Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS | Telephoto Options

[Sungrazer]

I'm slowly putting together some mix and match lens options, and the 24-70 fits better in some of them in terms of avoiding overlap. It's also a stop faster. However, the 24-105 does have IS and a bit more reach, so I was considering it as a walkaround lens for the days I don't want to swap lenses in order to go a bit farther than 70mm. I just don't see it in any of your signatures. What are your opinions on this lens?

Somewhat related, somewhat separate: Would you rather have a) the 24-105 and the 100-400, b) the 24-70, 70-200, and 1.4x, or c) the 24-70 and 70-300?

[RichNY]

You are asking a very similar question to what I asked in this thread http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23448

One common suggestion was to start with the 17-55 IS lens because it gives a more practical set of focal lengths with a 1.6x crop factor and then one of the 70-200 lenses.

There was some suggestion as to the 70-200 f/2.8 for low light, the 70-200 f/4 for its lower cost and weight, and whether to get IS on these lenses.

Coldtrain also strongly suggested considering the 70-300 rather than the 70-200 because he felt it was strong optically and gave a wider focal range.

If you read the thread you'll also see Don offered a totally different solution using 3 Tamron lenses instead of the 2 Canon lenses. That approach was less expensive and lighter.

[Sungrazer]

Thanks. I'll review the thread in a few minutes. I've considered the 17-55 and 70-200 combo; it's one of my two lens options in the mixing and matching I'm doing. I'll post some musings on it at some point. With three lenses, I'd add a wide angle lens to options similar to that in the first post. Here I'm mostly trying to determine whether to go with the 24-105 or the 24-70 as my standard lens.

[RichNY]

Thanks. I'll review the thread in a few minutes. I've considered the 17-55 and 70-200 combo; it's one of my two lens options in the mixing and matching I'm doing. I'll post some musings on it at some point. With three lenses, I'd add a wide angle lens to options similar to that in the first post. Here I'm mostly trying to determine whether to go with the 24-105 or the 24-70 as my standard lens.

The point that people pointed out to me is that with the 1.6x crop factor:
17-55 becomes a 27-88
24-105 becomes a 38-168
24-70 becomes a 38-112

Of these focal lengths the majority opinion was that the 27-88 offered the most useable focal range for most people as their standard lens.

Initially I was concerned that I didn't have any coverage from 55-70 until I went back and looked at the photos I've been taking and noticed that very few fell in this range while many used the wider angle that the 17 v. 24 offered. Just something to consider, your mileage may vary.

[Clyde]

If you read the thread you'll also see Don offered a totally different solution using 3 Tamron lenses instead of the 2 Canon lenses. That approach was less expensive and lighter.

Some tamrons are very well thought of, for instance the 28-75. Some are not. Don recomends tamron regardless of the consensus opinion of their quality. This eccentricity colors many of his posts, and means that you should read them with this in mind. This effects only the "truth value" of his posts, not their consistently high "entertainment value."

Clyde

[Sungrazer]

I've read through the thread. Very helpful comments.

Of these focal lengths the majority opinion was that the 27-88 offered the most useable focal range for most people as their standard lens.

I don't know anything about lens mounts - is it just not feasible to make an EF 17-55, especially at f/2.8? (This is for anyone who can answer.)

Initially I was concerned that I didn't have any coverage from 55-70 until I went back and looked at the photos I've been taking and noticed that very few fell in this range while many used the wider angle that the 17 v. 24 offered. Just something to consider, your mileage may vary.

I'll go back and look at my S3 photos. Unfortunately, I don't know the conversion. I'll do some research.

[cwphoto]

I don't know anything about lens mounts - is it just not feasible to make an EF 17-55, especially at f/2.8? (This is for anyone who can answer.).

Making it EF means they need this expanded range to cover a greater image circle. Not commercially viable with today's technology.

[coldrain]

The Canon EF 16-35 f2.8 L and Nikon 17-35 f2.8 are big and heaby beasts already. Expanding the focal range would make them bigger, more expensive and more complex.

[ReF]

24-105 or 24-75? i'd choose option C: 17-55. why? cuz i'd have a really hard time deciding whether i'd want f2.8 or f4 with IS. the 17-55 has both.

i guess i should mention the following as to not sound full of BS: i had the tamron 28-75 f2.8 for a good 8 months so i know the uses i'd get out of f2.8 in that FL. I've also had the chance to use the 24-105 on two seperate occasions and i gotta say i really like that thing (range + IS).

my most used lens is the 17-40 f4 - can't live without this range. obviously this would make me lean towards the 17-55 since it has a similar range. i've already decided that the 17-55 would be superior in several ways to my 17-40 for my uses, but there are reasons why i don't upgrade and i won't get into that unless it helps you in some way. on the other hand maybe you don't go wide that often so a 24mm+ lens might be the clear choice for you. in that case, i can't recommend going one way or the other since i don't know myself!

[timmciglobal]

The 24-105 is a great lens as as as "standard zoom" in that, it mimics a 5X or so zoom on a typical point and shoot pretty close on a 1.6 crop.

One factor with the 24-70 to consider, and what finally turned me off to it, is the extreme weight and balance. The 24-105 weighs a lot less and is a lot less front heavy then the 24-70. The 24-70 does have better boken and is faster but it depends what the intended use it.

The 17-55 is a nice alternative, it's coming down in price and can be had for 1050 or so brand new online.

Tim