RGS65 wrote:
I really appreciate your comments here, but I just do not get the bottom line: "The only thing I wish it had was f2.8" You are saying your 24-105 was the sharpest? Sharper than your 24-70s? That is the first time I have heard that. I guess I have to at least take a look at one of those Tammys. You are lucky to have had all three
Yes, I'm very fortunate to have had all three. I haven't had them all at the same time however. I've had the Tammy to compare with all three. The Tammy beat both 24-70L's and both 28-70L's in terms of sharpness. Not in terms of color or contrast however. The 24-105L is the only lens of the 5 Canon contenders that was sharper than the Tamron at equivalent apertures. I still have the Tammy for a faster/lighter option but the 24-105L in my tests has proven the sharpest of the bunch.
When I said "the only thing I wish it had was f2.8", I meant that I love the currently constructed lens for it's light weight and sharpness and of course the IS, if it had a shallower DOF on top of that it would be perfect. Of course if they made it with f2.8, it'd probably be much bigger and heavier than the current model.
The Canon 24-70L has been widely reported as having variances in their QC. Most 28-70L's are reported to be pretty sharp, but the reviews I've read and my own experiences included tells me that the lens varies from copy to copy. This is true for not only the 24-70L but the Tamron is notorious for QC issues. Luckily, my Tammy 28-75 is very sharp, but not as sharp as my 24-105L. YMMV.
Hrow wrote:
The laziness I was referring to was really my own. I almost always have a tripod in the car and when I had the 24-105 it came out a whole lot less than when I am using the 24-70. In retrospect I think it hurt my shooting .......
Don't blame the lens if you become lazy or careless . I love my IS lenses but still shoot with tripod 99% of the time. There is always a misconception that IS and tripod do not go together. Wonder why? Using tripod does not ncecessarily means a complete lock down and you can use tripod any way you like. I have been shooting from landscape (complete lock down) to birds-in-flight (with Wimberley head) with my variety of IS lenses and I beleive that I know what I am talking about after thousands of shots.
Anyone argues about IS is useless has not had a chance to learn to fully utilize the IS benefit. I also wonder how do people judge how much the IS SHOULD be worth and based on what? Every person is different in so many ways and it is completely meaningless to talk about the $1500 price is too expensive .
IS is not to be here to replace tripod and fast aperture, but to compliment them and provides photographers with every little bit of advantage. If I have my choice, I would love to have all my lenses equipped with IS.
slau wrote:
Don't blame the lens if you become lazy or careless . I love my IS lenses but still shoot with tripod 99% of the time. There is always a misconception that IS and tripod do not go together. Wonder why? Using tripod does not ncecessarily means a complete lock down and you can use tripod any way you like. I have been shooting from landscape (complete lock down) to birds-in-flight (with Wimberley head) with my variety of IS lenses and I beleive that I know what I am talking about after thousands of shots.
Anyone argues about IS is useless has not had a chance to learn to fully utilize the IS benefit. I also wonder how do people judge how much the IS SHOULD be worth and based on what? Every person is different in so many ways and it is completely meaningless to talk about the $1500 price is too expensive .
IS is not to be here to replace tripod and fast aperture, but to compliment them and provides photographers with every little bit of advantage. If I have my choice, I would love to have all my lenses equipped with IS. ...Show more →
Totally agree with you on all counts and certainly the lens didn't MAKE me lazy, it just allowed me to be which is 100% my fault.
Hrow wrote:
However, I also think that there is a downside to IS in that many shots that should be taken from a tripod won't be because of IS and a certain laziness that it can impart. .
I would reverse that, and say taht there are many shots that simply wouldn't be taken (that should be) without IS, because one doesn't happen to have his tripod handy.
DavidP wrote:
I would reverse that, and say taht there are many shots that simply wouldn't be taken (that should be) without IS, because one doesn't happen to have his tripod handy.
A very valid point. I can see it working both ways.
This whole f/2.8 obsession... now, don't get me wrong, given the choice I'd have f/2.8 at the same price as f/4 thank you very much. However, let's not forget that we're only gaining one extra stop here. Someone else said it in another thread here recently, and I'll say it here: the "boundary zone" where that extra stop is going to make the difference between getting the shot or not getting the shot is fairly small.
If you're in that boundary between 1/60th (not getting the shot) and 1/125th (getting the shot) then sure, that extra stop is going to help you. Otherwise, it doesn't make any difference. Above 1/125th, you don't need it. Below 1/60th, you don't get the shot anyway. It's a very narrow range.
DOF, yeah, is different; but the 24-105mm ain't a portrait lens.
I own one, and as a walk-around it's a champion. I tried the 24-70mm and, while it's clearly a fabulous lens, for me it was too heavy, too long (physically) at 24mm, and not long enough (in the focal length) to be really useful as a walk-around.
Hi Gang
You guy's are killing me i have the 17-85 a good copy and i have been looking to upgrade to the L got the Kids in the states at the moment snowboarding in tahoe looking in SF, and Sac, for me a 35L, 85,1.8, and one of the 2 above now i don't know which way to jump but its leaning 24-70 Just because of having f4 IS on my 85
Graham
If you have a really good 17-85 get the 24-70 because f2.8 is about you're going to get over your 17-85 with either of those two (and you're going to lose 17-24mm either way.) I think it's pretty clear I'm a complete 24-105 fanboy but I loved the 17-85 on the 20D for much the same reasons (great usable range and IS, excellent IQ).
But there are plenty around here that like their 24-105's a lot on the 1.6X bodies as well. I just don't think you'll see huge IQ differences with either over a good 17-85.
Your kids should be having fun as we finally got some decent snow here from the last few storms.
What an interesting discussion. I recently sold a 17-85 IS with the intention of purchasing another lens. I eveutually want both the 24-105 IS and a 400 5.6 to add to my current selection. As a result of reading this I need to think what my shooting style is. I love my 50 1.4 and 70-200 2.8 IS 'cause of the execptional ability to shoot in low light (especially the 50 1.4). Now I am wondering if the 24-70 is more my style. I should probalby get with my local store and try them both out for a day or so. So I will probably skirt the issue for now and get the 400 :-)
Is it just me, or does the DOF on some of these seems to extraordinarily wide for F4 , even for 24mm? The ISO 1600 performance is incredible. Very impressive.
I am surprised that there is not as much distortion at 24 mm as I expect. This is the example I am talking about, and I hope you don't mind me linking directly to your image, Steve:
RGS65 wrote:
The lens looks good, but why would I want to take this shot? And I could take a sharper one with a tripod. I think the previous posts better describe the benefits of the lens.
The shot was only to test the limits of IS. The real value of IS is when you find yourself without a tripod (or where tripods are prohibited) and you still get a decent shot. It's just another chance to get the shot you want when you don't have a full pack of gear.
Great example of why IS is invaluable on a walk around lens AND kudos for dispelling the notion that light fall off is some tragic condition. It's hard to notice light fall off when the photo is actually interesting.
steveprice wrote:
I dont't know ho to attach images to a reply but I have some 5D+24-105 examples here:
One advantage the 24-70L has over the 24-105L is the extra AF accuracy when using the center AF point on the 20D and 5D. This is a HUGE thing in low-light situations, or at least it has been for me, and so I'm surprised that Canon came out with an f/4 lens as "the" lens for the 5D. Not that there's anything wrong with the 24-105L, just that the 5D AF performs better with f/2.8 lenses.
I got a chance to play with a 24-105L on my 5D at CES and really liked the feel and build quallity. I'm considering getting one but plan to put it through its paces before finalizing my decision. I agree with one of the first posters that I just haven't seen any 24-105L images that "pop" like those from the 24-70L -- regardless of aperture.
That said, the main reason I'm looking at the 24-105L is because I don't take the 24-70L with me very much. It's just too bulky in my bag and awkwardly-heavy around my neck to be a viable walkaround considering the limited range. But as we've seen, the images from the 24-70L are spectacular. It's very hard to give up that, the extra stop, and the added AF benefit -- especially in low-light situations.
Why oh why must every lens decision be so exasperating! :-)
Ok, I buy the Canon 5D and have to decide on a good general use zoom. Looks like the 24-70 or 24-105 are the two to decide on. I get both and do the following tests: http://bwclark.smugmug.com/gallery/1135824/1/54102436
Basis these tests, weight savings, IS, extra coverage at tele, and sharpness...my pick is the 24-105!
I have to go along with what ALF said, on the AF thing. I'm shooting with a 300D, so, the AF may not be quite up to par, but I was shooting in a dimly lit coffee house yesterday. The 24-105 was wide open at something like a 1/8 th of a sec. and I could not get the focus to lock on someones face, or anypart of their clothing. I had simular issues with the 17-40 and the 20D, so I guess I'm sort of thinking that F 4 just doesn't cut it, without a flash or IF focus assist, which brings me around to the question of how valuable IS is, if you cant get the lens to focus? I had the 24-70 for awhile, but it was huge, heavy and ridiculously long at 24mm, plus, in the same condition, it wouldn't have faired much better as far as getting a sharp portrait at 70mm 2.8 and a 30th of a second. I think the low light world, without flash, for me anyway, is really just the realm for fast primes.
.