Canon EF 24-105 L upgrade? (Page 2): WOW..Thanks amfoto1. Great information. I thank you for taking the time to seriously consider my question and respond so completely. As a result of...

jhs7931

WOW..Thanks amfoto1.
Great information. I thank you for taking the time to seriously consider my question and respond so completely.
As a result of the amazing and thoughtful feedback here, I have decided to keep my 18-135.
I have the 50mm 1.8, 100mm 2.0, 40mm prime, and as mentioned before, the 10-18.
Feeling much better after your helpful information about simply enjoying what I have.

JBruce Loc: Northern MN

I have both the EFS 18-135 STM on 80d and the 24-105L on 5d3, and frankly, if the combos are properly micro-focus matched to individual the cameras, it is impossible to tell the difference in an 8x10 print. If you are a pixel-peeper, it is possible under some situations, to see the difference at 100%, but who in a practical situation, does that. Were it my choice, I'd stay with the 18-135 for now, and then when you go FF, start over with a new 24-105 included in the new kit.
JBruce

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

jhs7931 wrote:

I am new to this forum and considering trading in ... (show quote)

I did a similar upgrade when I had my 10D. What a difference and well worth doing. I have no regrets at all as the lens is excellent on my crop sensor camera. If you have the money do it.

Gifted One Loc: S. E. Idaho

Do you find the 40 & 50 primes bump into each other, i.e. need for both? I have a 50 and 85. I have always felt that adding the 40 was too redundant an overlap. I would value the 40 perhaps if I did video. The 18-135 is a great lens and I shoot with it at times. I have four systems as I have four shooter in my family.

J. R.

jhs7931 wrote:

WOW..Thanks amfoto1.
Great information. I thank you for taking the time to seriously consider my question and respond so completely.
As a result of the amazing and thoughtful feedback here, I have decided to keep my 18-135.
I have the 50mm 1.8, 100mm 2.0, 40mm prime, and as mentioned before, the 10-18.
Feeling much better after your helpful information about simply enjoying what I have.

jhs7931

Yes, I got the 40mm precisely for video and because the thing is so small...:)

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

[quote=rburnsrlt]An often overlooked reason to go full frame is the same lens will be faster, the FOV isn't the only thing you have to adjust for, the f/stops are adjusted by the same crop factor.

No - the f stop remains unchanged. An f2.8 on a FF is still an f2.8 on a crop body.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

jhs7931 wrote:

I am new to this forum and considering trading in ... (show quote)

It's a great lens. A good friend of mine just got the new Mark II model and loves it. While I was with her in Old Town San Diego last weekend, she was using her new 24-105 Mark II, and I was using my 16-35. I think she had more versatility than I did. For general photography of touristy areas or street photography I think her choice was better than mine. I should have brought my 24-70. Keep in mind, we were both using 5D camera bodies. So we were matched with full frame sensors.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

[quote=TriX]

rburnsrlt wrote:

An often overlooked reason to go full frame is the same lens will be faster, the FOV isn't the only thing you have to adjust for, the f/stops are adjusted by the same crop factor.

No - the f stop remains unchanged. An f2.8 on a FF is still an f2.8 on a crop body.

The f-stop full frame "factor" is ONLY for the purposes of DOF for the same FOV - it has NOTHING to do with light gathering or exposure - which many NEGLECT to realize and specify !

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

imagemeister wrote:

The f-stop full frame "factor" is ONLY for the purposes of DOF for the same FOV - it has NOTHING to do with light gathering or exposure - which many NEGLECT to realize and specify !

Exactly. The f number is the ratio the focal length to effective aperture, neither of which changes depending on the body to which a lens is mounted. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

TriX wrote:

Exactly. The f number is the ratio the focal length to effective aperture, neither of which changes depending on the body to which a lens is mounted. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number

And none of this has anything to do with the original question.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Architect1776 wrote:

And none of this has anything to do with the original question.

jhs7931

That is true, however, it is amusing and informative. ...:)

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

jhs7931 wrote:

That is true, however, it is amusing and informative. ...:)

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Architect1776 wrote:

And none of this has anything to do with the original question.

But this misinformation was posted in a response to the OP's original question, and if the OP used it to inform his decision (assuming that the 24-105 f4 would become something different if used on his crop body), then it is relevant to his decision and this discussion.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

TriX wrote:

But this misinformation was posted in a response to the OP's original question, and if the OP used it to inform his decision (assuming that the 24-105 f4 would become something different if used on his crop body), then it is relevant to his decision and this discussion.

I guess the OP wanted to know about the quality of the lens and worth the price. Getting into the weeds of aperture is not too helpful as to the actual value of upgrading.
Especially if the discussion go on and on about something answered in one response.