it's worth to get the 24-105 f4L ???

Peter 13 said:

Good. Then stop trolling and stick to the substance.

Click to expand...

That is exactly my point. The OP wasn't asking about EF-S lenses. You are pushing them on him with your typical fervent obsession.

Peter 13 said:

And you know the OP needs and desires how?

Click to expand...

Gee he stated them in the OP shall I refresh your memory?

Peter 13 said:

cornel4web said:

it's worth to get the 24-105 f4L ???
...when already have the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 and the Canon 28-135 IS ???

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Do you see me going into every thread mentioning a 17-55 or a 15-85 and telling people they should get a 24-105 instead because it has better build quality? has weather proofing? No!. Why because it is an annoying behavior. Your behavior in this matter is getting to be annoying.

Now if someone is asking if they should get a 17-40 or a 15-85; a 17-55 or a 24-105, then by all means chime in and bring your case to point because you do have very valid points that not all people are not aware of.

carlk said:

Did you own 17-55? I have owned 28-135, 24-105 and 17-55. I would not trade any of these lenses, or for that matter any lenses including my L primes, for the 17-55. It's just that good. You really should try it too.

Click to expand...

Just to clarify the three lenses the OP mentioned didn't include the 17-55. No I have not owned it, but I have used one both testing in a camera shop and I did a short lens swap with a coworker budy that has one for a bunch of shots.

I didn't pick the 24-105 over, the 17-55 based on IQ. We both know that would not have been a wise move. I picked it more for the focal length and weather sealing, which I do use and shoot in the rain and snow. I would post pictues of this in action, but most of my pictures are of my kids and my wife doesn't want me posting their pictures on the internet.

I know you like to print large, but I don't print or view larger than my 24" monitor. At that size the IQ difference between these lenses is diminished to the point where it is hard to tell the difference.

Now I am battling myself on which lens I want to buy to upgrade my 18-55IS. I can't decide if I want a normal zoom like the 17-55 to compliment the 24-105 or if I want to go really wide like the 10-22. I know from running exposure plot on my pics that when I go wider than 24mm, I am mostly at 18mm with little to no activity in the 19-23 range. This is leading me towards the UWA spectrum, but after using primes so much lately, the 2.8 is attractive. I would probably be picking the Sigma 17-50 though since I don't shoot landscapes and would be paying $500 for corner sharpness that I wouldn't use anyhow- if I go the normal route instead of UWA.

I really wish Canon would make some EF-S fast wide primes like an EF-S 15/2 USM and an EF-S 20/1.4 USM. I mentioned it before but an EFS 15-40/2.8 IS USM would be great too.

Thanks all for the input...the reason I start looking for this L is that the 28-135 start glittering at the IS mechanics, and some times the pics are not quite as I wish...the Tamron is a good copy, but nowadays is a little off my interests, I did have it from the times of the 300D (aka Rebel or kiss), when the high ISO values was a problems, and the 2.8 helps me...

Also in my plans is a new 7D body (or maybe kit with something), but until than I wanna sort of my lens collection in a way...that collection includes:

50mm f1.8, 100mm f2.8 macro, 28-75 f2.8 (Tamron), 28-135 IS, 70-200 f4L...on my wish list is the 135 f2L and one prime WA...

My prior shooting is the 2 kids (2 and 7 y'rs old), and something around the house...

Majoren said:

cornel4web said:

...when already have the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 and the Canon 28-135 IS ???

Click to expand...

Well only you can tell..!

Let me ask some questions:

Q: Do you miss wide angle coverage?
You could/should consider a 15-85, 18-55, 18-135 or even a giant 18-270

As the 24-105 would properly need a "friend" like a UWA lens like Sigma 8-12, Canon 10-22, Tokina 11-16 in order to make a good base system.

Click to expand...

I was thinking of the 15-85 with the 7D...

Majoren said:

Q: Do you like the long reach of the 28-135, ie do you use 135 a lot?
Then the 24-105 is 30mm too short. 18-135 or 18-2xxx would be better.

Click to expand...

I do use the 135 for the DOF in close pics...

Majoren said:

Q: Do you like the 2.8 + the long part of the Tammy?
Then the 24-105 wont cut it, the 24-70 would be better.

Click to expand...

same here, I like the DOF, but also need a sharp lens at the 2.8

Majoren said:

Q: Do you like the 2.8 + the short part of the Tammy?
Then consider EF-S 17-55 and keep the 28-135 until you can get a good telezoom

AF wise and Optically the 24--105 is better, unless the 2.8 stuff...

Click to expand...

I wanna use it as my all around lens on my 40D body, something good to take it easily with me when is neccessary...

Majoren said:

My base system setup is Canon 50D
24-105
Tokina 11-16

Originally it was the 17-55 instead of the 24-105 but the offered Focal range did not fit my style so I traded it for 24-105 - I am a happy camper!

And some extras...
Canon 70-300
Tokina 10-17 fisheye
Sigma 30mm f/1.4

Majoren

Click to expand...

--
Nice world...'FROZEN'-it !!! (with digitalz).
828, 40D, U60, D10, ... what's next?!? some L's
70-200 f4L IS and 135 f2L on my wish list...hear me Santa ???

Yes, it is.

If those two lenses are sharp then it's not worth it. I have the 24-105L on a 60D and it's an excellent lens.

I agree. Peter 13, what is your obsessive problem with the 24-105?

I have the 17-55 and 24-105 and love them both though I end up using the 24-105 more often.

Can you learn to accept that? Your negative comments on all threads which happen to discuss the 24-105 are bordering with the absurd.
--
Chris

If you are planning to get the 7D, then no doubt the 17-55mm f2.8 is the best fit.
I agree with Carlk that its the best APS-C lens available from Canon.

24-105 is an L series lens but more suited for full frames due to its focal length range. However, lot of people still use it owing the greatness of its quality. (mechanical & optical). You might still need a UW lens to cover the wide angle focal lengths.

15-85mm is a trade off. For the extra 2mm, u get a variable f. And u got to be lucky to get a good copy of this lens.

You should try the 17-55mm f2.8. Its a damn good lens & would definitely give u a better resale value too if you want to get ride of the APS-C lenses.

cornel4web said:

...when already have the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 and the Canon 28-135 IS ???

Click to expand...

The 24-105 is best matched to a full frame body where the range is perfect for a standard zoom and f/4 is less of a limitation. It is effectively a very high quality "kit lens" for the 5D.

However many people (including my brother for one) use it very happily on crop bodies, and if you know from your experience of the above lenses that the range and aperture will suit you then I'd say yes, it's worth it.

jitteringjr said:

Peter 13 said:

Good. Then stop trolling and stick to the substance.

Click to expand...

That is exactly my point. The OP wasn't asking about EF-S lenses. You are pushing them on him with your typical fervent obsession.

Click to expand...

You are doing it again. Trolling and making it personal. He asked a question with an Yes or No answer. I gave one of the possible answers. Are you saying that only Yes is allowable?

jitteringjr said:

jitteringjr said:

And you know the OP needs and desires how?

Click to expand...

Gee he stated them in the OP shall I refresh your memory?

Click to expand...

Yes, please. Should I get lens X. I said - No. Why is that so hard for you to digest?

Chris DeVeau said:

I agree. Peter 13, what is your obsessive problem with the 24-105?

Click to expand...

What is your problem with an opinion different from yours?

I find it amusing 24-105 owners so easily got hurt when someone suggests it is not the best lens, matter of fact not even close to the best lenses, for general purpose use on an aps-c. Don't take it personal no one accuse you are not being smart for loving this lens. It's really a personal choice for YOU. On the other hand you do look not too smart when you start to defend the lens like that.

Peter 13 said:

Chris DeVeau said:

I agree. Peter 13, what is your obsessive problem with the 24-105?

Click to expand...

What is your problem with an opinion different from yours?

Click to expand...

jitteringjr said:

Just to clarify the three lenses the OP mentioned didn't include the 17-55.

Click to expand...

That's exactly the reason we wanted to remind him of that.

cornel4web said:

Also in my plans is a new 7D body (or maybe kit with something), but until than I wanna sort of my lens collection in a way...that collection includes:

50mm f1.8, 100mm f2.8 macro, 28-75 f2.8 (Tamron), 28-135 IS, 70-200 f4L...on my wish list is the 135 f2L and one prime WA...

My prior shooting is the 2 kids (2 and 7 y'rs old), and something around the house...

Click to expand...

it looks simple to me, your next camera will be again APS-C, you already have a good 70-200mm,

get the 17-55mm F2.8 IS, so you can forget about both the 28-75 f2.8 (Tamron) and the 28-135 IS,

this way you can also avoid (to some extent) a WA lens as 17mm is wide enough for 2 kids.

BTW about your future 135mm F2L, no doubt it's good to complement the 70-200F4, but if you sell the F4 you can buy the stellar 70-200F2.8ISII and forget about both lens ... anyway I'm biased, as I can't live without f2.8 zooms

Jesus!!! Peter & carlk, how silly are you both, not to mention your inability to read?

I said (again): I own both the 17-55 and 24-105, love them both but use the 24-105 more often. What is so difficult in that statement for you to comprehend?!?

Stop being so obnoxious towards people who do not follow your doctrine and accept that it is their right to disagree with you whether you like it or not.
I mean, grow up.
--
Chris

I just got the 5DII and the 24-105L were made for each other. I've used the lens with my 60D and it too gives a stellar performance. Can't go wrong with the 24-105L and what you lose in wide angle you gain at the tele end.

Chris DeVeau said:

Jesus!!! Peter & carlk, how silly are you both, not to mention your inability to read?

I said (again): I own both the 17-55 and 24-105, love them both but use the 24-105 more often. What is so difficult in that statement for you to comprehend?!?

Click to expand...

You said that after you said this:

I agree. Peter 13, what is your obsessive problem with the 24-105?

So, stop being so obnoxious towards people who do not follow your doctrine and accept that it is their right to disagree with you whether you like it or not. I mean, grow up.

carlk said:

I find it amusing 24-105 owners so easily got hurt when someone suggests it is not the best lens, matter of fact not even close to the best lenses, for general purpose use on an aps-c. Don't take it personal no one accuse you are not being smart for loving this lens. It's really a personal choice for YOU. On the other hand you do look not too smart when you start to defend the lens like that.

Click to expand...

There you go again Carl, more egocentric arrogant behavior. There is no one "best lens" for everybody. Why can't you get that through your head? Maybe Canon should stop producing all other standard zoom lenses becuase Carl has declared the 17-55/2.8 the best lens. Now lets all go home and get Wonder bread sandwiches with Kraft American cheese.

Peter 13 said:

You said that after you said this:

I agree. Peter 13, what is your obsessive problem with the 24-105?

So, stop being so obnoxious towards people who do not follow your doctrine and accept that it is their right to disagree with you whether you like it or not. I mean, grow up.

Click to expand...

Is 13 your age Peter?

Right there is no best lens and I would never say 17-55 is the best lens in every way, or it’s the only lens one should consider. All I’ve been saying is 17-55, 15-85 and host of third party crop lenses are among the better lenses for aps-c than 24-105. This some of the fanboies can’t seem to accept. Show me some full frame shooters who say they wished the 24-70 or 24-105 could start at 38mm, or they don’t mind if the lenses start at 38mm, then I will listen to your argument.

jitteringjr said:

carlk said:

I find it amusing 24-105 owners so easily got hurt when someone suggests it is not the best lens, matter of fact not even close to the best lenses, for general purpose use on an aps-c. Don't take it personal no one accuse you are not being smart for loving this lens. It's really a personal choice for YOU. On the other hand you do look not too smart when you start to defend the lens like that.

Click to expand...

There you go again Carl, more egocentric arrogant behavior. There is no one "best lens" for everybody. Why can't you get that through your head? Maybe Canon should stop producing all other standard zoom lenses becuase Carl has declared the 17-55/2.8 the best lens. Now lets all go home and get Wonder bread sandwiches with Kraft American cheese.

Click to expand...

I did own 24-105, actually two copies of it, when it first came out 6 years ago. It's just a fact that 17-55 is a better lens optically there is no point to argue that. There is zero chance I would want to pick up the 24-105 when 17-55 can do the job.

If I were you I would trade the 24-105 for 70-200 4IS unless you also shoot full frame. There is no comparison in sharpness between these two lenses in the overlapping fl range either.

Chris DeVeau said:

Jesus!!! Peter & carlk, how silly are you both, not to mention your inability to read?

I said (again): I own both the 17-55 and 24-105, love them both but use the 24-105 more often. What is so difficult in that statement for you to comprehend?!?

Stop being so obnoxious towards people who do not follow your doctrine and accept that it is their right to disagree with you whether you like it or not.
I mean, grow up.
--
Chris

Click to expand...