24-105L or £600 on something else?

S

StuW

Suspended / Banned
Messages
14
Name
Stuart Walker
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm going to be buying a 5D Mk II sometime this year, probably in October, and I'm seeking advice on how best to spend my hard earned cash on glass for the full frame body.

The 24-105L kit lens would seem to make sense given my current gap in the 40 - 100 range, and the good reviews it seems to bring in, but I don't want to spend £600 on something to fill the gap just because it is the "kit" lens and comes a little cheaper than normal!

So my question is, should I buy the kit lens or is there something else out there I should be looking to spend money on?

Current lenses:
- Canon 17-40L f4
- Canon 50 f1.8
- Tamron 90 f2.8 Macro
- Sigma 100-300 f4 EX

Many thanks for any advice

Stu
 
Do you have a full frame at the moment? if not you might use the 24-105 instead of the 17-40, although you should obviously keep it for now in case you want a super-wide lens for the new body.
 
I have a 20D at the moment and am looking forward to seeing what the 17-40 brings on the wide side with a full frame sensor... but on the filp side I'm not going to be too pleased to be losing the length on the 300mm end of my sigma when compared to the cropped sensor of the 20D.

The new 7D would be nice as I do use the long lenses a fair bit, but I'm not sure I can tear myself away from wanting FF. I would end up needing to juggle my lenses around and maybe sell the 17-40 for a 10-20 or something similar.

So it would be a choice of

5D Mk II (£2300 inc 24-105L)
Canon 17-40L
Canon 24-105L
Sigma 100-300EX

Cost to my pocket roughly £2,300

or

Canon 7D (£1400)
Canon 10-22 (£500)
Canon 24-105L (£750)
Sigma 100-300EX

Cost to my pocket roughly £2650 - £450 for the 17-40L = £2200

Both options seem to come to roughly the same money... be interested to see what people think would be the best all round option (I shoot allsorts from motorsports and wildlife to portraits and landscape) and also whether there are other lens options I should consider.

The best solution for me would be one that includes the 5D Mk II, keeps a nice wide angle and also has a decent zoom, beyond 300mm, but I think that's going beyond my budget!

Stu
 
Welcome Stu :)

IMHO the 24-105L 4 is almost reason in itself to go full frame Canon. It's a brilliant lens - perfect workhorse and general use range, sharp, f/4 throughout, has IS, L build quality. No other manufacturer has anything quite like it :thumbs:

It's part of the Canon f/4 L trinity - 17-40, 24-105, 70-200. It doesn't get any better than that. Except for the f/2.8 trinity - 16-35, 24-70, 70-200 :D

Edit: just seen your last post. Ditch the Sigma and go for a Canon 100-400L to get the reach back. Canon has a few aces in its line up, lenses that are outstanding in one or two ways unmatched by others, 100-400 and 24-105 are two of them (70-200 4 is another). Fantastic full frame outfit, will really allow full frame quality to shine.

For me, it would be worth stretching the budget or making short term economies or compromises to get that long term. With your macro and fast nifty 50, that's an outfit with the specification, quality and depth to last a lifetime :thumbs:
 
I agree about the 24-105L having just got one. Also the point about the 100-400L which is fabulous. However think carefully abot the pros and cons of full frame v crop sensor and what your real useage is(maybe look through your last years pics) and what you are likely to do in future.

If its mainly still/wedding/portrait go 5DII

If its wildlife/action go 7D-subject to good reviews and maybe wait for prices to soften!!
 
The 24-105 suffers from barrel distortion at the wide end (up to about 35mm).
It's particularly noticeable when photographing a seascape which includes the horizon.

You can fix this in post-processing but you then need to crop the image.

The 17-40 also has the same fault, but from about 24mm is fine.

I have both lenses and have taken to using the 17-40 in the 24-40 range, rather than the 24-105.
 
Firstly thanks for the responses :)

@HoppyUK - I hadn't really considered the 100-400L because I thought it was a bit more expensive than it actually is. Assuming I could get reasonable money for my Sigma then a 5D MKII and the longer Canon may be the right way to go :)

@Paul Philpot - I'm not really much further forward deciding whether full frame is right for me or not! If I'm honest the main reasons I wanted to go FF were to get the best of the lenses I already have, especially the 17-40 and because I've always assumed a bigger sensor would equate to much higher resolution images.

@Jerry - Useful to know, I guess it can't be horrific distortion?

I do go to the occasional BTCC maybe once a year but I tend not to fire frantic bursts of shots so the 8 fps of the 7D would probably be overkill for me. The thing that has made me look seriously at the 7D was a post by someone in the official 7D thread that showed the relative resolution of a cropped kingfisher at 100% across the Canon body range. I guess the 400mm would bring some of that back on the 5D but perhaps not all of it, and compared to the resolution of the 20D I use now it should be tons better

This is my gallery from the last couple of years www.discostu.co.uk/stuff , I don't think I shoot one thing more than any other to be honest!

So I now have a third option on my list, slightly more expensive and reliant on me selling my Sigma:

5D Mk II (£2300 inc 24-105L)
Canon 17-40L
Canon 24-105L
Canon 100-400L (£1100)

Cost to my pocket roughly £3300 - ~£600 for the Sigma 100-300EX = £2700
 
24-105, excellent lens I have one would recommend it.
Other kit 100-400mm L IS and 60mm macro F2.8 40D soon to 7D when I sell 40D.

J
 
jerry12953 said:
The 24-105 suffers from barrel distortion at the wide end (up to about 35mm).
It's particularly noticeable when photographing a seascape which includes the horizon.

You can fix this in post-processing but you then need to crop the image.
Click to expand...

Why do you need to crop it. Can't you just bend the middle in Photoshop?
 
StuW said:
...@Jerry - Useful to know, I guess it can't be horrific distortion?...
Click to expand...

Don't worry about distortion. It's a piece of cake to fix.

Canon's free software, DPP, has automatic custom correction of distortion, CA and vignetting. It works off the Exif data and knows the characteristics of all Canon lenses, at all focal lengths, focusing distance and f/number. It's a one click job :thumbs:
 
is there a decent site where u can compare images from different lens?
 
HoppyUK said:
Don't worry about distortion. It's a piece of cake to fix.

Canon's free software, DPP, has automatic custom correction of distortion, CA and vignetting. It works off the Exif data and knows the characteristics of all Canon lenses, at all focal lengths, focusing distance and f/number. It's a one click job :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Is the software on camera or is it a post-process activity?
 
jackbauer said:
is there a decent site where u can compare images from different lens?
Click to expand...

not sure how relevant it would be across lenses unless you mean at a specific focal range? I have looked on dpreview in the past for sample images from lenses or bodies but there may be better sources
 
StuW said:
Is the software on camera or is it a post-process activity?
Click to expand...

It's post process, and you need to shoot Raw.

DPP comes on CD with all D-EOS cameras. You need v3.5 or higher to get the Full Monty, ie the full range of Canon lenses supported, but free upgrades are available on line.

DPP is a very good Raw processor and also pretty full editing package. I use it for just about everything.
 
I agree with the suggestion to go for the 24-105 with the 100-400. Both are superb lenses on FF bodies, I have them both along with a 5D mk1. The 100-400 isn't too heavy either and is much needed on a FF body if you want plenty of reach. If you want to add a cheaper lightweight zoom try the 70-300 IS or the 70-200 F4 L non-IS. Both work well with a quality TC such as the Kenko Pro 1.4 or the Canon one.
 
IMHO i would get a 24 - 70 f2.8 but as in my thread on "24 - 105 or 24 - 70 2.8" it depends what you want it for. The 24 - 105 is a great lens and i seriously considered getting it over the past couple of years. But having seen and heard what the 24 - 70 can and the 70 - 200 im going to upgrade to those.

My perfect set up

5D Classic
30D Backup
17 - 40 F4
24 - 70 f2.8
70 - 200f.28
580EX flash

1 - 1000 f2.8 L.......YER RIGHT

Its up to you my friend great lens
 
HoppyUK said:
Don't worry about distortion. It's a piece of cake to fix.

Canon's free software, DPP, has automatic custom correction of distortion, CA and vignetting. It works off the Exif data and knows the characteristics of all Canon lenses, at all focal lengths, focusing distance and f/number. It's a one click job :thumbs:
Click to expand...

I didn't know this!

Maybe I should stop using Lightroom....

But using PTLens, as I do, you end up with a straight horizon but crooked edges - hence the need for cropping.

Is DPP any different?
 
With my 24-105 I went from a 20D to 5DII
On the 20D I found myself doing quite a lot of stitching to include shot that were just a tad too wide.
But on the 5DII it's just about the perfect range of focal lengths for a walkabout lens.
 
jerry12953 said:
I didn't know this!

Maybe I should stop using Lightroom....

But using PTLens, as I do, you end up with a straight horizon but crooked edges - hence the need for cropping.

Is DPP any different?
Click to expand...

I think DPP is brilliant :thumbs: This kind of digital aberrations correction is going to be a big factor in all new cameras and lenses soon. Actually, it is already in many compacts but manufacturers are coy about it for DSLRs - lens snobs think it is the work of the devil.

Have a look at it here, working on Canon EF-S 17-85 images. http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_17-85_4-5p6_is_usm_c16/page3.asp This review of the new Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 for Micro 4/3rds also makes interesting reference. http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/panasonic_20_1p7_o20/

PTLens is very crude in comparison. I think the website tells you how the data is collected pretty much from one or two snaps.

Give it a try. You may need a later version than the one supplied with your 5D, to get every Canon lens included - v3.5 or later. Free update download is available.
 
HoppyUK said:
I think DPP is brilliant :thumbs: This kind of digital aberrations correction is going to be a big factor in all new cameras and lenses soon. Actually, it is already in many compacts but manufacturers are coy about it for DSLRs - lens snobs think it is the work of the devil.

Have a look at it here, working on Canon EF-S 17-85 images. http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_17-85_4-5p6_is_usm_c16/page3.asp This review of the new Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 for Micro 4/3rds also makes interesting reference. http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/panasonic_20_1p7_o20/

PTLens is very crude in comparison. I think the website tells you how the data is collected pretty much from one or two snaps.

Give it a try. You may need a later version than the one supplied with your 5D, to get every Canon lens included - v3.5 or later. Free update download is available.
Click to expand...

That's food for thought, Hoppy.

I used DPP before I got Lightroom, where the develop tools seem very good indeed. Maybe the next version of Lightroom will include distortion correction. Although barrel distortion in the 24-105 (and 17-40) is only noticeable on certain types of subject matter, it really shows when it shows!
 
I bought my 24-105 from Ekimeo on here a couple of months ago and it hasn't been off my 5D since! Love it.

I have Sigma 24-70 2.8 for when I really need the extra light but the 24-105 and 70-200 2.8L are my lenses of choice for most things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top