Do you use 5D III plus 24-105 as travel camera?

Started 7 months ago | Discussions thread
billythek
Senior MemberPosts: 1,234
Like?
Re: Do you use 5D III plus 24-105 as travel camera?
In reply to Sten E, 7 months ago

Sten E wrote:

bronxbombers4 wrote:

bronxbombers4 wrote:

bronxbombers4 wrote:

The soon upcoming 24-70 f/4 IS should be sharper than the 24-105 (the 24-70 II is, but really costs a ton).

It is a very nice travel cam. If you are don't care about fps, body response, video, or high ISO, then the 5D2 is more cost effective though, since the sensor is pretty much every bit as good ISO100-800, certainly ISO100-200. I do care about all that stuff so for me, I did the upgrade.

If you want max DR then the D800 is better way to go (although the UI is not as nice IMO).

I tend to use 5D3+24-70 II+70-300L as my two lens run around kit. The 70-200 f/4 IS is lighter and might be enough range for you. You could even go Tamron 70-300 VC or even smalle Canon 70-300 IS non-L if you really want to keep the size and weight down at the long end.

The 24-70 f/4 IS will be the smallest and lightest of the 24-70 II, 24-70 f/4 IS, 24-104L trio.

Thank you, bronxbombers4!

I would prefer the 5d III to the 5D II.

I have considered the D800, and I am aware of its great DR, but for many reasons I have come to the conclusion that I prefer the 5D III.

I have thought about a 24-70, for instance the 24-70 II, and it would be good to use at home and thereabouts. A good 70-200 like the f4 IS which is much lighter than the f2.8 would be a fine complement.

But when travelling with my wife, I most often want a light burden,and then one lens is enough, especially if I go to cities. Then the zoom range of 24-105 would make me bring that lens. But is 24-105 enough? That is what I am wondering.

--
Best regards,
Sten

I switched from the 24-105 to the 24-70II, and don't miss the 70-105 range all that much.  If I want to zoom long, I probably want to zoom longer than that, anyway, so I'll be reaching for another lens.

I do miss IS at times, though, although I'm learning to live without it.  But I think the new 24-70 f/4L IS will be a very attractive lens to many for a walk-around, if it turns out the way I think it will.  The MTF charts are not that encouraging, but time will tell.

The 24-105 is still a good lens.  However, there are definitely warts.  Distortion and CA are a problem, although easily corrected in post.  However, if you look very closely, those corrections are not free in terms of image quality.  You give up a little resolution when you correct for distortion.  And the resolution of this lens is good, but not as good as the best.  If you ever compare pictures taken with the 24-105 vs the 70-200 or 24-70II, the difference is obvious.

--
- Bill

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow