24-105mm f/4 L USM...what a beastie!

R

Rex_Ham

Suspended / Banned
Messages
85
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
Yes
Just taken delivery of the above for a week from Stewart at lensesforhire...

Now, when I've read reviews in the past of the 'L' lenses having fantastic build quality, I've thought to myself... 'That's not such a big deal...it's the results that's more important' .....and it is of course!

But I was amazed at the sheer size of the thing, from what I'm used to with my 'placky' consumer lenses :eek: .....

Don't get me wrong - the results they give are excellent...it's the build quality thing I'm referring to here.....this thing is like a BRICK! (and the other one I was toying with hiring was the 24-70 f/2.8 L is even heavier I believe!!)

I've done one or two snaps in the back garden, and though it's hard to tell from the random subject matter I've used - the results look very promising so far.

I'm off for a week in a log cabin down South Wales tomorrow, so I'll be giving it a thorough testing over the next seven days to see if I've now got the 'L' bug too ..... :D

I'm still thinking of the Canon 18-200mm as I'm a lazy wossname....so it'll have to be REALLY good to sway me from the range that that covers....we'll see :thumbs:

....Oh, one other question.

While I'm there, I'm anticipating seeing quite a bit of wildlife....squirrels, rabbits etc....

As most of my shooting so far has been of static things, I've always had my 450D on 'single shot' focusing. Is it a good idea to leave it on 'servo' to have more chance of catching those impromptu moments that you seem to have shooting wildlife....? I mean, I can still take a shot of a stationary subject with it permanently on servo....but if I happen across a critter or two, I'll be quicker prepared to capture a moving subject I'd have thought... Any advice on this please?

Thanks :thumbs:
 
I'm very happy with my 24-105, but yes it is quite a big blighter.
 
All the more reason for some one to donate me an 'L' lens free of charge.... :p
 
It would take alot to make me swap my 24-105 for any other walk about lens...
 
Be sure to let us know how you get on with it fella, i'm hoping for this to be my next buy, hopefully early next year. Apparently, when teamed with a 40D it's a nice combination.
 
Little Man said:
Be sure to let us know how you get on with it fella, i'm hoping for this to be my next buy, hopefully early next year. Apparently, when teamed with a 40D it's a nice combination.
Click to expand...

Will do fella....
 
i love my 24-105 - wouldn't get rid of it for anything lol.
 
Oh I hate threads like this - I WANT ONE!!!!

:bang: :bat: :bang: :bat: :bang: :bat: :bang: :bat: :bang:

One day, one day :love:

Thought I would summarise why I personally want this lens... I mainly shoot outdoors, I often shoot street candids & Urban type stuff, so this lens with a walkabout capability but also short telephoto seems ideal. I will also get a wide angle (probaby the Tokina 11-16 or 10-24 when it comes out) to compliment this beast (I'm on a crop body). Then will sell the Sigma 17-70, and consider upgrading the 70-300 IS - probably with a 100-400. That's the plan anyway.

So those are my thoughts, will be very interested to hear your appraisal after the trip.

Eddie.
 
Had mine under a month and two and a half weeks of that without a body to put it on. Have to say I love the beast and the IS suits me very nicely. I think the weight of it is better balanced than my old Sigma 24-70 and it does feel perfect on the 40D.
 
I just sold my 24-105 as I needed something a bit faster for low light work so I switched to the 24-70. I don't find either especially heavy but I guess I've just gotten used to the weight now. When I use the 50mm f/1.4 I find the camera is a bit light and really needs some extra weight to balance it out or is that just me looking for an excuse to get the f/1.2L? :lol:
 
Digital_Clarity said:
To look through the viewfinder and see how much of a difference that IS makes when you flip it on is astounding.
Click to expand...

I've just got the 70-200 F4L and must say the difference when you put IS on is amazing. I'm also looking at this lens for a walkabout lens. And a Tokina 12-24 F4 for wide stuff.

I know others will say faster is better but F4 is fine for me, and IS is a godsend. Let us know how this beast performs.

Choccy...
 
Will do.

Anyone care to comment further on my query at the end of the OP.....?

As most of my shooting so far has been of static things, I've always had my 450D on 'single shot' focusing. Is it a good idea to leave it on 'servo' to have more chance of catching those impromptu moments that you seem to have shooting wildlife....? I mean, I can still take a shot of a stationary subject with it permanently on servo....but if I happen across a critter or two, I'll be quicker prepared to capture a moving subject I'd have thought... Any advice on this please?


Thanks :thumbs:
 
Well I've finally got around to updating this post....

I've gotta say that yes - the 24-105 was a cracking lens and produced great pics....but I've also gotta say that though they were good - I don't think that I personally will be obsessed with going all out to get an 'L'-only collection of lenses....if money was no object then, yes, I would....

But when I look at the pics that can be had with 'cheaper' lenses (pricewise I mean here.....) - that can also be really fantastic too, I'm tending to lean towards them I think coz of the 'bang for the buck' aspect of things.....

I did a very 'un-scientific' test while I had the L lens, that produced a surprising result to me....

I set up the camera on a tripod and 'guestimated' the focal length from the dial on the lens and used the same f-stop settings and also used a cable release to take the shot, so that I could compare with the two kit lenses I've got....the 18-55mm IS and the 55-250mm IS......to the 24-105 f4 L USM.

At normal viewing of the pics, there didn't seem a lot wrong with the 18-55mm IS compared to the L lens at 24mm focal length. But when zoomed in to 100% - there was a marked difference in favour of the L lens....no surprises there then.

BUT.....on the 55-250mm at about 100mm focal length, it actually seemed to me to have a lot more clarity and contrast than the L lens.

Unfortunately, I only took the one shot of each setting with each lens...so could not compare to see if I'd 'cocked' something up with the shots - though I don't think I did tbh.....

Anyway....seee the results for yourself.....


This first one is the comparison between the 18-55 IS and the L lens with a 24mm focal length on both @ f4...

Test 1 -

18-55mm IS

01-18-55mm24mmfocal_frame.jpg


24-105mm

02-24-105mm24mmfocal_frame800.jpg


18-55mm@100% zoom

01-18-55mm24mmfocal_zoom100.jpg



24-105mm@100% zoom

02-24-105mm24mmfocal_zoom100800.jpg


Test 2

Next - same lenses but at 55mm focal length at f/5.6

18-55mm@55mm f5.6

03-18-55mm55mmfocal_frame800.jpg



24-105@55mm f5.6

04-24-105mm55mmfocal_frame800.jpg


18-55mm@55mm f5.6 (100% zoom)

03-18-55mm55mmfocal_zoom100800.jpg


24-105mm@55mm f5.6 (100% zoom)

04-24-105mm55mmfocal_zoom100800.jpg



......last part of test continues in the next post

--------------------------------------------------------------------
 
You can certainly see the difference, I love mine.
 
Test 3

This is the one that surprised me.... I know the 55-250mm IS has got a good reputation as a very good quality 'budget' lens....but I think it's much better at 100mm than the L lens here....

55-250mm IS@f5 100mm focal length

05-55-250mm100mmfocal_frame800.jpg


24-105mm@f5 97mm focal length

06-24-105mm100mmfocal_frame800.jpg


55-250mm IS@f5 100mm (100% zoom)

05-55-250mm100mmfocal_zoom100800.jpg



24-105mm@f5 97mm focal length (100% zoom)

06-24-105mm100mmfocal_zoom100800.jpg


Opinions...???
 
Looks like the last test the 24-105 is focusing on the steps/cabin and the log is out of focus?? or is that just me?
 
bradkb said:
Looks like the last test the 24-105 is focusing on the steps/cabin and the log is out of focus?? or is that just me?
Click to expand...

I would tend to agree that it looks OOF rather than unsharp and in focus.

One thing to remember however is you are at the far end of the 24-105's range, and sitting towards the sweet spot of the other lens....

Steve
 
Jelster said:
I would tend to agree that it looks OOF rather than unsharp and in focus.

One thing to remember however is you are at the far end of the 24-105's range, and sitting towards the sweet spot of the other lens....

Steve
Click to expand...

I agree, every lens has a sweet spot and unfortunately a not so sweet spot at the extremes of its focal range its just fact of life. I am willing to bet the 24-105L beats it hands down at almost all other focal lengths.
 
nice to see a comparison
I would certainly check on bradkb's comments
were you using centre point focusing only?

nice lens though. you can instantly see the difference against the kit lens.
I've only use this lens once, a couple of years ago on a 5D. awesome combination
 
To answer the points raised...

The focus point was the large 'knot' area of the fallen tree stump for all shots....and yes, centre point focusing was used on all shots - that's all I ever use tbh....

True about it being at the extreme end of it's range and the others' sweet spot, but maybe it's just me being a noob and reading all about the supreme quality of the L lenses glass, but I would have expected an L lens to have that quality throughout it's range :shrug:

Well, it's exactly why I hired it though....for me to see personally how it felt on the camera and how it actually performed, so I'm really glad I paid to hire first rather than diving in and buying one outright.

My conclusions are that when I'm in a better financial position and the kids are through their Uni etc... I know I can look to upgrade to L lenses and what I will be getting - but for the very near future, I'm gonna have to keep my sights a bit lower down on non-L glass that has a good reputation such as the 55-250 and it's like!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top