December 10, 2017, 11:06:19 PM

Author Topic: A question for 24-105 upgrade.  (Read 3163 times)

Neil1000

  • PowerShot G7 X Mark II
  • **
  • Posts: 6
Re: A question for 24-105 upgrade.
« Reply #15 on: November 30, 2017, 02:25:21 PM »
Please take a look at Juza


https://www.juzaphoto.com/recensione.php?l=en&t=canon_24-105

the original 24-105 is one of the most slagged off Canon lenses of all time but look at how many editor award pictures it received.

I think possibly the best, most versatile Canon lens of all time

I shoot Sony now but this was/is a monster of a lens

Neil

canon rumors FORUM

Re: A question for 24-105 upgrade.
« Reply #15 on: November 30, 2017, 02:25:21 PM »

tron

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3241
Re: A question for 24-105 upgrade.
« Reply #16 on: November 30, 2017, 03:49:58 PM »
I have no doubt that it can win awards and that it can be very versatile. My only consideration (if you read the original post) is that the version II has better IS and I mentioned indoor shooting (museums, churches). Of course it is a nice lens at least it has been with my now sold 5D3 and my 5D4.

jolyonralph

  • EOS 6D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 401
    • Every Other Shot
Re: A question for 24-105 upgrade.
« Reply #17 on: November 30, 2017, 05:16:09 PM »
I liked mine a lot, I only stopped using it when I got the 5DSR and found it just too soft on the high-res sensor to be acceptable.

My brother is now using it with my old 5D Mark III quite happily.
Jolyon Ralph

Cameras: 5DSR, A7RII, 5D III, EOS M6/M5/M3, Mavic Pro, DXO One.  Oh, and more lenses than I care to count.

jd7

  • EOS 7D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 454
Re: A question for 24-105 upgrade.
« Reply #18 on: November 30, 2017, 06:35:17 PM »
This thread got me thinking about the 24-105 II ...

At the risk of straying too far off topic, as a relatively light travel and walk around kit, what would you prefer out of these three options?
(1)  16-35/4L IS + 24-105/4L IS II
(2)  24-70/4L IS + 70-300/4-5.6 IS II
(3)  24-70/2.8L II + 70-300/4-5.6 IS II

Obviously there is no single "right answer" - personal photographic style and the precise use case (eg where you are travelling and how you are travelling) will be important factors.  Still, I would be interested to hear what others think, particularly if you have traveled with any of these combinations.

I have traveled with the 24-70/4L IS quite, including taking it on hikes/camping trips, and I have been pretty happy with it, but I have been thinking about pairing it with another reasonably light zoom for travel.  I have also been tempted by the 24-70/2.8L II but haven't bitten yet.  The combination of lack of IS, weight, size and cost for one stop of aperture at those focal lengths (and some extra sharpness, although I wonder how often I would really see the benefit in travel situations) has held me back so far, even though the extra stop would be significant.
6D | 24-70 4L IS | 70-200 2.8L IS II | Sigma 35 1.4 Art | Sigma 50 1.4 Art | Sigma 85 1.4 EX | 1.4x mk II

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 6588
  • Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Re: A question for 24-105 upgrade.
« Reply #19 on: November 30, 2017, 08:20:48 PM »
At the risk of straying too far off topic, as a relatively light travel and walk around kit, what would you prefer out of these three options?
(1)  16-35/4L IS + 24-105/4L IS II
(2)  24-70/4L IS + 70-300/4-5.6 IS II
(3)  24-70/2.8L II + 70-300/4-5.6 IS II

Best case, sort out your favorite 100 shot from your previous travels then look at the EXIF data.

I used to take two or three 1 series bodies 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200 f2.8's plus two or three primes depending on what I was concentrating on. Now I take a single 1 series body with a 35 f2 IS and a 100 L Macro, I get way more keepers and with stitching software the modest two focal lengths result in infinite combinations.
Too often we lose sight of the fact that photography is about capturing light, if we have the ability to take control of that light then we grow exponentially as photographers. More often than not the image is not about lens speed, sensor size, DR, MP's or AF, it is about the light.

Random Orbits

  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1957
Re: A question for 24-105 upgrade.
« Reply #20 on: November 30, 2017, 08:35:36 PM »
This thread got me thinking about the 24-105 II ...

At the risk of straying too far off topic, as a relatively light travel and walk around kit, what would you prefer out of these three options?
(1)  16-35/4L IS + 24-105/4L IS II
(2)  24-70/4L IS + 70-300/4-5.6 IS II
(3)  24-70/2.8L II + 70-300/4-5.6 IS II

Obviously there is no single "right answer" - personal photographic style and the precise use case (eg where you are travelling and how you are travelling) will be important factors.  Still, I would be interested to hear what others think, particularly if you have traveled with any of these combinations.

I have traveled with the 24-70/4L IS quite, including taking it on hikes/camping trips, and I have been pretty happy with it, but I have been thinking about pairing it with another reasonably light zoom for travel.  I have also been tempted by the 24-70/2.8L II but haven't bitten yet.  The combination of lack of IS, weight, size and cost for one stop of aperture at those focal lengths (and some extra sharpness, although I wonder how often I would really see the benefit in travel situations) has held me back so far, even though the extra stop would be significant.

If I intend to be in a city or town walk-around, I usually opt for a 16-35 and a fast 50 prime.  50 is for indoor and some shallower DOF.  My favorite/most used focal length is 35mm.  If I'm shooting my kids' sports, then it's the 40 and the 100-400.  If I'm restricting myself to one lens, then it's usually the 24-70 f/2.8 II or a 35mm prime.

jd7

  • EOS 7D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 454
Re: A question for 24-105 upgrade.
« Reply #21 on: November 30, 2017, 11:57:10 PM »
At the risk of straying too far off topic, as a relatively light travel and walk around kit, what would you prefer out of these three options?
(1)  16-35/4L IS + 24-105/4L IS II
(2)  24-70/4L IS + 70-300/4-5.6 IS II
(3)  24-70/2.8L II + 70-300/4-5.6 IS II

Best case, sort out your favorite 100 shot from your previous travels then look at the EXIF data.

I used to take two or three 1 series bodies 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200 f2.8's plus two or three primes depending on what I was concentrating on. Now I take a single 1 series body with a 35 f2 IS and a 100 L Macro, I get way more keepers and with stitching software the modest two focal lengths result in infinite combinations.

Thanks PBD. I've seen you say in other posts that you usually travel with a 35 IS and 100L these days. I am generally in favour of travelling light and concentrating on the photography rather than gear, but not sure I'm ready for two primes for travel  :)

The problem with looking at my EXIF data is that I have not owned an UWA for years (since I moved to FF) and I often don't carry my 70-200 on travels (unless it's a photography focused trip, which is rare for me), so it's inevitable that most of my favourite pics would come from the 24-70 range because nearly all of my photos will be in that range.

Edit - Just got two photos from previous travels printed at 45" x 30", and almost inevitably both were taken with my 24-70!  Really looking forward to picking up the prints.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2017, 12:10:47 AM by jd7 »
6D | 24-70 4L IS | 70-200 2.8L IS II | Sigma 35 1.4 Art | Sigma 50 1.4 Art | Sigma 85 1.4 EX | 1.4x mk II

canon rumors FORUM

Re: A question for 24-105 upgrade.
« Reply #21 on: November 30, 2017, 11:57:10 PM »

jd7

  • EOS 7D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 454
Re: A question for 24-105 upgrade.
« Reply #22 on: December 01, 2017, 12:02:38 AM »

If I intend to be in a city or town walk-around, I usually opt for a 16-35 and a fast 50 prime.  50 is for indoor and some shallower DOF.  My favorite/most used focal length is 35mm.  If I'm shooting my kids' sports, then it's the 40 and the 100-400.  If I'm restricting myself to one lens, then it's usually the 24-70 f/2.8 II or a 35mm prime.

If I am not too worried about weight, and especially if I am staying in places where I am comfortable leaving some gear behind when I go out, I usually take my 35 1.4A as my "extra" travel lens.  I agree 35mm often works really well!  I find 24-70 to be pretty useful though because that ability to give from wide angle to long-normal just by turning the zoom means you can get quite different looking pics without a lens change. I would quite like to add a 16-35 to my kit, but I do have doubts about how often I'd actually use it wider than 24. But maybe I would if I had it available.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2017, 12:30:14 AM by jd7 »
6D | 24-70 4L IS | 70-200 2.8L IS II | Sigma 35 1.4 Art | Sigma 50 1.4 Art | Sigma 85 1.4 EX | 1.4x mk II

aceflibble

  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 170
Re: A question for 24-105 upgrade.
« Reply #23 on: December 01, 2017, 02:47:07 AM »
Something I think is really worth considering are the third-party equivalents.
Sigma make a 24-105 f/4 IS which is far, far sharper than both the Canon ones, has more accurate transmission, and the IS it uses is about on par with the Canon mkII. It's also one of the few Sigma zooms which doesn't have any particular AF problems. The only downside to it compared to the Canons is it's not weather-sealed in any way, though it's built fairly well and it doesn't sound like you're taking it up mountains or anything like that.
The Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC is also worth a look. You're losing some long-end, obviously, but you're gaining more than twice the light in terms of actual transmission (which will also help your camera's AF system on top of enabling you to keep the ISO low) and at f/4 it is far, far sharper than any either of the Canon 24-105s or the Sigma 24-105; shooting the Tamron at 70mm and f/4 and cropping will get you sharper details than zooming in to 105mm with any of the other three lenses at f/4. At f/2.8 it's about equal with the Canon 24-105 mk I is at f/4, so compared to what you currently have, you're not missing out on anything; at f/2.8 you're gaining light with the same IQ and at f/4 you're gaining a lot of IQ and still gaining a little bit of light over either of the Canon lenses. The VC works very well, unlike the Sigma it is weather sealed, and though AF is just a tiny bit slower than the Canons, it's equally as accurate. Tamron recently released a mk II ('G2') which improves the optics, VC, and AF further, though also costs quite a bit more; the mkI/G1 can be found very cheap now and really it's 99% the same.

I know a lot of people won't even consider third-party lenses, but when it comes to this standard focal length, Sigma and Tamron both do a really good job.

As for the Canons, it's a really tough call. Value and "worth it" mean different things to different people; a price that doesn't bother one person might be far too much for another. Nobody can tell you whether the mk II is worth the money because we don't know what your income is, what your lifestyle is like, and what that money might mean to you.
However, from a purely technical point of view, it is very hard to recommend the mk II over the mk I. The mk II is heavier and a little larger, which is a problem for a general purpose lens. The light transmission is a little better, but it's still about a third of a stop worse than it should be. At the wide end the corners are good but the middle is softer than the mk I, and at the long end the opposite happens. There's less distortion at the wide end, but distortion beyond 50mm is unchanged. The AF and IS are both a little bit quieter but not significantly so. The IS is improved by about one stop (though this is a tough one for me to judge as I'm very used to holding much heavier systems still at low shutter speeds without IS, so I can always push IS a little further than some people seem to be able) but the AF is the same.
In other words, optically it's basically a draw, and the electronic improvements come at the cost of size/weight.

To me, that makes it dead even. If someone doesn't have the mk I lens then they I'd say they should definitely go straight for the mk II (assuming they can afford it), but when someone like yourself already has the mk I, it really doesn't make much sense to bother, to me. Having used both—as well as the Sigma and Tamron I mentioned above—I struggle to tell the two Canons apart. For a general-purpose lens, I'd say the mk I is better simply because it's that little bit lighter; for professional studio use I'd say the mk II is better due to the lower distortion at the wide end. Even those scenarios are splitting hairs.

tron

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3241
Re: A question for 24-105 upgrade.
« Reply #24 on: December 01, 2017, 05:10:06 AM »
I know they are quite close IQ wise. As I mentioned in the beginning of this thread I would put the better IS to good use since I was referring to interior space photography (for the shots that cannot be done with a wider lens due to required angle or distance).

Macoose

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 46
Re: A question for 24-105 upgrade.
« Reply #25 on: December 01, 2017, 07:49:34 AM »
Tron,

The Digital Picture has a good review on the 24-105 II lens. In it, Bryan writes about how it differs from the old version.



https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-105mm-f-4L-IS-II-USM-Lens.aspx

tron

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3241
Re: A question for 24-105 upgrade.
« Reply #26 on: December 01, 2017, 11:49:53 AM »
Tron,

The Digital Picture has a good review on the 24-105 II lens. In it, Bryan writes about how it differs from the old version.



https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-105mm-f-4L-IS-II-USM-Lens.aspx
Yes I know about it and it says practically what everyone is saying. IQwise it's splitting hairs. As mentioned to the previous poster please read the previous post regarding the intended use.

aceflibble

  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 170
Re: A question for 24-105 upgrade.
« Reply #27 on: December 02, 2017, 05:08:20 AM »
Yes, I saw what you wrote about your intended use before, and I stand by what I previously said. No part of the new lens—including the IS, as I covered above—is improved in any significant way over the mk I.

To reiterate what I said above about the IS, I've gotten only about 1/2 of a stop more "handholding" out of the mk II's IS compared to the mk I's. And to put that in context, I can handhold a 600mm lens at 1/160th without IS and still get consistently still shots, with 1/125th being my absolute limit. I regularly use medium format and large format cameras handheld. So, suffice to say my hands are very steady. The fact that even my steady hands can only get an extra half stop out of the mk II should illustrate to you how little of a difference there is between the mk I and MK II's IS systems. If you're getting shaky shots with the mk I, the mk II isn't going to help you; if you're getting steady shots with the mk I, the mk II is only going to extend that range a little bit.

The way you write makes it sound like you're already dead set on buying the new lens and you're looking for people to validate your decision. If you're that sure that it will make a difference to your use, then go ahead already and buy it. You're not going to have a worse experience with it than you have with the mk I. (Well, center sharpness at <35mm will be worse, and corner sharpness at >70mm will be worse, and of course it's heavier and bulkier...)
But if you're not sure about it and you're desperate for someone to convince you that it will be the golden child which completely revolutionises how your shoot, forget it, 'cause the 24-105 mk II is not that lens.

You've already had a lot of input from many users, and apparently read a lot of formal reviews. You've already heard basically everything there is to say about this lens. If you're not convinced to buy it yet, there's nothing anybody can say that will convince you to buy it; if you've already made up your mind to buy it, there's nothing anybody can say that will convince you to not buy it. It's a workhorse lens. It works fine. It is marginally better than the mk I in some ways, unchanged in most ways, and very slightly worse in a couple of ways. Whether it is "worth it" to you is a question only you can answer, and from the sound of it, you already have done in your own head, even if you've not acknowledged it to yourself yet.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: A question for 24-105 upgrade.
« Reply #27 on: December 02, 2017, 05:08:20 AM »

tron

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3241
Re: A question for 24-105 upgrade.
« Reply #28 on: December 02, 2017, 06:57:17 AM »
Thanks for the IS info. Actually upgrade was not decided yet.  I read that there were focusing issues with the new lens (version 2). Photozone.de mentioned:

"Honestly, we were a little shocked by these results. The first tested sample also showed a higher than usual optical decentering. Thus we repeated the exercise with a 2nd sample. This one was well centered (albeit still back-focusing like hell) but not really better. "

In another site it was mentioned that there were focusing issues not being corrected via AFMA.

Also, Canon issued an advisory warning about a possible AF in lenses with serial numbers starting with 48, 49, 50, 51.

I believe all the above are glitches to be corrected but I decided that for now my version 1 (which by the way has never had any of the issues mentioned about version 1 lenses (error 01, a ribbon cable being torn, etc)
is just fine and I will keep it  :)

Thank you ALL for the input in this.


tron

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3241
Re: A question for 24-105 upgrade.
« Reply #29 on: December 02, 2017, 11:44:08 AM »
This thread got me thinking about the 24-105 II ...

At the risk of straying too far off topic, as a relatively light travel and walk around kit, what would you prefer out of these three options?
(1)  16-35/4L IS + 24-105/4L IS II
(2)  24-70/4L IS + 70-300/4-5.6 IS II
(3)  24-70/2.8L II + 70-300/4-5.6 IS II

Obviously there is no single "right answer" - personal photographic style and the precise use case (eg where you are travelling and how you are travelling) will be important factors.  Still, I would be interested to hear what others think, particularly if you have traveled with any of these combinations.

I have traveled with the 24-70/4L IS quite, including taking it on hikes/camping trips, and I have been pretty happy with it, but I have been thinking about pairing it with another reasonably light zoom for travel.  I have also been tempted by the 24-70/2.8L II but haven't bitten yet.  The combination of lack of IS, weight, size and cost for one stop of aperture at those focal lengths (and some extra sharpness, although I wonder how often I would really see the benefit in travel situations) has held me back so far, even though the extra stop would be significant.
You are not that off-topic. Coincidentally on a trip to Florence which made me open this thread I had 16-35 2.8L III and 24-105 4L (v 1). Both lenses were very useful (and the overlap helped to avoid too many lens changes).
« Last Edit: December 02, 2017, 11:50:54 AM by tron »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: A question for 24-105 upgrade.
« Reply #29 on: December 02, 2017, 11:44:08 AM »