Upgrade from 18-55 kit lens to 24-105 f4.0?

Chriscooke

Chriscooke

Suspended / Banned
Messages
179
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm tempted to upgrade my standard 18-55 kit lens to a Canon EF 24-105 f/4.0L IS. Is this a worthwhile upgrade for a general walk around lens.

I Mostly shoot at car shows/meets so am a little worried that I'll miss the wider angle (even though i'm not a fan of the 18-55mm lens at 18mm) but hope the image quality and extra reach will make up for it?

In short is this a worth while upgrade or should I look at other lenses in similar ranges?
 
I tried that on my 60d. Good, but the 17-40L was better.best of all though was the 15-85 IS USM for general purpose
 
I may need to find a friend with some of the above lenses and give them a go :nod: I have an unhealthy want for an L-series which is daft as I could end up with a product that doesn't suit me as well as another..
 
Ignore the L obsession there isn't a good crop sensor walk about in the range. Get the 15-85mm or the 17-55mm f2.8 is USM. If you can look past canon both tamron and sigma have some great affordable options in this range.
 
24-105 is my main 'walkabout' lens on a 7D or 1D4, both crop sensors, but x1.6 and x1.3 Depends on how you shoot but you may find that 24mm isn't wide enough - look back through your shots to see what proportion are 18-24.
 
Chriscooke said:
I may need to find a friend with some of the above lenses and give them a go :nod: I have an unhealthy want for an L-series which is daft as I could end up with a product that doesn't suit me as well as another..
Click to expand...
that's the best idea ! The itch gets very expensive!
 
I'm fortunate enough to have the 17-55 and the 24-105 and use them both on a 7D, both are really good lenses.

The 17-55 spends more time on the camera than the 24-105. I find that for a general purpose lens the 24-105 is just not wide enough, although the extra reach is nice.

The 17-55 may not have the red ring, but it will not disappoint, it's sharper than the 24-105.

Chris
 
I would be concerned that the 24-105 will not be wide enough at a car meet. I've tried my 24-105 on my 60D and it's nice enough but just isn't wide enough for me.

I'd agree with Chris, find a good 17-55 and you'll have great flexibility.
 
I had a 24-105 f4L on a 5D3 when I went to a air museum, and I know a plane is bigger than a car but it's all relative and I found it wasn't wide enough to get the full plane in. I was obviously shooting from further back (I couldn't go any further back than I already was) than I would with a car but I was disappointed with the width it gave me. It's the ONLY time I've been let down by the 24-105 as it's a fantastic lens as a walkabout and I've used it often on both full frame and crop.

I've since added a 17-40 f4L to my lens collection and with that I've found the width is amazing, I can get the whole subject I want at a reasonable enough distance to still get great detail in the shot. I've used it a few times now on my 70D, as well as my 5D3, and it's fantastic and it gives me a great range for landscapes as well as the closer subjects I take.
 
i dont know if its a ff or crop you have but i love my 10-20mm for car shows as i find a lot of times space is tight a 50 prime is also a good shout if there is a good bit of space around the cars etc
 
I have a 10-20 and a 17-55 2.8 on my crop 650d. Both are great lenses, the 17-55 is a brilliant one to leave on your camera...
 
Thanks for the suggestions and comments from experience with each lens, very informative :)

hoochy1 said:
i dont know if its a ff or crop you have but i love my 10-20mm for car shows as i find a lot of times space is tight a 50 prime is also a good shout if there is a good bit of space around the cars etc
Click to expand...

I'm shooting with a 60D, I have found the 50mm f1.8 to be little restricting at shows tbh which is a shame as I adore that lens
 
I love the 50mm 1.8 but I've got to say, since I got it, the 17-55 is rarely off the camera. It's a big bit of glass but the constant f2.8 is ace and it has buttery bokeh compared to the 50mm. Not cheap (and doesn't work on FF either) but it's a really, really great lens. Sharp as a tack, too.
 
Foxbat Flyer said:
I'm fortunate enough to have the 17-55 and the 24-105 and use them both on a 7D, both are really good lenses.

The 17-55 spends more time on the camera than the 24-105. I find that for a general purpose lens the 24-105 is just not wide enough, although the extra reach is nice.

The 17-55 may not have the red ring, but it will not disappoint, it's sharper than the 24-105.

Chris
Click to expand...

:agree:
Don't let the lack of a red ring fool you the 17-55 2.8 is a fantastic lens. I would still have mine if I had not gone full frame. That lens worked very nicely as a walk around lens and also a landscape lens. I have the new 24-70 mrkII now and yes its a better lens but the 17-55 is not to far behind in I.Q.

:canon:
 
get a 17 to 50ish lens, f2.8
they are a super kit lens replacement
 
The 24-104L is a truly stunning lens on FF, it's practically glued to my 6d. On a crop you will likely find its not wide enough for general purpose.
 
Chriscooke said:
I'm tempted to upgrade my standard 18-55 kit lens to a Canon EF 24-105 f/4.0L IS. Is this a worthwhile upgrade for a general walk around lens.

I Mostly shoot at car shows/meets so am a little worried that I'll miss the wider angle (even though i'm not a fan of the 18-55mm lens at 18mm) but hope the image quality and extra reach will make up for it?

In short is this a worth while upgrade or should I look at other lenses in similar ranges?
Click to expand...

How much do you use the 18-24mm range for your shots at the moment ?

If it's the odd few, then chances are you'll be fine, if it's the majority then it's not the best lens for your needs at the moment.
 
I have the Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC and I love it but i don't think its as sharp as the 17-55 is
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top