Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Need Advice For A New Lens For My Canon 350D  
User currently onlinewhales From Zimbabwe, joined Oct 2006, 347 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 5837 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT

Hello

I am looking at getting a new lens for my Canon 350d. The lens I am looking at is the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM. Is this the right lens for sharpness, and for medium zooming, does it loose sharpness at full zoom? I want it to replace my kit lens which is the 18-55 mm with no IS. I have a bigger zoom lens.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

William

21 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinedazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2889 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 5820 times:

William,

The 24-105 f/4 L is a cracking lens. It's sharp all the way through it's range, colour and contrast are spot on and it's quick. I've been using one for the last 6 months and it's the first lens out of the bag for those focal lengths. It's not a cheap lens, but you won't be dissapointed with the results. Compared to the 18-55, it'll be like having a new pair of glasses! A couple of examples for you:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Darren Wilson
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Darren Wilson



Darren



Equipment: 2x Canon EOS 50D; Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM, 50-500 EX APO DG, Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Speedlite 430EX
User currently offlinevishaljo From India, joined Aug 2006, 468 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 5798 times:

As a second & an economical alternative you can consider the Canon EF 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 II USM, i bought it with my first dSLR after reviewing it extensively & i couldn't be happier.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Vishal Jolapara - Indian Aviation Photographers
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Vishal Jolapara - Indian Aviation Photographers


In the same range with IS, you can consider the Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

My friend Vivek has the Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4.5,    beautiful piece of glass.
Its slightly heavy for its size but its feels very solid in your hand, worth a consideration if you dont shoot FF.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Vivek Manvi
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Vivek Manvi


Btw both his & my AI 744 photo were shot in vastly different conditions, though from the same spot

SIgma has 3 variants of the 17-70:

17-70mm F2.8-4.5 DC Macro
17-70mm F2.8-4.5 DC Macro HSM
17-70mm F2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM

But, if you're willing to spend, they say 'L' Stands for Luxury   


User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 5775 times:

I too have the 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 USM II and for the money it truly is a fantastic lens. It isn't quite as good as the 24-105 L Darren mentions but seeing as its around a third of the price it isn't too far behind in terms of quality.

I was looking to upgrade to the L recently and found the quality difference to not be worth the extra cash. Make no mistake though, the L is obviously the better, and if you're willing to spend is the right choice.

Karl


User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4772 posts, RR: 26
Reply 4, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 5774 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting dazbo5 (Reply 1):
The 24-105 f/4 L is a cracking lens. It's sharp all the way through it's range, colour and contrast are spot on and it's quick.

   I love this lens! It is a great all-around lens, very versatile. If you can get close enough, it is great for aviation. Sharp all the way, still produces beautiful bokeh even though it's only an f/4 so it does do portraits very well. IS works very well and has saved my butt a few times. It has also helped for panning.

Some examples to show it's versatility:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ryan Pastorino
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ryan Pastorino


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ryan Pastorino
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ryan Pastorino


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ryan Pastorino
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ryan Pastorino



It's also great for window/wing views!  
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ryan Pastorino




ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently onlinewhales From Zimbabwe, joined Oct 2006, 347 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 5671 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT

I would like to thank everyone for there time in answering my question. I had thought about the 28-105 mm, but I think i will go with the L lens, for a couple of reasons, the first being that I really want to start slowly building up a collection L lenses and secondly that I have the cash at the moment to get it, so I dont think I will regret it.

As soon as I manage to get a photo on the DB I will let you all know. Hopefully I will be ale to get more photos of Zimbabwean aviation onto the DB.

Thank you once again for your invaluable information and help.

Kind regards

William


User currently offlineSNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3238 posts, RR: 22
Reply 6, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 5661 times:

Quoting whales (Thread starter):
I am looking at getting a new lens for my Canon 350d. The lens I am looking at is the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM. Is this the right lens for sharpness, and for medium zooming, does it loose sharpness at full zoom? I want it to replace my kit lens which is the 18-55 mm with no IS. I have a bigger zoom lens.

William,

I have the 24-105 (been using it on my 40D and XTi). I like it very much and I've taken great shots with it:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tony Printezis
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tony Printezis


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tony Printezis
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tony Printezis



It's solidly built, handles nicely, the IS on it is very good (I couldn't have taken the Manhattan shot at 1/6sec without it), and it's sharp (even though some folks complain about its sharpness on FF cameras). Yes, it does tend to be a bit softer on the long end (after 70mm-80mm or so). But I personally appreciate the extra reach (I don't always want to carry my 70-200) I would definitely recommend it despite that.

However, I don't think it'd be a good replacement for your 18-55 kit, given that on the crop cameras 24mm is just not wide enough (IMHO). I always couple it with either the 10-22 or the 17-40 in case I want to go wider. Of course it depends what you want to shoot too. Just look at the EXIF data of the shots you've taken with your kit lens and see what focal lengths you tend to use to work out whether this will affect you or not. Maybe, just keep the kit lens in case you want to go wider (it's not as if you can make lots of money by selling it).

Anyway, FWIW,

Tony



Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
User currently offlineSirThomas From UK - England, joined Jul 2009, 193 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 5644 times:

Just out of morbid curiosity, do you chaps find that your 24-105 has noticeable aberration at the wide end?

Tom



Flown On: A319/A320/A321/A332/A333/AT45/734/736/738/744/DH8D/T204/T154/IL62/T134/IL-18/An-24
User currently offlineeggohoek From Hungary, joined Nov 2005, 55 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 5624 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Canon 24-105 is a very good lens.
Check my SXM photos.

- Szabo Gabor


User currently offlinevirgin777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 5620 times:

Sorry to throw a spanner in the works here ..

I recently owned 2 of them , and to be honest yes they are a good lens , clear & sharp as you'd expect .

BUT it is simply not worth the extra money as an upgrade from say the 28-135mm !

In fact i sold mine and bought another 28-135mm and banked the change !
Its simply not £300+ better than the 28-135mm .


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © TonySilgrim


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © TonySilgrim



^ 28-135mm

Honestly , save your money and look at others

cheers



[Edited 2010-06-24 01:46:04]

User currently offlineGPHOTO From United Kingdom, joined exactly 10 years ago today! , 829 posts, RR: 25
Reply 10, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 5603 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR

Hello William,

I am definitely not going to advise on this matter, you'll see why below, but I will talk about the bizarre conclusion I came to when dealing with exactly the same problem.

I had the old kit lens, 18-55 mm non-IS, for my 350D. I needed to upgrade, due to the nature of images I shoot. I like museums and static displays at airshows and flyins. I had been quite satisfied with the performance of the 18-55. Image quality is not excellent but adequate, certainly good enough for general use and Airliners.net photos. When mounted on a tripod it was fine for museums, although it does restrict you to angles where the tripod cant be set up and some museums do not allow them anyway (I did consider a Gorillapod). As a result, image stabilisation, a relatively low minimum focal length and affordability were the three key factors for me. I had been quite satisfied with the basic performance of the old 18-55.

So I did my research, factoring in all these things and looked at all the lens mentioned above except the Sigma 17-70 (shame I did not pick up on this it might have been ideal).

28-105 f/3.5-4.5 USM II - Not short enough for some museums or statics.
24-105 f/4 L - Good looking images, but not short enough and way too expensive for my budget.
28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM - Still not short enough.

All of these commonly suggested replacements for the 18-55 would require me to purchase another lens of shorter focal length adding both cost and inconvenience. I looked at a few others from various manufacturers too.

Now for the bizarre bit. After looking at all the specifications, reviews and what my personal requirements and budget were, I found that the lens which met everything the best was............the 18-55 kit lens with IS.

At first, I could not accept this and ran my analysis a few times and even walked away from the topic for a while. But every time I found I neede to make the change, ran the analysis and still came up with the 18-55 IS, so eventually, I purchased one. I have not had much opportunity to trial it yet, but where I have, it has come up trumps for me. Image quality is slightly better than the old lens as the reviews state. The IS works well - reducing (but not replacing) the need for a tripod and I can now get angles impossible with the tripod.

Everytime I use it, I still can't get away from the idea of just how crazy a decision it was, but for me the analysis was correct, it has delivered the balance of factors I was looking for.

How weird is that? But I am very happy with it:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jim Groom



Best regards,

Jim



Erm, is this thing on?
User currently offlinesulman From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2035 posts, RR: 32
Reply 11, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 5590 times:

Jim,

I can imagine, and came close myself. I've been using the 18-55 Mk1 alot since I've had my DSLR, and decided I wanted something that - at the very least - had a broader capability, specifically better low light handheld performance. Image quality on the 18-55 has always been passable, so I too considered the IS version as I knew it would fulfil this criteria, the alternative being a faster (and likely very expensive) lens.

In the end, fate intervened and I found a mint condition Sigma 20-40 EX 2.8 for a very reasonable price, and I've been absolutely thrilled with it. If I had one gripe, it's rather big and heavy (the utter opposite of the kit lens), has a wee bit of barrel distortion and CA, but is versatile and great for low light stuff.

I haven't had a chance to try it on any aviation subjects this year, but it's coming with me to RIAT and FI 2010 so it'll get a workout on the statics.

Some available light examples, handheld.



James

[Edited 2010-06-24 06:21:36]


It takes a big man to admit they are wrong, and I am not a big man.
User currently offlineSNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3238 posts, RR: 22
Reply 12, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 5571 times:

Quoting GPHOTO (Reply 10):

Hi Jim. The new kit lens is considered a big step-up from the old one IQ-wise, so I don't think you need to be confused about why you ended up choosing it. I'm just curious: did you consider the 17-85 at all, or the two new ones: 18-135 and 15-85 (the latter of which is supposed to be very good).

I personally want to eventually move to a FF body, so I wouldn't want to spend so much money on EF-S lenses (I did on the 10-22, but I had no other choice). Other folks might feel differently.

Tony



Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
User currently offlineBuyantUkhaa From Mongolia, joined May 2004, 2873 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 5558 times:

Quoting whales (Thread starter):
I want it to replace my kit lens which is the 18-55 mm with no IS.

Not sure if you want to upgrade to full-frame later, but if you don't perhaps the 17-55 f2.8 would be an idea? It's not L but image quality is at that level basically. It's pricey though, more expensive than some L lenses - does anybody know why?



I scratch my head, therefore I am.
User currently offlineGPHOTO From United Kingdom, joined exactly 10 years ago today! , 829 posts, RR: 25
Reply 14, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 5554 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR

Quoting SNATH (Reply 12):
I'm just curious: did you consider the 17-85 at all, or the two new ones: 18-135 and 15-85 (the latter of which is supposed to be very good).

Yes I did, I had to cut my post from earlier short as I ran out of lunchtime and I was too impatient to pick up the draft version later! I mostly compared reviews at dpreview, Fred Miranda and Photozone. While all the lenses offer certain range advantages, the image quality did not seem so amazingly different from the 18-55 IS when you consider the price as well. Those mentioned range from about 2-3 times to 6-7 times the price of the 18-55 IS. Some of the reviews are also not too enthralled about the performance at the shorter end, so I did not find the extra few millimetres that tempting. The longer range would have been useful - I have an awkward gap in my set up from 55mm to 100mm, which can be a real bind at my favourite spot at BHX because about 70mm is ideal for many landing aircraft there. Again, problems with the image quality in reviews put me off. It's not that these are bad lenses, but the bang for the buck factor of the 18-55 IS could not be beaten for my situation. Of course if money was no object..........

I've always been put off by lenses with a large zoom range. With any zoom, there will be some sort of compromise on image quality, which is why primes will always be with us. Each lens element in a zoom will degrade image quality to a degree. Lenses with smaller zoom ranges tend to have less complicated optical setups internally and can give less compromise on quality just from that factor alone, although each lens needs to be looked at on it's own merits (read the reviews   ). Of course, better quality lenses also help, but I was on a budget. I could have spent more and got a more convenient focal range, but the jump in quality was not sufficient. I'd rather put that extra money to a new body down the line.

Best regards,

Jim



Erm, is this thing on?
User currently offlineSNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3238 posts, RR: 22
Reply 15, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 5522 times:

Quoting BuyantUkhaa (Reply 13):
but if you don't perhaps the 17-55 f2.8 would be an idea?
Quoting BuyantUkhaa (Reply 13):
It's pricey though, more expeYonsive than some L lenses - does anybody know why?

I just refuse to pay that much money on an EF-S lens. IQ-wise the 17-55 is supposed to be superb. But at that price range the construction quality is subpar. Additionally, Canon wants you to give them an extra $45 or so for the (plastic) lens hood. Who are they kidding?

Quoting GPHOTO (Reply 14):
the image quality did not seem so amazingly different from the 18-55 IS when you consider the price as well.

You are right, the 17-85 is supposed to be so-and-so IQ-wise. The 15-85 on the other hand is supposed to be very very sharp. And at 15mm is the widest lens in its category AFAIK.

Quoting GPHOTO (Reply 14):
I've always been put off by lenses with a large zoom range.

Totally. I'd rather carry two bodies who two different lenses than buy, say, the 18-200.

Quoting SirThomas (Reply 7):
Just out of morbid curiosity, do you chaps find that your 24-105 has noticeable aberration at the wide end?

Forgot to answer this: I haven't noticed noticeable CA on my 24-105 (and do notice it on my 10-22). The 24-105 does have very pronounced barrel distortion on the wide end though.

Tony



Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 16, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 5519 times:

Quoting SNATH (Reply 15):
Totally. I'd rather carry two bodies who two different lenses than buy, say, the 18-200

I'm in full agreement too. What's worse with a lens such as an 18-200 is that it's going from super wide angle to quite a long telephoto. There's just too much quality degradation.

I'm about to order the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 HSM OS today - anyone see any reason why I shouldn't or is there a better alternative? I looked at the Canon EF17-85 (which I can get for about £50 less) but the Sigma appears to be better. Also, is the HSM OS version worth the extra £80? How slow is the non-HSM version in comparison?

Cheers,

Karl


User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4772 posts, RR: 26
Reply 17, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 2 days ago) and read 5503 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting SirThomas (Reply 7):
Just out of morbid curiosity, do you chaps find that your 24-105 has noticeable aberration at the wide end?

No.

Quoting SNATH (Reply 6):
Yes, it does tend to be a bit softer on the long end (after 70mm-80mm or so).

In my experience, that is not the case Tony. I find it consistently sharp at all lengths, even wide open.



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineSNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3238 posts, RR: 22
Reply 18, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 5469 times:

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 17):
In my experience, that is not the case Tony. I find it consistently sharp at all lengths, even wide open.

Maybe I'm comparing it to the 70-200 f4 IS at that focal length and that's a wicked sharp lens!!!

Tony



Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4772 posts, RR: 26
Reply 19, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 5467 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting SNATH (Reply 18):
Maybe I'm comparing it to the 70-200 f4 IS at that focal length and that's a wicked sharp lens!!!

Ah, yes. That's probably it! lol

Man, I need to get one of those 70-200s. Been wanting one for a few years now.



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineSNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3238 posts, RR: 22
Reply 20, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 5462 times:

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 19):
Man, I need to get one of those 70-200s. Been wanting one for a few years now.

Ryan,

The new 70-200 f2.8 L IS II is supposed to be superb. But you should really consider the f4 IS too. It's less than half the price of the f2.8, half the weight, very sharp, handles great, and the IS on it is fantastic. It takes the 1.4x teleconverter very well too.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...f-2.8-L-IS-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mm-f-4.0-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Tony



Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
User currently onlinewhales From Zimbabwe, joined Oct 2006, 347 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 5399 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT

Hello All

Thank you so much for all your advice, I have read all the posts, and have come to the conclusion that the 24-105 mm is what I will be getting as it fits into more of the niche that I want, and also will hopefully upgrade to a full frame in the not to distant future.

Thank you once again.

Kind regards

William


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...
Need A Good 600mm Zoom For My Canon posted Sun Oct 5 2003 21:35:54 by LMML 14/32
Need Advice For A Photo Sale. posted Sun Mar 14 2010 18:57:37 by GdsF100
Looking For A New Canon Configuration! posted Thu Jan 28 2010 04:25:19 by Fredmathieu
Looking For A New Lens For My Rebel XTI posted Thu Jun 25 2009 12:14:04 by BlueElephant
Canon 350D For $300 posted Thu May 14 2009 14:58:53 by Njxc500
Looking For A New Lens For My 400D.... posted Sun Oct 14 2007 14:50:58 by MAN23R
Looking For New Lens For My Sony Alpha posted Tue Jun 12 2007 13:41:31 by Ehvk
For Sale: Canon 350D posted Mon Jun 26 2006 12:10:05 by Linco22
Maximum Challenge For My Canon posted Thu May 11 2006 15:56:08 by Glennstewart
Replacement For The Canon 350D? posted Sat Apr 29 2006 20:06:26 by 9VSPO