camera shake an issue and I see value in the IS there-but not $600 worth of value. That said, everyone trumps the 24-105 as lighter and smaller than the 24-70, and I have yet to miss a shot on my 24-70 so not an issue for me yet.
slau wrote:
As the 24-70 has been around since Nov 2002 and the new boy 24-105 was out only for a few months (got mine in Oct 2005), I cannot expect there are as many samples from the new zoom as the older lens. I don't have the 24-70L and my 28-70L definitely does not perform as well as my 24-105. But with tiny web images posted, I don't really expect anyone can judge the image quality but have a feel for what are the lenses used for.
I have been out only a few time briefly with the 24-105 and I am really happy with the results. Hope the new replacement I have is as good as the one I sent back for exchange. Here are a few of my 24-105 samples:
Canon EOS 1Ds ,Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
1/40s f/11.0 at 70.0mm iso100
Canon EOS 1D Mark II ,Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
1/60s f/18.0 at 24.0mm iso125
Canon EOS 1D Mark II ,Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
1/6s f/13.0 at 95.0mm iso125
The above shots are not intended to demonstrate the image quality of the 24-105 lens, which is almost as good as any lens I have at my favorite shooting aperture, but to show the type of shots my lens has been used for. ...Show more →
Nicely done. I enjoyed seeing your shutterspeed in the EXIF. Thanks for providing. I take it you chose the fstop and could have taken the shot without IS but wanted the DOF.
Robert wrote: "True.......only if you do not have a tripod or refuse to use one. I just think it is overpriced/overvalued personally. Curious how much of the 24-105 price you think is the IS value? Isn't/shouldn't this lens really be a $800 lens? Is IS worth $400+ ? "
If you are asking whether IS is worth $400 to the photographer, that is a question that only the photographer can answer.
If you are asking if the 24-105 is overpriced compared to other lenses in its class, I don't think so. Look at the difference in price between the IS and non-IS versions of the 70-200mm f.2.8 L as a starting point. Now take Canon L non-IS lenses that might be sort of equivalent to the 24-105, such as the 17-40mm f4 or the 70-200 f4. These lenses sell in the roughly $600-$700 range.
Add to this the difference in cost between the IS and non-IS 70-200 lenses and you'll see that the cost of the 24-105 is just about what you would predict it to be.
Of course, if Canon wants to sell it for less I won't mind at all... ;-)
RGS65 wrote:
True.......only if you do not have a tripod or refuse to use one. I just think it is overpriced/overvalued personally. Curious how much of the 24-105 price you think is the IS value? Isn't/shouldn't this lens really be a $800 lens? Is IS worth $400+ ?
I think the 24-105 will settle in price as soon as the initial demand is satisfied. It's already in the general price range of the 24-70. I expect it will settle in around $1000 but who knows.
Compare the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 IQ to the 24-70 if you really want to talk value.
I'll go out on a limb (and I won't have to go far) and predict that Canon put's IS on every new zoom they introduce in the future. (which is fine by me!)
RGS65 wrote:
True.......only if you do not have a tripod or refuse to use one. I just think it is overpriced/overvalued personally. Curious how much of the 24-105 price you think is the IS value? Isn't/shouldn't this lens really be a $800 lens? Is IS worth $400+ ?
Edited by RGS65 on Jan 20, 2006 at 11:46 AM GMT
For me - IS is worth $400. But that's my perspective based on what I tend to shoot (see my website).
As someone said - there's about a $550 difference between the 70-200 IS and Non-IS. So $400 is probably a fair estimate on teh 24-105mm.
There is the same price difference betweenn the 70-200 f/4 and f/2.8 Non-IS ($550). I would venture to guess that you would willingly spend that cash for the extra stop.
As has been said many times - it depends on your needs.
By the way - I have the 70-200 IS and it is the best of both worlds - which we all prefer!
RGS65 wrote:
I did notice, say on the 70-200 2.8 IS that the weight of that lens could make camera shake an issue and I see value in the IS there-but not $600 worth of value.
Since the 70-200 f2.8 IS is heavier the the 70-200 f2.8 non IS you're saying Canon put IS on the lens to counter act the added weight of the IS
I find the IS to be invaluable and would like it on all my lenses. In theory, I would be (and was) OK with the price point but was a bit miffed that it is a fair amount more expensive in the US than the rest of the world. (Got thoroughly reamed here for expressing that!)
What I wasn't OK with was the image quality as it was not on par with my 24-70. I acknowledge that it may have been my copy but I have noted that a number of others have felt the same way. From what I experienced, the lens is overpriced but not because the IS but because of the IQ. Now let me stress that I don't think the IQ on mine was terrible. It ranged from OK to, in a couple of cases, exceptional. For $1250, I want exceptional.
For $800 I would be OK spending the money to have a good travel lens and be OK (financially) with keeping 24-70 for more serious stuff. However, note that if the 24-105 performed at the same level as my 24-70 I'd pay Canon their money in an instant but of course would bitch about it.
The other reason for this thread was that in the multitude of 24-105 threads I have seen precious few images that I would be super happy with from an IQ perspective. Same thing with scanning the 24-105 images over at Pbase and I was hoping to see more high quality shots on this thread. Those that are top notch almost invariable come from Series 1 or 5D bodies making me wonder if it is just that the better photographers who can create better images tend to have better equipment or if the pixel size comes into play with some lenses more than others. Not sure why that would be but maybe it is a factor.
This may seem like a silly question, but does anyone have (or could you take) a picture of the 2 of these side-by-side. People always talk about the size of the 24-70, but from seeing it at BH a while back, I felt that the 24-105 felt the same. Obviously this is not the case considering that the 24-105 is 30% lighter.
Anyway, just though it would be interesting to see the difference in size/ for practicality of having it as a walkaround lens
M
I just bought the 24-70mm L a few weeks back and have been blown away so far. I'm not really in the market for the 24-105mm IS but it would be a hard sell for me to have that much redundancy from 24-70mm.
There didn't seem to be a 24-70mm L Flickr group, so I went ahead and made one if anyone wants to contribute.
This was one of my first shots with the lens, 1D with flash at f/7.1, can't remember the shutter speed off-hand.
The incrediably fine detail in capitalK's shot is what I didn't see in the 24-105. I would love to think it was there. Can anyone offer a similar demonstration with the 24-105?
xmattkx wrote:
This may seem like a silly question, but does anyone have (or could you take) a picture of the 2 of these side-by-side. People always talk about the size of the 24-70, but from seeing it at BH a while back, I felt that the 24-105 felt the same. Obviously this is not the case considering that the 24-105 is 30% lighter.
Anyway, just though it would be interesting to see the difference in size/ for practicality of having it as a walkaround lens
M
Matt, the difference isn't huge but it is noticeable. On a 20D the 24-70 is somewhat ill balanced and the 24-105 just "seems" better.
Hrow wrote:
The incrediably fine detail in capitalK's shot is what I didn't see in the 24-105. I would love to think it was there. Can anyone offer a similar demonstration with the 24-105?
Thanks Hrow,
That shot is RAW processed to JPG though Apple Aperture with absolutely zero sharpening. Straight from the camera. I was really happy with the detail and once I saw that shot at 100% I knew I made the right decision buying the 24-70 L.
danmitchell wrote:
Robert wrote: "True.......only if you do not have a tripod or refuse to use one. I just think it is overpriced/overvalued personally. Curious how much of the 24-105 price you think is the IS value? Isn't/shouldn't this lens really be a $800 lens? Is IS worth $400+ ? "
If you are asking whether IS is worth $400 to the photographer, that is a question that only the photographer can answer.
If you are asking if the 24-105 is overpriced compared to other lenses in its class, I don't think so. Look at the difference in price between the IS and non-IS versions of the 70-200mm f.2.8 L as a starting point. Now take Canon L non-IS lenses that might be sort of equivalent to the 24-105, such as the 17-40mm f4 or the 70-200 f4. These lenses sell in the roughly $600-$700 range.
Add to this the difference in cost between the IS and non-IS 70-200 lenses and you'll see that the cost of the 24-105 is just about what you would predict it to be.
Of course, if Canon wants to sell it for less I won't mind at all... ;-)
I see yes, but $400-$600 seems steep for IS and extra reach, but losing a stop. Seems like it should be a wash to me. If the IS is an even swap for loss of the extra stop, then you are paying $400-600 for the 70-105mm focal length? If the 24-105 settles in at the 24-70 price it seems to make more sense to me. As you say, though, it depends on the individual on their needs.
xmattkx wrote:
This may seem like a silly question, but does anyone have (or could you take) a picture of the 2 of these side-by-side. People always talk about the size of the 24-70, but from seeing it at BH a while back, I felt that the 24-105 felt the same. Obviously this is not the case considering that the 24-105 is 30% lighter.
Anyway, just though it would be interesting to see the difference in size/ for practicality of having it as a walkaround lens
M
Yes, the 24-105 is 30% less weight and 13% less in length compared to the 24-70. I have a new 5D and decided on the 24-105 for a good all-around lens. I hate large heavy lenses and this is about as small a zoom I could find that was highly rated.
I just think it is overpriced/overvalued personally. Curious how much of the 24-105 price you think is the IS value? Isn't/shouldn't this lens really be a $800 lens? Is IS worth $400+ ? 
