I used to like this lens more. Then I began to appreciate prime lenses. All of a sudden this zoom becomes mediocre. It's performance is average but it's versatile. I am debating whether to sell it to fund a sigma 35. But I'm afraid I'll regret selling a general zoom. Plus it's not worth as much as when I bought it. For those of you who own this zoom, do you still use it very much? I realize it's unfair to compare a zoom with a prime but I promise myself not to add a lens without selling one. What a dilemma...
Do you still love 24-105L?
- Thread starter sunnyVan
- Start date
- Status
Yes. For primes I have the 40mm and the 100L. I would still shoot with the 24-105 when the light is good. I guess I have been spoilt by zooms and am a lazy photographer. I would rather not change lenses. I guess I have never shot with the f1.8 or 1.4 or 1.2 so I probably don't know what I am missing...sunnyVan said:
Upvote
0
I've bought the 24-70 and used it for all but 3 days and I'm hooked. I don't think I'll be shooting the 24-105 again ... Will sell it.
I don't have any doubt this zoom beats the primes hands down in IQ ... The only reason to choose primes is the shallow DOF.
Give it a thought.
Cheers ... J.R
I don't have any doubt this zoom beats the primes hands down in IQ ... The only reason to choose primes is the shallow DOF.
Give it a thought.
Cheers ... J.R
Upvote
0
I don't use it as much and I also favors my primes, but when I don't know what the shoot will be like, close, far, light, dark, I take it along because I know I can still get a pretty good shot and I'll allow good the camera body to compensate as needed. I won't bet rid of my 24-105, but I will allow it to collect a little bit of dust.
Upvote
0
Its fine, and better than many primes at f/5.6. I do use a lot of primes only because of low light. Most of the Canon Primes are very good, but many are also far out of date, and time has passed them by. Canon has concentrated on zooms, simply because thats what buyers want. As a result, the newest zooms are better than a lot of the older primes.
Even the new 24-70mm f/4 IS does not surpass it, and Nikon's more expensive 24-120 will really open your eyes if you want to see mediocre.
The newer primes are much improved, maybe we will see more updates.
Even the new 24-70mm f/4 IS does not surpass it, and Nikon's more expensive 24-120 will really open your eyes if you want to see mediocre.
The newer primes are much improved, maybe we will see more updates.
Upvote
0
sunnyVan said:
Try putting it away for a month, and see how you do without it. You already have the focal length covered with what you have.
I never had the 24-105 but I went over a year using primes instead of a general purpose zoom. There may be cases where the zoom would be handy, but the greater range of DOF that you gain offsets it in a different way. I did find myself carrying two lenses more often with primes than when I had a general purpose zoom though. Recently, I picked up a general purpose zoom but I still find myself carrying two lenses most of the time: the zoom and a fast prime, especially if I know I'll want to take pictures inside and outside. I guess what I'm trying to say is that there is a place for zooms and primes. If you find by your experiment that you miss the 24-105, then it might be time to declare a mulligan. ;D
Upvote
0
I have a lot of love for my 35L and 135L. I enjoy shooting with a small 28 1.8 and with 85 1.8. My 24-105 is a tool. No mad love, no pasion. However, I use it a lot when i work with strobes. This is practically my workhorse for home studio work. This lens for studio plus primes for everything else. So yeah, I'm not planning to sell mine anytime soon. No love, but a very strong practical relationship. ;D
Upvote
0
I've got the 24-105L and love it. I also have the 50/1.4 (along with a bunch of other oddball 50-58mm vintage glass) and the new Sigma 35/1.4 Art lens. Here's my advice: If you want a good prime and you have to dump one lens to add another, get the Sigma 35/1.4 and dump your 50/1.4. The 35 is a bit wider, but at f1.4 there is no comparison to the 50. Sharp sharp sharp, corner to corner. I have to stop down to about 5.6 on my 50 before it gets good, and then you're into the same territory as the 24-105. The 35 has great sharpness and good bokeh, much better than the 50/1.4.
Upvote
0
.
That sums it up pretty well for me.
I never "loved" the 24-105, but it's a solid and versatile and workmanlike tool. It does an acceptable job in many situations, but lately I'm always finding myself thinking how much I'd prefer the 35 (Sigma) or the 17-40 (Canon) for a particular situation. The 24-105 rarely satisfies beyond 70-80mm so I've ended up using it like a 24-70 -- so I'm pondering the possibility of going to the new 24-70.
That sums it up pretty well for me.
I never "loved" the 24-105, but it's a solid and versatile and workmanlike tool. It does an acceptable job in many situations, but lately I'm always finding myself thinking how much I'd prefer the 35 (Sigma) or the 17-40 (Canon) for a particular situation. The 24-105 rarely satisfies beyond 70-80mm so I've ended up using it like a 24-70 -- so I'm pondering the possibility of going to the new 24-70.
ablearcher said:
Upvote
0
Jon Gilchrist said:
Thanks for the comparison of the 50/1.4 with the Sigma 35/1.4! I'd never even thought about that because I love having that 1.4 in a prime, but I always wish it was just a little wider. If it's really that sharp, well, I might take your advice and sell my canon 50/1.4 for the sigma 35/1.4.
Upvote
0
Received my Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art today, what a lens. I have minor focus issues on my 5D Mark III but it's no focus shift, only a slight front focus which I corrected in the body settings and now it sits. Really sharp at 1.4. I had the 50 1.2L before and that was quite a bit too soft for me, now I am satisfied. Still it's not 50mm which I wanted at first, but hey, there has to be a new 50mm 1.4 by Canon or Sigma sometime in the near future anyway.
Upvote
0
For me the 24-105 is a sharp lens (at least my copy) that has an extremely useful focal length. The downside is that the aperture (DOF) and distortion at 24mm (which is noticeable with architectural shots even with correction in LR).
I tend to shoot longer focal lengths, so the new 24-70mm doesn't really make sense for me. Instead I have stuck with the 24-105mm and a set of prime lenses for when I want something more specific.
These days I tend to avoid shooting with the 24-105mm. Yet when I do, I usually really like the results. Maybe I should use it more...
I tend to shoot longer focal lengths, so the new 24-70mm doesn't really make sense for me. Instead I have stuck with the 24-105mm and a set of prime lenses for when I want something more specific.
These days I tend to avoid shooting with the 24-105mm. Yet when I do, I usually really like the results. Maybe I should use it more...
Upvote
0
I have a 24-105, and a 135L and a 35mm 1.4, and a 50mm 1.8. And a Sigma 12-24mm.
The 24-105 is on all the time. The primes comes into use when the motive is demanding something bether. Mostly I am not having the time to change lenses, and the quality of the zoom is mostly more than enough for my need.
I am mostly using the 24mm and the 105 mm. I am rarely using it in the midle. I rather get the motive I want, than missing them becouse I am having the wrong lens on. Primes are for slow objects, where I have the time to find the right angle and framing. The zoom is a great thing when shooting kids, street, animals and sport. And of course a great advantage when going hiking or on vacation.
The 24-105 is on all the time. The primes comes into use when the motive is demanding something bether. Mostly I am not having the time to change lenses, and the quality of the zoom is mostly more than enough for my need.
I am mostly using the 24mm and the 105 mm. I am rarely using it in the midle. I rather get the motive I want, than missing them becouse I am having the wrong lens on. Primes are for slow objects, where I have the time to find the right angle and framing. The zoom is a great thing when shooting kids, street, animals and sport. And of course a great advantage when going hiking or on vacation.
Upvote
0
It's good for what it is. I never loved it and always regretted not buying the original 24-70 instead when it was still available and only very little extra money. The results are certainly more than "good enough" but I never liked the f/4 limitation which makes it actually not a versatile lens for my preferences. I rarely ever leave the house with just the 24-105. It's good for studio style portraits though or anything else where you'd stop down anyway.
Upvote
0
I was so happy to replace my old sigma 24-70 (2003 model, heavy as a 6 pack of beer) with the canon 24-105. The 24-105 was lighter to carry everywhere. But now the picture quality is not what I'm looking for. After years with it, I found its not as sharp as it can be. It works really well when I'm outside with good light. Not as well indoors without flash.
Now I'm saving for the 24-70 2.8 for replacement and will sell the 24-105.
Now I'm saving for the 24-70 2.8 for replacement and will sell the 24-105.
Upvote
0
Very much so!
It is on all the time. Perfect for my needs. Pretty sure 24-70 is better and who would not want a 2.8 or primes. But for the versatility and affordability, nothing beats this lens.
It is on all the time. Perfect for my needs. Pretty sure 24-70 is better and who would not want a 2.8 or primes. But for the versatility and affordability, nothing beats this lens.
Upvote
0
+1 My sentiments exactly, for the same reasons. I've said in several posts on CR that I like it but I don't love it. It's the only lens I have that I don't love...7enderbender said:
I decided today that mine is going up for sale. I just don't use it near enough. Hmm, I think I've only locked it on my body 3 times... 24-70mm is definitely in my immediate future... Hmm, May even be willing to give that new Tammi a try... :
Upvote
0
- Status
