Bopperkat

about | support

build quality, IQ in the long range

Yes you can actually get good results even for sports - if it´s a sunny day. A cropped image of a race horse http://www.flickr.com/photos/bopperkat/4649699692/sizes/l/in/set-72157625666810973/ (1/2000s, f5.6, 90mm, ISO 400). So this one does not prove IQ in the telerange, sunny or not. But why don´t you get the EF 200 mm f/2.8 L II USM instead? It is a superb lens at a very reasonable price, maybe 2,5 times the price of EF-S 55-250.

The 24-105 is highly usable in low light. The photo below was shot with the exposure of 1/6 s, something I wouldn´t normally try but I got away with it. http://www.flickr.com/photos/bopperkat/5294331063/sizes/l/in/photostream/ (I practically never use a tripod). So the IS helps, also the IQ is excellent wide open, with the exception of borders in the 70 to 105 range. You can see this in the first cat shot below (@73 mm @f4.0)

I mentioned below that the AF is superior to that of the 135 f2L. That is true for moving objects in the AI Servo mode, and I don´t think it is a result of the different camera (500d for 135L, 550d for 24-105L). I guess it´s possible, but it did not even occur to me initially.

I now have five lenses and I need a sixth, but the 24-105 is indispensable for me. For this range I definitely need a zoom, otherwise I prefer primes.

picture quality in the tele range

I used to own this. It´s fantastic for the money - on the other hand, there´s not so much of it. I firmly believe to manufacture a decent tele zoom will require a multiple investment. Probably this is better on the short focals. From http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=251&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=456&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=2

you can see that it is definitely better than EF-S 17-85 mm f 4/5.6 IS USM, at 70mm with f 5.6. On the other hand, it is inferior to EF 24-105 mm f 4 IS USM by a landslide, as well as to its kit partner EF-S 18-55 mm f 3.5/5.6 IS, but as the range is different the comparison is not fair. (I hold on to this view even if the comparison at 55mm would not support it ).

I don´t like the colors of this lens, overall it produces smudgy pictures. These days I only shoot RAW, but I never shot in RAW with this one, so it´s difficult to say if shooting in that form would make a difference. To contradict myself, here´s a decent one (and the whole set, for that matter)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bopperkat/4653468476/sizes/l/in/set-72157624043027681/

This is a very good all-around lens. Perhaps I would not include it in my shopping-list if I had to start all over again and plan a whole new sortiment of lenses, but this item has really no cons except the relative slowness, which can be a factor in sports photography. You can always rely on the autofocus, it is fast and accurate, clearly superior to the EF 135mm f/2 L USM. And I really find the image stabilizer useful in this range.