I'm currently using 550D + Sigma 17-70 OS, but I plan to move to a FF body sooner or later (most likely I'll grab 5dmkII when mkIII gets released), and that's why I want to buy 24-105 now and use it on my cropped camera (as far as I know it's pretty good for APS-C cameras), but the lens is 4 years old and has some drawbacks, e.g. pretty pronounced distorsion at 24mm. So is it worth waiting to get it, or I'd better buy it now and save money for an FF body?
Is it worth waiting for an upgrade to 24-105?
- Thread starter lexonio
- Start date
- Status
Or option C... buy it with your FF as a kit. The lens is a few hundred cheaper when bought as a kit than if you paid ala cart. But if that isn't an option, i'd recommend getting it and using your current lens for wide angle. I dont see the 24-105 getting upgraded anytime within the next few years.
Upvote
0
That would've been a great option if I lived in the US, but I am currently in Russia, and the situation here is quite different - I would actually save up to 100$ if I buy the body and the lens separately from different vendors. I could order the kit from eBay, but once again I'll have to pay something like 150-200$ to get it delivered, without a chance to test focusing capabilities of the specific kit.
Too bad we probably won't be seeing an upgrade to one of the most popular lenses out there. And thank you for your reply, it've been useful
Too bad we probably won't be seeing an upgrade to one of the most popular lenses out there. And thank you for your reply, it've been useful
Upvote
0
No problem. I didn't realize the camera and lens prices were so different over in russia. I just assumed they would be different for your currency but somewhat proportional. In that case, I'd recommend the lens. It's not as wide as your current lens, so if you love to use the 17mm part, keep that lens for that range, but other than that, I love this lens and has been used 90% of the time on both my 7d and 5d2. My second most used lens is my 17-40 then 50mm...
Upvote
0
I was using the 24-105 F4L IS for a year on my then 550D before I sold it in anticipation of the 24-70 F2.8L II. I was always happy with it and my only "complaint" was its comparably small aperture, however since it got IS its performance in less than ideal light situations is quite ok.
I also do assume that its successor cannot be expected before 2015 (guess based solely on gut feeling).
I also do assume that its successor cannot be expected before 2015 (guess based solely on gut feeling).
Upvote
0
The 24-105 is IMHO a perfect walkaround lens. I sold my 24-70 when I bought the 5D MKII and got the 24-105 as a kit with the camera. It's light, easy to carry and versatile. A bit slow, yes, but on a FF you can compensate with higher ISO. Some distortion at the wider end but that can be fixed in PP (I use PTLens).
Upvote
0
Not sure how soon this lens will get updated. Not a perfect lens, but I think Canon is focusing on ranges, and with the 24-70 and the 70 - 200 they have a nice range, as well as the rumored 200 - 400 coming out as well...
So to me the 24 - 105 seems like an overlap lens. Don't get me wrong, I use this lens a lot, but I don't see it being addressed anytime soon.
So to me the 24 - 105 seems like an overlap lens. Don't get me wrong, I use this lens a lot, but I don't see it being addressed anytime soon.
Upvote
0
I will just be another one to repeat no update to be expected this lens in the near future. I have also used this lens on an aps-c body and was very pleased with the results. Yes there is distortion at 24mm and it's an f/4 - not a perfect lens but it does what it is supposed to and I am very pleased with the results, both on aps-c and FF.
24 mm is not very wide on aps-c though, so if you need the wide angle, you might need to use the Sigma...
Cheers!
24 mm is not very wide on aps-c though, so if you need the wide angle, you might need to use the Sigma...
Cheers!
Upvote
0
Well, they do, but the lens is immensely popular itself, so it's usually removed from the kit and sold separately. When it is sold separately, the price is of course different. So when you buy a "kit" you're basically buying a camera and a lens separately. Weird stuff, but that's how it works.
Upvote
0
lexonio said:
I would wait until you go FF. That way you might at least get it at kit discount price perhaps or maybe something better will be out by the time you finally go FF.
Personally I didn't think it was all that hot on a 5D2, although the IS, AF, range are very nice to be sure. I doubt it would really even work any better than you Sigma 17-70 OS does for you know on your 550D. And it won't go wide at all, which may be a huge negative for you for now.
My Tamron 17-50 was sharper on my 50D than the 24-105 (although the 24-105 wasn't bad on APS-C at all, just not quite as crazy super sharp if you looked really closely, on FF I didn't care for the mushy edges, CA, distortion on the wide side, you might need to pony up for the new 24-70 II if you want a zoom in that range and expect edge to edge goodness though on a high MP FF or look to the 24 2.8 IS prime or something). Even my Tamron 28-75 2.8 actually did a little bit better on FF, other than having a little bit worse contrast. It also has f/2.8, although the AF is slower, it doesn't have as much range and lacks IS.
That said some people do swear by it. I hated it though.
It's a weird lens in that it seems to be one of the lenses that most often appears on lists of people's favorite/best FF lenses and it is also perhaps the lens that most often appears on lists of people's least favorite/worst FF lenses haha. Not sure what to say. Maybe lots of copy variation. Maybe lots of differences in the way various people tend to shoot. Maybe lots of differences in people's expectations. Maybe all three. Canon's own MTF chart does appear to show terrible edge performance on FF though, much worse than that of the 24 1.4 II (or the upcoming 24-70 II and 24 2.8 IS) or the Zeiss 21mm.
Upvote
0
Thank you for your continuing feedback, I've already purchased a new 24-105 - using it on my cropped 550d atm, love it. However I decided to accumulate a bit more money than I originally intended and go for 5dmkIII. I think it is wiser in the long run.
Upvote
0
Well, my understanding of ranges was that it is the "light" and "not so speed hungry" kit that goes with the 100-400 ... meaning some would pick 3 pieces of 24-70 + 70-200 + extenders (or the 200-400 monster) if they look for f/2.8, and others who don't need to go down that much would be satisfied with the f/4 and get only 2 pieces of 24-105 and 100-400 ?Maui5150 said:
(it is basically my questioning as i am going to upgrade soon my glass to L, but at the same time trying to guess what would be my range when going to FF one day ...)
Upvote
0
I have a 7D body, with sigma 17-70, canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, and I recently replace sigma 17-70 with canon 24-105 IS. The 24-105 is for sure the lens if you can only carry 1 lens. It is a lot sharper than sigma 17-70. I was debating on 24-105 f/4 IS or 24-70 f/2.8 for a while. The new 24-70 II makes the old look bad, and the new one is way to expensive, and without IS. The 70-200 f/2.8 is so heavy, unless I know I will need to use f/2.8, I don't want to carry it.
Upvote
0
- Status
