I read somewhere that someone got one from a shop in Seattle but I don't remember if I read the post on FM or photonet. Maybe read through all the posts about this lens so far...
This may have been covered somewhere already, but can one of the early purchasers please confirm whether the front of this lens telescopes in and out for zooming?
calbirder wrote:
It came with a hood (that I use all the time) and a soft case (which I don't use at all). Here's a pic of the lens zoomed out (24mm) with the hood on:
Yes, I did look at that pic; it's what reminded me of my question. In that photo it looks like it does not telescope. However, in the shadow at the front of the hood, I see something... is that the petal of the hood on the far side of the diameter?... Jeeee, it was a simple question... I guess Scope's little sarcasm means "it's obvious from this photo that it doesn't telescope", but it wasn't completely obvious to me. Any way, now I am 95% sure it doesn't telescope. (Straight forward answers are almost always more efficient on the net. In this case, though I am not perturbed, I remain slightly uncertain... oh well)
As it turns out, I've learned in a PM that this lens does extend by about 1.75" when zoomed to 105. The PM also said that in real world use, the owner was pleased with the optics.
eq977 wrote:
If these samples represent a typical performance, then once again, it shows that MTF charts and practical performance are two different stories.
No - they are exactly the same story. The MTF charts show both vignetting and softening wide open at 24mm, so it should not have been any surprise.
Look how all the curves drop significantly in the right end, i.e. 1DsII corners:
I've been using the lens for about 5 days now, and have shot about 1,000 images with it so far. Here's my updated impressions...
If I am going to tripod mount my 1DsII to take a critical shot (landscape, architecture, etc), I wouldn't grab this lens. I'd grap one of my primes instead. For this type of shot, the 24-70L would be better, but even that lens is marginal for critical work on a 1DsII.
This lens is really designed for hand-holding. It's lighter (although not much smaller) than a 24-70L, and the IS is absolutely terrific. The IS is nearly silent (I keep having to check to make sure it's still on, because I don't hear the hum), and very effective. I'm taking shots at 1/10s and 1/5s without noticable camera shake. Truly amazing.
Optically, this lens is sharper than the 17-85IS. That, and the fact that I can mount it on either my 20D or my 1DsII (vs my 17-85 which only mounted on EF-S 1.6 crop bodies), makes this lens a keeper for me for walk-around hand-held shots.
In low-light shots with movement, I would still prefer the 24-70, because that lens was pretty sharp wide-open at f2.8. This 24-105L is not as sharp wide-open, so it's more like a 2-stop difference in actual usage. The IS is probably worth 3-stops, but of course the IS doesn't help with moving subjects (kids playing, etc).
Bottom line - I'm keeping this lens, and I'm very happy with it as a general-purpose walk-around on my 20D. I usually have it stopped down to f5.6 or f8 in Av mode, and the IS stabilizes the shot even with low shutter speeds.
I also use it on my 1DsII for casual walk-around shooting. It's better than other "walk-around" lenses I tried on the 1DsII (such as the 28-135IS), and the IS works great. But on the 1DsII, I keep it at f8 in Av mode, and bump ISO to take care of moving subjects.
If the 24-70L had IS, I would prefer that lens. As it is, I prefer the 24-70L for low-light situations with movement. Otherwise, I prefer the 24-105L because of the terrific IS.
I agree with Mike about the IS - it's completely silent and steady. I'm using it on a 20D and a Rebel XT so I don't see the edge problems that you would on a 1DsII but I do find it difficult to shoot moving objects in the shade (like kids or dogs) as I would expect with any f/4. That said, the images look very sharp for a zoom. Not as sharp as my 200/2.8L prime but that is to be expected. And it's infinitely more flexible than the 200!
Thanks for the reviews on this lens, and the sample photos. Especially Mary for the 20D photos, as this is the camera I'll be using the lens on most of the time.
I can see why it might not be the most appealing lens for full frame users given it's price, but for us 1.6 crop users (or even the 1DII users out there), this looks like an ideal lens, and will go nicely between the 16-35L and the 70-200L.
Feel free to post as many more images as you'd like, I'm sure people looking to buy this lens probably can't get enough of the sample photos.
RoyPertchi wrote:
I guess Scope's little sarcasm means "it's obvious from this photo that it doesn't telescope", but it wasn't completely obvious to me. Any way, now I am 95% sure it doesn't telescope.
Actually, I should have linked to the wohle gallery,
which can be found here:
The Photo with the extended 24-105 without the hood was
there before - thatīs what I was really talking about.
Didnīt mean to confuse you or be sarcastic
Although I am disappointed that the lens does not perform up to par on a FF, I am still excited with what is seems capable of on a 20D. Lots of potential and I can't wait till they become available locally as it seems like an ideal travel lens in combo with the 10-22. Will probably keep the 24-70 as well but after a weekend of heavy shooting of subjects that didn't move, the IS will be a Godsend.
Mike i agree with most of this but my 24-105 is sharper in the corners at f4, 50mm and 70mm, then my 24-70
Mike Hatam wrote:
I've been using the lens for about 5 days now, and have shot about 1,000 images with it so far. Here's my updated impressions...
If I am going to tripod mount my 1DsII to take a critical shot (landscape, architecture, etc), I wouldn't grab this lens. I'd grap one of my primes instead. For this type of shot, the 24-70L would be better, but even that lens is marginal for critical work on a 1DsII.
This lens is really designed for hand-holding. It's lighter (although not much smaller) than a 24-70L, and the IS is absolutely terrific. The IS is nearly silent (I keep having to check to make sure it's still on, because I don't hear the hum), and very effective. I'm taking shots at 1/10s and 1/5s without noticable camera shake. Truly amazing.
Optically, this lens is sharper than the 17-85IS. That, and the fact that I can mount it on either my 20D or my 1DsII (vs my 17-85 which only mounted on EF-S 1.6 crop bodies), makes this lens a keeper for me for walk-around hand-held shots.
In low-light shots with movement, I would still prefer the 24-70, because that lens was pretty sharp wide-open at f2.8. This 24-105L is not as sharp wide-open, so it's more like a 2-stop difference in actual usage. The IS is probably worth 3-stops, but of course the IS doesn't help with moving subjects (kids playing, etc).
Bottom line - I'm keeping this lens, and I'm very happy with it as a general-purpose walk-around on my 20D. I usually have it stopped down to f5.6 or f8 in Av mode, and the IS stabilizes the shot even with low shutter speeds.
I also use it on my 1DsII for casual walk-around shooting. It's better than other "walk-around" lenses I tried on the 1DsII (such as the 28-135IS), and the IS works great. But on the 1DsII, I keep it at f8 in Av mode, and bump ISO to take care of moving subjects.
If the 24-70L had IS, I would prefer that lens. As it is, I prefer the 24-70L for low-light situations with movement. Otherwise, I prefer the 24-105L because of the terrific IS.
, it was a simple question... I guess Scope's little sarcasm means "it's obvious from this photo that it doesn't telescope", but it wasn't completely obvious to me. Any way, now I am 95% sure it doesn't telescope. (Straight forward answers are almost always more efficient on the net. In this case, though I am not perturbed, I remain slightly uncertain... oh well)
