Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Experience With Canon 24-105 L Is?  
User currently offlineScottieprecord From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 1363 posts, RR: 11
Posted (7 years 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 6985 times:

I'm thinking about selling my 17-40 f/4L and my 70-200 f/4L, and replacing those with a 24-105 L IS. Coupled with the 100-400, that looks like a pretty good purchase... especially to close the gap I have between 40-70.

Y'all have any experience with the 24-105? And also, what do you think I'd be able to get for the 17-40 and the 70-200?

Thanks!
Mike

14 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineIL76 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2004, 2237 posts, RR: 48
Reply 1, posted (7 years 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 6977 times:

My line-up is 17-40, 24-105 and 100-400. Got everything covered.  
The 24-105 is a great lens, not Canons best L-lens (f.e. my 17-40 is sharper, and the 24-105 shows a bit more CA), but the reach and excellent IS make it a perfect all-round lens. Also used it at a wedding last month, worked like a charm.

Ed

[Edited 2007-09-21 07:50:32]

User currently offlineUA935 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 610 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (7 years 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 6970 times:

I have the 17-40, 24-105, 70-200 and 100-400.

I would never get rid of the 17-40 and 70-200 and replace them with the 24-105, there is not enough overlap and I find 24 not wide enough on a 1.6 crop body although it is not bad on a 1.3 crop.

The 24-105 is a great lens though, great range and solidly built.

Regards

Simon



Live every second like you mean it
User currently offlineJid From Barbados, joined Dec 2004, 972 posts, RR: 31
Reply 3, posted (7 years 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 6964 times:

I have 10-22, 24-105, 35-350

The 10-22 shows a little CA but only in certain conditions. The 24-105L is a great walkabout lens and works very well with the Speedlite series. The 35-350 is awesome but no longer made.

Get your spare lens on Ebay, great for getting rid of surplus kit.



G7EPN is back after 15 years! Operating all Bands 80mtrs -> 70cms QRZ DX
User currently offlineJavibi From Spain, joined Oct 2004, 1371 posts, RR: 41
Reply 4, posted (7 years 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 6964 times:

Quoting Scottieprecord (Thread starter):
I'm thinking about selling my 17-40 f/4L and my 70-200 f/4L, and replacing those with a 24-105 L IS

Those two lenses you own are better in optical terms than the 24-105, which is nevertheless a very fine and practical lens.
I think you should take this into account before making a decision.

Quoting UA935 (Reply 2):
I find 24 not wide enough on a 1.6 crop body

I agree.

j



"Be prepared to engage in constructive debate". Are YOU prepared?
User currently offlineMonteycarlos From Australia, joined Mar 2005, 2107 posts, RR: 28
Reply 5, posted (7 years 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 6947 times:

Quoting Javibi (Reply 4):
Those two lenses you own are better in optical terms than the 24-105, which is nevertheless a very fine and practical lens.

Really? My experience with the 70-200 f/4L hasn't been as good as the 24-105.

I'm looking at getting the 17-40 next although I want to get the 5D or the next 'full frame' non-1D Canon body. Damn 40D and its 1.6 crop!



It's a beautiful night to fly like a phoenix...
User currently offlineJavibi From Spain, joined Oct 2004, 1371 posts, RR: 41
Reply 6, posted (7 years 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 6939 times:

Quoting Monteycarlos (Reply 5):
Really?

Well, of course that is my personal opinion given my personal experience  Smile

j



"Be prepared to engage in constructive debate". Are YOU prepared?
User currently offlineMonteycarlos From Australia, joined Mar 2005, 2107 posts, RR: 28
Reply 7, posted (7 years 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 6935 times:

Quoting Javibi (Reply 6):
Well, of course that is my personal opinion given my personal experience

Could be right... it might depend on the type of photography as well. My 24-105 is on a tripod doing landscapes most of the time!  Wink



It's a beautiful night to fly like a phoenix...
User currently offlineConinpa From Luxembourg, joined May 2005, 244 posts, RR: 6
Reply 8, posted (7 years 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 6920 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SCREENER

Hi Mike,

I have the 16-35 II, 70-200 2,8 IS, 100-400 IS and 24-105 IS

The 24-105 is a great lens. It shows nevertheless important vignetting on an EOS 5D. Don't know about the 70-200 f/4, but my 700-200 f/2,8 is quite sharper than the 100-400, so I would not get rid of it.

Cheers
Patrick



Patrick De Coninck
User currently offlineQantasA332 From Australia, joined Dec 2003, 1500 posts, RR: 25
Reply 9, posted (7 years 4 days ago) and read 6903 times:

Quoting Monteycarlos (Reply 5):
Really? My experience with the 70-200 f/4L hasn't been as good as the 24-105.

Surely you have a dodgy 70-200 copy? Or maybe you just have an above average 24-105, hehe. I haven't heard anything but great things about the 70-200 f/4, whereas opinions of the 24-105 tend to be somewhat less enthusiastic on average.  Wink

Either way, the 24-105 is a handy lens - good range, IS - and I too have been looking into it as a gap-filler for some time. I definitely wouldn't ditch a wideangle for it, though, as 24mm is just not wide enough.

Another lens to look into is the 24-70 f/2.8L, if your budget allows. It's supposed to be excellent...


User currently offlineAero145 From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 3071 posts, RR: 18
Reply 10, posted (7 years 4 days ago) and read 6895 times:

I'd not get rid of the 70-200 f/4, just put the 70-200 f/4 into calibration and buy a 24-70 f/2.8.

The 24-70, is, as far as I know, optically, the best zoomlens that covers that range. The 24-70 is not as good all round lens as the 24-105.

I know that many people here on A.net have the 24-105, but I don't think many have the 24-70, but optically, the 24-70 is amazing. Tried one some time ago and the photos were amazing!

[Edited 2007-09-21 16:09:57]

[Edited 2007-09-21 16:10:22]

User currently offlineMonteycarlos From Australia, joined Mar 2005, 2107 posts, RR: 28
Reply 11, posted (7 years 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 6844 times:

Quoting QantasA332 (Reply 9):
Surely you have a dodgy 70-200 copy?

I don't own one. I tested one for a week before I ended up buying my 100-400mm. I didn't like the zoom range, didn't like the idea of using a converter and didn't have the money for the f/2.8L IS.

I agree that the 24-105 is not a great wide-angle lens but perhaps the best multi-purpose lens canon has on the market. If I were travelling and only had the ability to take one lens, that would be it.

On the other hand, I'd like to get my hands on a 17-40.  Smile



It's a beautiful night to fly like a phoenix...
User currently offlineScottieprecord From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 1363 posts, RR: 11
Reply 12, posted (7 years 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 6803 times:

Well I definitely appreciate everyone's input. Y'all have pretty much convinced me to keep the 17-40 (that really is a damn sharp lens lol). I think I'll end up buying the 24-105 and then wait later to see if I think I could do without the 70-200.

Again, thanks a lot!

-Mike


User currently offlineCarlos From Germany, joined Feb 2006, 225 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (7 years 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 6789 times:

Hi Mike,

I use the 24-105, the 70-200 and the 100-400. The EF 24-105 is a very good lens that I use very often.
In my eyes it makes not sense to replace the 70-200 with the 100-400 because the 100-400 is only good in fine light conditions.

Greetings
Klaus


User currently offlineSNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3247 posts, RR: 22
Reply 14, posted (7 years 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 6762 times:

Quoting UA935 (Reply 2):
and I find 24 not wide enough on a 1.6 crop body

I will totally agree with this. I have a 17-40 (great lens!) and a 24-105. The latter is definitely not wide enough on my XTi for a lot of generaly purpose phorography I do (landscapes, sight-seeing, architecture, etc.). In most situations, I usually keep the 17-40 on my XTi more than the 24-105. Having said that, the 24-105 is great for low light work (e.g., museums).

Tony



Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Canon 24-105mm F/4 L Is Recall Question posted Fri May 12 2006 02:04:52 by Maiznblu_757
Experience With Canon Lenses posted Sat Mar 25 2006 18:52:31 by TACAA320
Canon 24-105mm L Is posted Tue Mar 7 2006 00:07:40 by Dan330
Canon 24-105 L USM. Opinions? posted Mon Jan 30 2006 20:19:35 by Cosec59
Your Experience With Canon Repair Centers. posted Sat Feb 19 2005 05:47:31 by Crank
Experience With The Canon EF300 F4 L Is USM? posted Sat Feb 4 2006 16:31:30 by JK
Canon EF 24-105mm F/4 L Is Lens: Tight Zoom Ring? posted Mon Sep 17 2007 00:12:31 by SNATH
Canon EF 24 - 105 Mm F4.0L posted Fri Oct 21 2005 19:13:56 by 9VSPO
Canon 17-85mm Is Experience posted Fri Nov 5 2004 12:35:18 by Maiznblu_757
Canon 100-400L IS: Come With Tripod Collar? posted Sun Jul 11 2004 02:32:18 by Bronko