Cannon lens purchase help
Feb 17, 2016 10:00:19 #
Hello Friends, I am considering purchasing the Canon 24-105 l lens. My question is would this lens benefit me over my current lenses for mainly portrait and basic walk around lens. I am using a canon 70d and Canon 60d. My main two lenses I use now are the Canon 17-85 IS 3.5 non L lens and the 70-200 IS 11 2.8 L lens.
Feb 17, 2016 10:09:51 #
IMHO, yes it would. I think you would find it on the camera more than the 17-85. Not to mention the added IQ.
Feb 17, 2016 10:10:06 #
Mick 53 wrote:
Hello Friends, I am considering purchasing the Canon 24-105 l lens. My question is would this lens benefit me over my current lenses for mainly portrait and basic walk around lens. I am using a canon 70d and Canon 60d. My main two lenses I use now are the Canon 17-85 IS 3.5 non L lens and the 70-200 IS 11 2.8 L lens.
I am a Canon user (5D Mark III), and I have 4 Canon L lenses. If I was
looking for that specific focal length in a "walk around" lens, I would
strongly consider the Sigma 24-105 Art lens over the Canon's version.
Sigma has really "upped their game" in lens design and provide excellent
value and very high quality in their fit and finish in lens construction.
Feb 17, 2016 10:16:38 #
Mick 53 wrote:
Hello Friends, I am considering purchasing the Canon 24-105 l lens. My question is would this lens benefit me over my current lenses for mainly portrait and basic walk around lens. I am using a canon 70d and Canon 60d. My main two lenses I use now are the non L lens and the 70-200 IS 11 2.8 L lens.
A lot of over lap. In effect you are replacing the 17-85 with an L lens. Is the 17-85 that bad?
Feb 17, 2016 10:35:55 #
Mick 53 wrote:
Hello Friends, I am considering purchasing the Canon 24-105 l lens. My question is would this lens benefit me over my current lenses for mainly portrait and basic walk around lens. I am using a canon 70d and Canon 60d. My main two lenses I use now are the Canon 17-85 IS 3.5 non L lens and the 70-200 IS 11 2.8 L lens.
The 24-105 is a great lens.
Unless you are moving to Full frame, the Canon 15-85 or the Sigma 17-70 make more sense on crop frame.
Feb 17, 2016 12:08:52 #
Feb 17, 2016 12:17:14 #
The Canon 24-105 is a great wqalk around lens on a full frame camera.
The only downside is the distortion at the wide end and the tendency to fail much too early (the ribon cable problem)
mine failed around 17,000 images.
I have owned both lenses, and still own the 17-85.
The only downside is the distortion at the wide end and the tendency to fail much too early (the ribon cable problem)
mine failed around 17,000 images.
I have owned both lenses, and still own the 17-85.
Feb 17, 2016 12:30:57 #
I have to agree with some of the responders. I have the EF 24-105L and it's not a bad lens, it's overpriced but not bad. The Sigma Art 24-105 is a better lens especially when you factor in cost. The EF 70-200 f/2.8L II is probably one of the best if not the best GP portrait lenses made. Every Pro Canon user I know has one and even some non Pro's like myself. If money's not a major consideration, since you have the 70-200, get its companion lens, the EF 24-70 f/2.8L II. I personally use an EF 28-300 f/3.5-5.6L IS attached to the 5DSr for everyday use.
Feb 17, 2016 12:33:02 #
imagemeister wrote:
The 24-105 is a great lens.
Unless you are moving to Full frame, the Canon 15-85 or the Sigma 17-70 make more sense on crop frame.
Unless you are moving to Full frame, the Canon 15-85 or the Sigma 17-70 make more sense on crop frame.
What he said...!
Feb 17, 2016 12:40:24 #
I would say that you have a great portrait lens now with the 70-200L but it's a little long for indoor use. The 24-105 is a great all purpose lens and it's cheap. Personally I would also look at the 24-70 F4 if you're on a budget. It has a new IS system and is a sharper lens. It would fit well with your focal length of your 70-200. JMO
If you have plans on sticking with APS-C, the 17-55 2.8 is an exceptional lens.
If you have plans on sticking with APS-C, the 17-55 2.8 is an exceptional lens.
Feb 17, 2016 14:32:19 #
I own the 24-105L. It's fine, but it's not the 70-200 f/2.8 II... As others pointed out, a 70-200 lens is a little long for a "walkaround" lens regardless of camera.
If there's a question of price, the Sigma version (Sigma 24-105mm f/4.0 DG OS HSM) is a bit more rugged build and the same great image quality at a lower price if purchasing new.
If there's a question of price, the Sigma version (Sigma 24-105mm f/4.0 DG OS HSM) is a bit more rugged build and the same great image quality at a lower price if purchasing new.
Feb 17, 2016 15:56:55 #
pithydoug wrote:
A lot of over lap. In effect you are replacing the 17-85 with an L lens. Is the 17-85 that bad?
Having used all three of these lens, I would not add the 24-105mm lens if you are not going to a full frame body. I went from the kit lens for my Rebel T2i to the 17-85mm and there was a huge difference in image quality. From there I aquired the 24-105mm and there was a little improvement in image quality but not a lot.
The 24-105mm is a decent lens but it is probably the worst 'L' lens Canon makes.
Feb 17, 2016 16:26:34 #
Mick 53 wrote:
Hello Friends, I am considering purchasing the Canon 24-105 l lens. My question is would this lens benefit me over my current lenses for mainly portrait and basic walk around lens. I am using a canon 70d and Canon 60d. My main two lenses I use now are the Canon 17-85 IS 3.5 non L lens and the 70-200 IS 11 2.8 L lens.
Mick, everybody has a different take on this. And owning L glass is bordering on Macho, if indeed a photographer could even BE Macho!!!
When I first got into digital, my first real lens purchase was the 24-105, based mainly on constant pressure by everybody and anybody as THE must have lens.
I tried it for a month and was REALLY disappointed that the lens was just not NEAR wide enough for general daily shooting.
After reading more tests, the 15-85 had just come out and I fortunately found one with a hefty rebate directly from Canon.
So my VERY NICE 24-105 L was tossed into the closet, not to re-emerge until the day I went FF.
On my crop, the 15-85 only came off my camera when I did nature.
On a FF, the 24-105, now IS my most used lens!!!!
But on a crop body, I just don't feel the 24-105 is adequate for versatile daily duties because of its limited wide end.
BUT, that's just MY opinion. I'm sure many will disagree!!! Good luck with your quest! ;-)
SS
Feb 18, 2016 06:03:14 #
With the crop sensor, keep the 17-85 over the 24-105, especially if you shoot people indoors.
pithydoug wrote:
A lot of over lap. In effect you are replacing the 17-85 with an L lens. Is the 17-85 that bad?
Feb 18, 2016 06:17:52 #
Thank you all for you excellent comments. I think I will stay with what I have and maybe look at the sigma in the future. I do like 2.8 and l lenses. I agree the 70-200 takes great portraits but is a little big for a walk around. There is no one prefect lens. I am not looking to moving up to a full frame any time soon. Thanks again.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.