Why don't I see excitement for the 24-105L?

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

11/29/2005 11:48:46 AM · #1

I would think a new L lens would generate more buzz than it has. Why don't I see this? Is it just nobody has gotten their hands on one or are there issues? I would think it would be a primo walkaround lens. I use the 17-40L as my walkaround right now and often wish I had more reach.

Opinions?

TroyMosley

Canon EOS-5D

11/29/2005 11:56:05 AM · #2

well i dont like it because its f/4 after haveing my 24-70 2.8 the only lens i need now is the 70-200 2.8 and maybe a wide angle and then ill have all of it covered.

robs

Canon EOS R6 Mk II

11/29/2005 11:57:46 AM · #3

I was really looking forward to it but my bottom line is that it came in too high in $ terms. I would find the IS really useful and that range is great for me even on the 1.6 crop but I just cannot justify that price right now. I hope it drops a little once the backlog from the recall is sorted but I cannot see it dropping much.

From the images I have seen posted, it appears to be a great lens on the 1.6 crop although there seems to be issues at the edges on a FF (like there is for the 17-40).

I got to play with one at B&H the other week and it feels really good on the 20D, as far as balance & weight is concerned.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

11/29/2005 12:11:51 PM · #4

Originally posted by TroyMosley:

well i dont like it because its f/4 after haveing my 24-70 2.8 the only lens i need now is the 70-200 2.8 and maybe a wide angle and then ill have all of it covered.

I guess this could be an issue. Maybe I don't know what I'm missing having always used 4.0 lenses (except my 50/1.8). With Neat Image, shooting 1600 isn't too huge an issue, although I rarely use 1600 even with my 4.0. Maybe this would be bigger at the upper end of the lens. I'm just getting sick of walking around with 2 lenses for the exact range this provides.

The 24-105 seems like it would fit very well into the following armamentarium:

10-22L
24-105L
100/2.8 Macro
100-400L

Otherwise you are stuck with something like this:
17-40L
50mm/1.8
70-200L
100-400L

Seems like a lot of overlap.

Does anybody know if the 17-40L or the 70-200L provide better images at their respective range compared to the 24-105L?

Prof_Fate

11/29/2005 12:22:27 PM · #5

For certain situations 2.8 or even 4 is what you gotta have. But for best sharpness you want to be in teh 5.6-8 range anyway, so for that purpose a 2.8 lens means little.

Tamron makes a 24-135 in their SP line that is a fantastic walkaround lens. Even has macro so just about everything is covered.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

11/29/2005 12:28:50 PM · #6

But the f/2.8 gives you a MUCH brighter viewfinder. It makes a difference...

R.

Count

Canon EOS-30D

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

11/29/2005 12:30:03 PM · #7

The 24-105L for me isn't quite enough reach, I'm used to superzooms though like the 35-350L or 28-300L (which is a great lens if you can get past the $$ issues!).

I hear the quality of the 24-105L is good though and if I shot most of my pics in that range I wouldn't hesitate to use it.

notonline

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

11/29/2005 12:32:40 PM · #8

Originally posted by bear_music:

But the f/2.8 gives you a MUCH brighter viewfinder. It makes a difference...

R.

I just picked up the 24-70 2.8 so hopefully I like it.

TroyMosley

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

11/29/2005 12:40:06 PM · #9

Originally posted by notonline:

Originally posted by bear_music:
But the f/2.8 gives you a MUCH brighter viewfinder. It makes a difference...

R.

I just picked up the 24-70 2.8 so hopefully I like it.

i got my canon 24-70L 2.8 a few months ago and it hasent left my camera since, it is the best lens out there i feel. there is no comparison

robs

Canon EOS R6 Mk II

11/29/2005 12:46:49 PM · #10

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I guess this could be an issue. Maybe I don't know what I'm missing having always used 4.0 lenses (except my 50/1.8).

I would not suggest it could replace an f2.8 in a lot of cases but I find that 2.8 is stuck in the middle for me a little (it depends what and where you shoot). I have the Tamy 28-75 and I love it except I find that inside I tend to use primes in the f2 range now (I just cannot seem to put that 85f1.8 down since I got it :-).

My interest in the 24-105 is more travel/walkabout type stuff. I was in DC/NY recently and missed a lot of shots at dusk due to me shake (camera shake) where the IS would have helped a lot - i.e. no movement or in places where I find the movement nice (moving traffic e.t.c.). I know, I should have had a tripod but I was traveling on work and it just was not practical. Since I find myself in these dusk/no-tripod spots too often, it would be a great help.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Does anybody know if the 17-40L or the 70-200L provide better images at their respective range compared to the 24-105L?

I only know from other boards and have not seen myself, so at the risk of spreading rumors; I hear people say that the long end is softer and the short end also has issues against the middle of the 17-40 range - I would expect this anyway.

dswebb

11/29/2005 12:52:21 PM · #11

As for me the 24-105 L is the next lens I'm saving for. Only problem is how long will it take me to save up the $$$... But, I am excited by it, as it does seem a perfect walk around lens for what I normally do.

Doug

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

11/29/2005 12:59:18 PM · #12

Originally posted by robs:

I would expect this too as the wider your range the worst the image. This is why I stay away from massively ranged zooms. Still I wondered what exactly I was giving up. I guess I could check out the MTFs. I always have to find the canon Japanese site though since the MTF on the CanonUSA for the 17-40 is wrong...

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

11/29/2005 12:59:38 PM · #13

Originally posted by bear_music:

But the f/2.8 gives you a MUCH brighter viewfinder. It makes a difference...

R.

Right! Also, some Canon cameras autofocus more accurately with an f/2.8 lens as opposed to something slower, e.g. f/4. It will be easier to manually focus with a 2.8 lens, since you're focusing wide open, and the DoF is narrower, giving a clearer indication of where the plane of focus is.
Even with a high-performance camera, f/2.8 is just barely enough (sometimes not enough) indoors. I've "been there and done that" shooting with f/4 and slower zooms indoors, it is a prescription for disaster.
The IS is a nice feature, but on a wide zoom not as big a deal as on a tele-zoom. At shutter speeds below 1/50 or so, shooting people gets very dicey. Subject motion almost always impacts the quality of the shots. I can shoot a non-IS wide zoom at 1/50 hand-held, so do I need IS in this range? Only for still life. On the longer end of the 70-200, however, IS really gives me an advantage!
All in all, I think the 24-105 IS is a very nice lens, covering a very useful range, if low-light capability is not on the table. It offers no huge advantages to me over my current 24-70 though, so I'll pass.

11/29/2005 01:20:56 PM · #14

Well, I went over to DPReview and waded through the posts for a while. (I can only take so much of that site. Whenever you think DPC is malignant, just go there for a while...) I think for what I do I feel pretty confident about the 24-105L. Whenever I get enough money for that, I'm gonna go for it. I'll sell my 17-40L to help and then hope I don't need wide until I can get a 10-22.

I think I would just love the range and the ability to walk around with only one lens and get most of the pictures I want from it.

dswebb

11/29/2005 02:14:27 PM · #15

I don't think the f4 hurts those of us who take almost all of our shots outside that much. Unless you're doing it in the dawn/dusk I guess... Which I usually don't. Guess that's why the f4 part doesn't bother me at all...

Now, if you're doing a lot of indoor shots I can see where that would bother you.

Doug

Nusbaum

Fujifilm X-T1

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

11/29/2005 03:18:15 PM · #16

Originally posted by dswebb:

f4 also limits how shallow you can push your depth of field. I enjoy shooting some situations at f2 and lower with my 10D, but at even at f2 I'm limited in comparison to shallow DOF allowed by medium format and full frame DSLRs.

Back to the original question, the 24-105L is a little slow for my tastes and not wide enough for a true walk around on a 1.6 crop DSLR. It might be an option, although still slow, on the 5D where 24-105 is a wonderful range for a walk around lens.

Message edited by author 2005-11-29 15:19:15.

dswebb

11/29/2005 03:27:05 PM · #17

Most things I photograph I don't want a very shallow DOF. Just depends on your personal tastes and what you are photographing. Ultimately a walk around lens is a very "user dependant" item. That's why we don't all have the same lens. :-)

Doug

henry_buckle