24-105mm L series

Xeorix

Xeorix

Suspended / Banned
Messages
90
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm off to Florida in April and I'm looking and upgrading my lens to something a bit better. That is jumping from the 18-55mm lens to a 24-105mm L series.

I need to have the low focal length for any indoor shots as I'm restricted in space at home, however want something with the flexibility for outdoor too, in this case, Orlando etc

So a few questions. Do you think the 24-105 is a good choice for me?
Are there any known problems with this lens? I read about Err 03 but not sure how wide spread it is, which leads me onto my next question..

Roughly £470 from MPB with a 6 month seller warranty or £499 from DigitalRev with a 1 year seller warranty. Difference being the MPB one is 2nd hand and the digitalrev one is a grey import
 
It's a stunning lens, I love mine.

But on a crop, you'll most likely find it isn't wide enough, especially if you're doing indoor shots. For that I'd suggest a UWA such as the canon 10-22 or the Tokina 11-16.
 
Whilst not the fastest it's a lovely lens.

You mention 'indoor'............

Is it a crop or full frame body you have ?

Canon EFS 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM would be my choice for a crop/
 
Its on a crop (550D) Currently only have the 18-55mm which is perfectly flexible and wide enough for indoor use.

Would the 24-105 not be very similar at 24mm?

Also, what is meant by not the fastest? Does that simply mean focusing?
 
Last edited:
I own one of these and it is on my camera most of the time. Great all round lens for travel etc. :canon:
 
At 24mm both the 18-55 and 24-105 will give you virtually identical fields of view.

When people refer to fast lens it has nothing to do with focussing it is to do with the amount of light the lens lets into the camera. For example an F2.8 lens lets in twice as much light as an F4. Therefore an F2.8 lens has distinct advantages over an F4 lens in low light situations.

I have the 24-105 and it is a great lens.
 
Fast means maximum aperture (like f2.8 for a zoom) f4 is slow in that is not capable as letting as much light in (at once)
It is a good lens. Some distortion at the wide end.
There is a known fault where the lens may fail before you expect it to. Mine failed after an estimated 17,000 photographs.

See this
http://www.flickr.com/groups/canon24-105/discuss/72157623564798117/
 
Ah cheers!

Hmm, that issue has me torn. 17,000 photos is a lot, but obviously down ever want it to fail. Sods law it'd break after warranty too..

I guess this means it'd make sense to go for a new one from DR with 1 year super warranty then used with 6 month warranty?
 
Just to develop on Xeorix's comments. The failure on this lens is almost always down to a small ribbon cable inside the lens body. As this is a zoom lens this lens cable is designed to flex as you zoom in and out. This can cause the small wires within the cable to stress and occasionally break. This is what happened to my lens. I found a local camera technician who replaced the faulty components, serviced and cleaned the inside of the lens for £105. The lens is now as good as new.


Although this is a well known problem with this lens only a small percentage of those made suffer from it. I hope this helps.
 
Thanks valb, gives me a bit of confidence, however this has definitely swayed me down the new route!
 
Good luck - I am sure you will enjoy your new lens when it arrives. It is a significant improvement on the 18-55 kit lens.
 
On the 550d, I think you will find 24mm on a crop to be very restrictive for indoor shooting. Also, unless you have very good light I suspect f4 will give significant motion blur if shooting moving kids etc.. The alternative is to use high iso with all the compromises that come with that. In your shoes I would be looking at a Tamron 17-50 VC or non-VC. Alternatively, the new Sigma 18-35f1.8 looks REALLY interesting.
 
Last edited:
gary43 said:
On the 550d, I think you will find 24mm on a crop to be very restrictive for indoor shooting. Also, unless you have very good light I suspect f4 will give significant motion blur if shooting moving kids etc.. The alternative is to use high iso with all the compromises that come with that. In your shoes I would be looking at a Tamron 17-50 VC or non-VC. Alternatively, the new Sigma 18-35f1.8 looks REALLY interesting.
Click to expand...

I've done a bit of video with the 18-55 which is f/3.5. Would the extra 0.5 really make that much difference?
 
I don't altogether agree that 24mm is very restrictive on a crop for indoor shooting. I regularly use my 50mm for indoor shooting. Given that 24 on a crop equates to about 38mm I think you should find it perfectly usable in most indoor situations. Over Christmas I was using my 70-200 for indoor work and got some perfectly satisfactory portrait results at the 70mm end. I guess a lot depends on your room sizes, how near or far you can get from the subject and how many people you want in the photo.

As far as the extra 0.5 is concerned this is a different matter. Capturing moving kids/animals etc is always going to need higher shutter speeds to stop blur. Clearly a faster lens allows the selection of a higher shutter speed and does help in these situations. However the difference between an F2.8 lens and an F4 lens is only one stop. So on the slower lenses you would either need to double your ISO e.g from 200 to 400 or select a slightly slower shutter e.g 1/60th instead of 1/125th to let in the same light as the faster lens. Otherwise use a flash.:)

I do agree that the Tamron 17-50 is a very good lens. Is it as good as a 24-105? In my opinion no and I have used them both.
 
The reason I am not so interested in the Tamron is that I would like that bit of zoom. I find that the 18-55mm is wide enough for me, however 55mm just doesn't cut it for a number of outdoor shots. Something like the 24-105 would give me that extra mileage at a respectable price, especially in the L series
 
Have you considered the Tamron 24-70 VC lens? But more expensive though
 
I've had a look at it, but to be honest, the 24-105mm is pushing my budget anyway
 
Xeorix said:
Its on a crop (550D) Currently only have the 18-55mm which is perfectly flexible and wide enough for indoor use.

Would the 24-105 not be very similar at 24mm?
Click to expand...

Easiest way to look would be to set your 18-55 to 24mm (if I remember correctly it does have focal length markings) and then zoom out to see the difference.

For what its worth when I was over in NYC many years ago I bought the 24-105mm for use with my 400D but ended up returning it, one of the reasons being that I found it restrictive compared to my previous 18-55mm. I've since used it lots on a FF 5D mk2 and it's lovely. Try having a play with a lens at 24mm and seeing if that works for you for your indoor shots.
 
Some good points addressed by Val above. As to whether 38 mm (24x1.6 crop) is too restrictive for you, well, jeff 127 has addressed this. Group shots are going to be an issue in restaurants etc unless you are happy for very tight shots. I think on a FF camera the 24-105 is THE perfect walkabout but I am not at all convinced it is really THE lens for a crop body. If you plan to keep the 18-55 then you have the best of both worlds I suppose. Anyway, good luck with your selection.
 
The 24 - 105mm on a crop body, at the short end, gives you more or less the same field of view as a 38.5mm lens on a 35mm film or a full frame digital camera. For me, that's a very modest wide angle. Using the same criteria, the 18 - 55mm works out at 28.8mm which is significantly wider. There's a big difference. 35mm was quite popular in the film days, but I always felt that 28mm was about the starting point for the true wide angles.

I agree with the suggestion to experiment with your 18 - 55mm set to 24mm, and see if that is going to meet your needs. Personally, I'd rather have something starting around 17mm or 18mm for this application.
 
FWIW when some years back I upgraded to a 7D from a 450d I went straight out and bought a 24-105 as a very flexible piece of decent glass. But you know what, I never loved it. It wasn't that it wasn't wide enough (I used a tokina 11-16 for that), it wasn't that it didn't give me a decent picture (it was capable of perfectly sharp and decent quality images), somehow it just didn't gel, it was rare for me to get a wow factor from the pictures I took with it.

Then, a couple of years back when I moved to the 5D mk iii it just clicked, somehow the lens and the FF body work very well together, a much better combo than when the lens was on the 7D. I love it on the 5D but when I put back on a newly acquired 7D recently just to see if it was me, nope same old. I find it hard to explain it technically but for me the lens is fantastic and so useful on FF but I'm not sure it will give you everything you seek on a crop, for me it just didn't work.
 
Last edited:
Another lens you might consider is the Canon 15-85 lens. I had one of these for a while and it was a cracking lens. It has a number of areas where it seems to tick most of your boxes. At 15 it is wider than both your existing 18-55 and your considered 24-105. Whilst 85 is not as long as 105 it is still better than your current max of 55. It is slightly faster at the wide end than the 24-105 (F3.5 to F4) but slower at the long end (F5.6 to F4) . It is well made (not quite as good as the 24-105) and is cheaper both second user and new. Like the 24-105 it too has IS.

This link takes you to the Photozone review.

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/465-canon_1585_3556is

One thing for sure there is no such thing as the perfect lens. The more you pay the closer you will get to that but there will always be some area of compromise.
 
Last edited:
valb said:
One thing for sure there is no such thing as the perfect lens. The more you pay the closer you will get to that but there will always be some area of compromise.
Click to expand...

There will indeed, whether it's the focal length, maximum aperture, sharpness or some other issue that makes it less than perfect for you, and the compromises are often defined by individual preference. Some lenses come very close though!
 
You'll land up keeping the 18-55 along side the 24-105mm as you'll want the wide end and the 105mm doesn't 'to give you much extra length.

I suspect what is happening here is l lens itus when really your money would be better spent upgrading your kit lens or buying a short telephoto zoom something like the 70-200mm f4L would compliment your current kit and scratch your L itch.
 
Doesn't the L have a distinctive edge over the non L's. Also, what barrel size is the 70-200?

I heard they have a purple and vignette issue?
 
Xeorix said:
Do you think the 24-105 is a good choice for me?
Click to expand...

Only you can really answer that! We're all different and we all want different things from our gear, 20 people here might recommend it but that doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be right for you.

I can't say whether it's a good choice for you or not but what I can say is the 24-105L is my favourite lens by far, I absolutely adore that thing. To me it's like my No.1 bass guitar - it feels right and just works, these days it's pretty rare for me to use anything else unless I'm shooting film. The thing is I use it on a 5Dmk2 so at 24mm it's slightly wider than the 18-55 is on my 1.6 crop 7D, if I were using it only on my 7D I don't think I'd use it anywhere near as much but on full frame it's absolutely perfect for me. I can't imagine ever *needing* another lens apart from that for 95% of what I do.

Xeorix said:
Doesn't the L have a distinctive edge over the non L's. Also, what barrel size is the 70-200?

I heard they have a purple and vignette issue?
Click to expand...

Do you mean the filter thread size? Also which version of the 70-200? The f/4 version is 67mm, I'm not sure about the larger f/2.8.

I've never known any lens have a significant vignetting problem on a crop sensor, my 70-200L f/4 certainly doesn't show any that I've ever noticed. As for chromatic aberration (whch is what I assume you mean by purple?), mine very rarely has any visible but if it does it's very easy to correct (as it is with most lenses).
 
I have the 24-105L, and can't fault it. Its my everyday lens, and it is used with a Full Frame 5D Mklll

However, it does have a weakness, in that quite a few people have reported it failing to auto-focus. This has been due to a ribbon cable inside the lens becoming detached from the focus motor.

Therefore, I would advise against buying a second-hand one, and to buy new from a company that gives at least a two year warranty. Canon will only warranty it for one year.

Dave
 
Xeorix said:
Doesn't the L have a distinctive edge over the non L's.
Click to expand...

That would depend on which non L lens you're talking about. IQ wise the 24-105 has no edge over the 15-85 and the extra width of the 15-85 is a big advantage on a crop body over the 24-105.
 
At 24mm both the 18-55 and 24-105 will give you virtually identical fields of view.

A 24mm on a canon is not the same. 24mm on a 1.6 crop is around 38mm. Not even close to 18mm.

I agree with the other post suggesting the 17-55 f2.8. Don't let the lack of the red stipe fool you, it's a fantastic lens. Super sharp and the focal length on a crop is great for all around shooting. The build quality is not that of a L lens but I wouldn't think twice about picking that lens over the 24-105 if I had to do it again. The only reason I sold mine was because I went full frame.

I shot a canon 24mm prime on my crop before and it was not wide enough. Not for landscape or portrait. Some may disagree but that is my take of it. Good luck.
 
IMHO the best walk about lens for a Canon crop is the 17-55 IS USM - Good wide angle combined with the fast aperture and IS makes it very versatile. The only thing that lets it down is it's lack of weather sealing :(

If you're used to 18mm on a crop 24mm will be too long I think. I also echo the above comments regarding a 70-200 F4L, superb lens, and will compliment your current lens very nicely. It's also not too big and very light.
 
I've just reluctantly sold my 15-85 as it won't fit on my 6d. I say reluctantly as it was sharper than my 24-105, my sigma 30mm 1.4, 70-200 f4 and 50mm 1.8. It doesn't get enough credit really.
 
Hazza said:
IMHO the best walk about lens for a Canon crop is the 17-55 IS USM - Good wide angle combined with the fast aperture and IS makes it very versatile. The only thing that lets it down is it's lack of weather sealing :(

If you're used to 18mm on a crop 24mm will be too long I think. I also echo the above comments regarding a 70-200 F4L, superb lens, and will compliment your current lens very nicely. It's also not too big and very light.
Click to expand...

What Harry said:plus1:. I've been lucky enough to have owned a couple of 24-105's which have both been really sharp (still got the second one). Hence I don't know what the sample variation is like. However, if I had a crop body the 17-55 IS USM would be my choice without question. It's a fantastic lens on crop, regardless of the lack of a cosmetic red ring around it.
 
Last edited:
shaylou said:
At 24mm both the 18-55 and 24-105 will give you virtually identical fields of view.

A 24mm on a canon is not the same. 24mm on a 1.6 crop is around 38mm. Not even close to 18mm.

I agree with the other post suggesting the 17-55 f2.8. Don't let the lack of the red stipe fool you, it's a fantastic lens. Super sharp and the focal length on a crop is great for all around shooting. The build quality is not that of a L lens but I wouldn't think twice about picking that lens over the 24-105 if I had to do it again. The only reason I sold mine was because I went full frame.

I shot a canon 24mm prime on my crop before and it was not wide enough. Not for landscape or portrait. Some may disagree but that is my take of it. Good luck.
Click to expand...

Clearly shayne has misunderstood my earlier point. On the same body a 24mm setting on the 18-55 would give a virtually identical field of view as the 24mm setting on the 24-105. This is a given.

IMHO whilst the 17-55 is a good lens it is too short to be a good walk around lens even on a cropped body. The 15-85 or 24-105 offer so much more.
 
This is the issue. The 55mm is just too short for me which was one of the reasons to look at the 24-105mm as it has that longer focal length.

I think a trip to Manchester jessops might be in order. Hopefully they'll have a crop I can look at them both with..

Really struggling to decided here as I need to contend with:

- 24-105mm diaphragm issue
- 24mm focal length might not be wide enough
- 55mm isn't long enough
 
Sounds like the 15-85 is emerging as the front runner.:)

A trip to Jessops and actually getting your hand on the lenses is a great idea. Take your camera with you they won't mind. Make sure you have a charged battery and a memory card and then shoot some photos at various lengths, apertures etc etc and then compare them at your leisure at home.
 
valb said:
Clearly shayne has misunderstood my earlier point. On the same body a 24mm setting on the 18-55 would give a virtually identical field of view as the 24mm setting on the 24-105. This is a given.

IMHO whilst the 17-55 is a good lens it is too short to be a good walk around lens even on a cropped body. The 15-85 or 24-105 offer so much more.
Click to expand...

However, you can always crop in for extra zoom but you can't add anything at the the wide end that you never got in the first place.

I've no idea what the 15-85 is like but if I still had a cropped body then the 17-55 would be my walk-a-bout. The constant f/2.8 with the IS is a major advantage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top