Is f4 fast enough on the 24-105mmL?

AndyWest

AndyWest

Suspended / Banned
Messages
8,400
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
No
I'm still thinking of either getting the 85mm f1.8 to add to my Nifty 50 and 28-135mm f3.5-f5.6 IS USM or selling the lenses i have for a 24-105mm f4 L. This will leave me with no auto focus lens wider than f4. Is it enough? My 24-135 at f3.5 seems not to be a hindrance. Would it be an idea to keep the 50mm f1.8? Oh decisions decisions :thinking:
 
Don't forget the 24-105 has IS so that helps. The only problem may be if your exposure times are too short for your subject. I've the 24-105 and you can hand hold down to some slow speeds, but if the subject isn't frozen then it's a problem. Image quality wise the lens is excellent.

If your 50mm is the f1.8 version, keep that as it will be useful if you need a wide lens .
 
I now have no lenses faster than f/4 and haven't found a problem. DoF at f/2.8 is pretty shallow and so I tend to stop down anyway. I've sold both the 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8

Paul
 
grumpybadger said:
I now have no lenses faster than f/4 and haven't found a problem. DoF at f/2.8 is pretty shallow and so I tend to stop down anyway. I've sold both the 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8

Paul
Click to expand...

I am the opposite, I have no lenses smaller than 2.8. F/4 just doens't cut in anymore for me. It's not thin enough dof wise (I would get a 1.2 if they make one) and its not fast enough indoors. IS is moot when shooingg people indoors or otherwise.
 
Speed - what does it mean? I think a huge number of people trot out the wrong arguments when it comes to this.

If all you have is a roll of ASA200 film in your camera, then f/2.8 will get you another stop of exposure over an f/4. But nowadays, digital means you can just crank up your ISO speed and reclaim that stop - and then some. ISO 200 - 400 - 800 - 1600 - 3200 is four stops. That's going from f/4 - 2.8 - 2.0 - 1.4 - 1.0 in lens terms, if you're just using the lens to reclaim shutter speed. That fact is inarguable - it all comes down to your perception and acceptance of noise at higher ISO values.

So, speed - what does it mean? Depth of field? Contrast? Focusing ability and speed? These are all valid reasons for a 'faster lens'. But reclaiming shutter speed isn't - it's an old film argument, and it has very little relevance in the age of continuously variable ISO values.
 
I would say in lower light conditions you will feel the difference and miss the faster lenses. Depends what and how you shoot though. Surely your 50mm won't get that much at resale? Try and keep it and then get the 24-105 and get the best of both worlds.
 
danbroad said:
Speed - what does it mean? I think a huge number of people trot out the wrong arguments when it comes to this.

If all you have is a roll of ASA200 film in your camera, then f/2.8 will get you another stop of exposure over an f/4. But nowadays, digital means you can just crank up your ISO speed and reclaim that stop - and then some. ISO 200 - 400 - 800 - 1600 - 3200 is four stops. That's going from f/4 - 2.8 - 2.0 - 1.4 - 1.0 in lens terms, if you're just using the lens to reclaim shutter speed. That fact is inarguable - it all comes down to your perception and acceptance of noise at higher ISO values.

So, speed - what does it mean? Depth of field? Contrast? Focusing ability and speed? These are all valid reasons for a 'faster lens'. But reclaiming shutter speed isn't - it's an old film argument, and it has very little relevance in the age of continuously variable ISO values.
Click to expand...

I'll give you another argument of having 2.8, which relate to your speed & ISO reasons.

As for ISO 100 to 200 isn't much, but I rather shoot at 3200 than 6400. And when it comes to flash, Aperture = Flash power, having that extra stop means you need half as much power to light the subject, and 50% less means your batteries will last twice as long.

And then there is the DOF and focusing speed you mentioned, so yes, I would pick a 2.8 lens over a 4.0 lens any given sunday.
 
Raymond Lin said:
I am the opposite, I have no lenses smaller than 2.8. F/4 just doens't cut in anymore for me. It's not thin enough dof wise (I would get a 1.2 if they make one) and its not fast enough indoors. IS is moot when shooingg people indoors or otherwise.
Click to expand...

Which goes to show its all about what you take photos of.

I can't remember the last time I used a camera indoors.

They do make a 1.2 by the way. The 50/1.2 is smack in the middle of the zoom range being considered.
 
grumpybadger said:
Which goes to show its all about what you take photos of.

I can't remember the last time I used a camera indoors.

They do make a 1.2 by the way. The 50/1.2 is smack in the middle of the zoom range being considered.
Click to expand...

I mean a zoom thats 1.2 :p
 
danbroad said:
But reclaiming shutter speed isn't - it's an old film argument, and it has very little relevance in the age of continuously variable ISO values.
Click to expand...

That depends if whether you are already close to the margins or not - having to bump ISO to 3200 from 1600 is a much bigger decision than 100 to 200.

Personally I like faster glass, I rarely stop down to f4 and prefer the flexibility of 2.8 or faster lenses.
 
I do both!

I have the 24-105mm f4 which is a great walk about lens and I do use it for group shots where I want DOF anyway.

Indoors I often resort to primes and go below f2.8.

best of both worlds :)
 
nicofell said:
I would say in lower light conditions you will feel the difference and miss the faster lenses. Depends what and how you shoot though. Surely your 50mm won't get that much at resale? Try and keep it and then get the 24-105 and get the best of both worlds.
Click to expand...
This is probably a good option. I can always up the ISO if needed indoors or just use the 50mm indoors instead.

I do have a selection of fast 28mm to 135mm manual lenses too so the 24-105m L looks like the right lens.

The 17-55 is a contender but i think 55mm is not enough for general walk about. However it is a stunning lens and f2.8!
 
With modern DSLR's ISO 1600 and above are very usable. This reduces the need for f/2.8 and faster lenses to keep shutter speeds up.

Shallow DOF can be useful, but it can also be a hinderance. I would rather shoot at f/5.6 and be critically sharp than f/2.8 and slightly miss focus. I get a much higher keeper rate out of my 24-105 and 70-200 f/4 lenses than when I use my f/1.4 to f/2.8 primes. Even with primes I tend to stop down a bit unless absolutely needed.
 
I have both the 24-105 and 85mm F1.8. The 24-105 really is a great walk around.
The only real downsides that I find is that mine isn't that sharp at F4 and needs to be stopped down to F5.6 to be at it's best.
In comparison, my 85mm is spot on from F2 downwards.
The results are that for wide angle (on an FF camera), macro (as close as 50cm) and shots with depth, the 24-105 is a great solution.
However, if you want to really make a portrait shot that stands out more, the 85mm easily wins the day due to it's very small DOF and bokeh. Putting it another way, I take more shots with the 24-105, but the ones I take with the 85mm tend to have more "wow" moments.

Make the decision based on what you're trying to shoot, but long term, buy both.
 
Mr_Sukebe said:
I have both the 24-105 and 85mm F1.8. The 24-105 really is a great walk around.
The only real downsides that I find is that mine isn't that sharp at F4 and needs to be stopped down to F5.6 to be at it's best.
In comparison, my 85mm is spot on from F2 downwards.
The results are that for wide angle (on an FF camera), macro (as close as 50cm) and shots with depth, the 24-105 is a great solution.
However, if you want to really make a portrait shot that stands out more, the 85mm easily wins the day due to it's very small DOF and bokeh. Putting it another way, I take more shots with the 24-105, but the ones I take with the 85mm tend to have more "wow" moments.
Click to expand...
Thats very useful info, thanks

Make the decision based on what you're trying to shoot, but long term, buy both.
Click to expand...
:D if only i had the money!
 
I'm not sure it's logical to stop down to increase sharpness whilst increasing ISO, which by reduces sharpness due to noise.

For me I like wide aperture lenses and the results they give. I'm also wanting to change my focus screen for the Ee-S which would make F4 lenses much more difficult (i.e. dark).
 
Don't get me wrong - I like faster glass,too - my standard zoom is an f/2.8, and I own a decent set of f/1.8 primes.

It's just that for the great majority of people who aren't shooting at the margins of low-light ultra-high speed photography, sharp shots are the key to keepers. The extra stop gained by an f/2.8 lens is less useful than the combination of stops given back by both modern high-ISO sensors and image stabilisation.

There will always be the 'bats by moonlight' crowd who need an f/1.0 on a FF sensor, but these shots are more exception than rule. I do concede the greater contrast and focusing ability, especially when lower light is key. I also agree that when using strobist techniques the increased aperture allows for greater flash life, but if that was all I ever shot I'd be using strobe packs and external power supplies. Of course the best advicce here is that it all comes down to what you shoot most.

I think we're all agreeing on many points - faster lenses are better in a hundred different ways; but a 1-stop shutterspeed advantage over an f/4.0 [and that's before we count image stabilisation] wouldn't be near the top of my decision list on any modern digital sensor.
 
Orville said:
With modern DSLR's ISO 1600 and above are very usable. This reduces the need for f/2.8 and faster lenses to keep shutter speeds up.
Click to expand...

I keep my ISO to the minumum I need to get a sharp shot and I don't compromise on that by shooting smaller apertures. The larger aperture lenses also allow for better focusing in low light conditions where I find myself working quite a lot these days :) That said the 24-105mm CAN sometimes surprise me with just what it is capable of with the IS :) But I generally call it the most expensive doorstop indoors :)
 
Slightly off topic, personal opinion of course.

Take the other 2.8 lens, the 24-70 2.8 L, compare that to the 24-105 L. Which is a POPULAR debate on which is better, and i understand why people would choose the 24-105, for the extra reach and the IS. But I think, when put under more extreme shooting situations, the 24-70 will come out with more usable pics than the 24-105. The only situation where the IS is useful is when you are shooting low light situation on a still object. Some people say that the IS is worth 3 stop? Personally, having tried it, i think that's a bit optimistic. It's always better to have that extra stop, and half the shutter speed than rely on the mechanics to stablise the image.

Bottomline, i think a 2.8 lens can be used under more conditions.
 
The only other consderation here is whether the 24 end is going to be wide enough for you. Just to throw further confusion on it all! Sorry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top