EF24-105F/4L Anyone reccomend this one?

Started Apr 28, 2006 | Discussions
jeff9329 Senior Member • Posts: 1,229
EF24-105F/4L Anyone reccomend this one?

I am new to the 350D scene and have been trying to find a good everyday lens for the camera.

I just returned my EF 17-40 F/4L after a 30 day test drive. It was an awsome lens with consistent excellent results. The only drawback to this lens was the short total focal length (40mm). I found myself needing more "zoom" very often. I would have purchased this one but I will just wait for the new EF-S 17-55 IS to become available.

I am now planning on getting a EF 24-105 F/4L to see if its longer reach and still a decent wide angle will satisfy my everyday shooting needs and give me the reach I am looking for in a reasonable size package.

Anyone having good results using the 24-105 as an everyday lens on the 350D?

Singh Regular Member • Posts: 471
Re: EF24-105F/4L Anyone reccomend this one?

I am also saving up for this particular len. I have not tried one out yet but I have read many good reviews about it. A couple of links below you may find usefull:

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_24105_4_is/index.htm

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=295

Good luck.

 Singh's gear list:Singh's gear list
Canon PowerShot S110 Canon EOS 6D Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Canon EF 135mm F2L USM Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM +4 more
M02 Contributing Member • Posts: 603
test drive and return

I have a 350D and I just got the 24-105. To be honest I think it's too big and not wide enough for my 350D as a general purpose lens. However I'm going to keep it as I intend to go FF at some point and it's an excellent lens. I also have a Sigma 18-50/f2.8 that I think is a perfect match to the 350D as a one-camera-one-lens solution.

Please think very carefully about the advice you get in response to your question, plus your own needs and budget, before you test drive another expensive piece of equipment and return it.

jeff9329 wrote:

I am new to the 350D scene and have been trying to find a good
everyday lens for the camera.

I just returned my EF 17-40 F/4L after a 30 day test drive. It was
an awsome lens with consistent excellent results. The only
drawback to this lens was the short total focal length (40mm). I
found myself needing more "zoom" very often. I would have
purchased this one but I will just wait for the new EF-S 17-55 IS
to become available.

I am now planning on getting a EF 24-105 F/4L to see if its longer
reach and still a decent wide angle will satisfy my everyday
shooting needs and give me the reach I am looking for in a
reasonable size package.

Anyone having good results using the 24-105 as an everyday lens on
the 350D?

 M02's gear list:M02's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Canon EOS M Canon EOS M5 Canon EF 24mm f/2.8 Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM +11 more
Lemming51
Lemming51 Forum Pro • Posts: 14,757
Re: xx-40mm too short...

xx-40 = too short on the long end
24-xx = too long on the short end
EF-S 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS USM (or Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 DC) = just right.

jeff9329 wrote:

I am new to the 350D scene and have been trying to find a good
everyday lens for the camera.

I just returned my EF 17-40 F/4L after a 30 day test drive. It was
an awsome lens with consistent excellent results. The only
drawback to this lens was the short total focal length (40mm). I
found myself needing more "zoom" very often. I would have
purchased this one but I will just wait for the new EF-S 17-55 IS
to become available.

I am now planning on getting a EF 24-105 F/4L to see if its longer
reach and still a decent wide angle will satisfy my everyday
shooting needs and give me the reach I am looking for in a
reasonable size package.

Anyone having good results using the 24-105 as an everyday lens on
the 350D?

 Lemming51's gear list:Lemming51's gear list
Canon EOS 40D Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM +5 more
OP jeff9329 Senior Member • Posts: 1,229
Re: test drive and return

MO2:

Too big in what respect?

Physical size or focal length?

The physical size of all these lens nearly identical. 84mmX97mm 17-40, 84mm X 107MM 24-105, 82mmX96MM 17-55.

Jeff

OP jeff9329 Senior Member • Posts: 1,229
Re: xx-40mm too short...

Well, I did try that lens also. Didn't work for me so I didn't even mention it. Pictures of tall objects appeared to be leaning to one side if they were not in the center of the frame (I ocassionaly take building photos for work). That would have raised serious questions for the intended use of those pictures.

Other than that, that lens was great in focal length. However, you would be suprised how much more contrast (and to a lesser extent sharpness) you get with the 17-40.

Jeff

M02 Contributing Member • Posts: 603
Re: test drive and return

jeff9329 wrote:

Too big in what respect?
Physical size or focal length?

Physical size and weight. It's front heavy and feels unbalanced to me on the small and light body of the 350D.

The physical size of all these lens nearly identical. 84mmX97mm
17-40, 84mm X 107MM 24-105, 82mmX96MM 17-55.

Jeff

Then it might be fine for you, but don't tell me you bought it and then returned it for this reason.

 M02's gear list:M02's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Canon EOS M Canon EOS M5 Canon EF 24mm f/2.8 Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM +11 more
Henris2 Contributing Member • Posts: 797
I got this lens

I love it! Not quite wide enough, but I can take a step or two backwards to compensate. Love the IS and build.

MOF (Sydney) Regular Member • Posts: 405
Re: EF24-105F/4L Anyone reccomend this one?

I have the 24-70, but otherwise would be looking very seriously at the 24-105.

There is a review by a professional, canon-oriented, photographer at this link:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-105mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

His conclusion is that. "For my personal uses in this focal length range, I expect the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens to be on my camera significantly more than the 24-70 L."

-- hide signature --

MOF Sydney

'The important thing is not to stop questioning.' Al Einstein

I use ImageShack for Free Image Hosting[URL= http://www.imageshack.us]

JohnJ80 Senior Member • Posts: 1,894
Re: EF24-105F/4L Anyone reccomend this one?

I have a 24-105 and have used it on my XT. It's a very nice lens, no doubt and it produces great images. It has got a decent long end on a 1.6x camera and the wide is ok.... Much better than the 28mm on my 28-135. A 4mm difference is a big deal at 24/28mm. So - the 24-105 gives you sorta wide and decent long. The IS works well, but I still much prefer a tripod to gain sharpness. Overall though, the 24-105 really comes into its own on the 5D (for which it was designed) and is the perfect walk around lens for that body.

I also own a 17-40, a sigma 18-50 f/2.8 and highly recommend both of those, even though you said that you felt the 17-40 was too short. Personally, I'd rather have the 17-40.

What I would do if I were you is this:

Get a 17-40 and a 70-200 f/4. You can get both of them for just a little more money than 24-105. With that, you would have a terrific, high quality lens selection that would keep you happy for many, many hours.

J.

jeff9329 wrote:

I am new to the 350D scene and have been trying to find a good
everyday lens for the camera.

I just returned my EF 17-40 F/4L after a 30 day test drive. It was
an awsome lens with consistent excellent results. The only
drawback to this lens was the short total focal length (40mm). I
found myself needing more "zoom" very often. I would have
purchased this one but I will just wait for the new EF-S 17-55 IS
to become available.

I am now planning on getting a EF 24-105 F/4L to see if its longer
reach and still a decent wide angle will satisfy my everyday
shooting needs and give me the reach I am looking for in a
reasonable size package.

Anyone having good results using the 24-105 as an everyday lens on
the 350D?

-- hide signature --

'Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.' -
Mark Twain

(equip in profile)

PhotoKhan Forum Pro • Posts: 10,578
My view...

Check this reply to another thread:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1031&message=18074193

PK
--
“Loose praise may feed my ego but constructive criticism advances my skills”
************************************************************
-------------------------------------------------
http://www.pbase.com/photokhan
(Pbase Supporter)

OP jeff9329 Senior Member • Posts: 1,229
I guess I will go with...

John:

Your comments on the 24-105 just refreshed what I already knew, its just really not that wide or all that long, a good and very compact lens though.

I didn't want to have to get into the giant lens like the 70-200 (being a compact kinda guy) but you really just have to in order to get that focal length (and why are they white? break out the black spray paint!).

So I am modifying your advise and doing this:
EF-S 17-55 for super wide zoom (should be available in a week or two)
EF 70-200 F/4 for zoom/tele lens

Thanks for your help.
Jeff

JohnJ80 wrote:

I have a 24-105 and have used it on my XT. It's a very nice lens,
no doubt and it produces great images. It has got a decent long
end on a 1.6x camera and the wide is ok....

I also own a 17-40, a sigma 18-50 f/2.8 and highly recommend both
of those, even though you said that you felt the 17-40 was too
short. Personally, I'd rather have the 17-40.

What I would do if I were you is this:

Get a 17-40 and a 70-200 f/4.
J.

JohnJ80 Senior Member • Posts: 1,894
Re: I guess I will go with...

Well, that would work too and be a pretty great combination. The gap between 40 or 55 and 70 really is not all that big of a deal.

I don't have any experience with the 17-55 - and I'm anxious to see what your opinion of it is, but the 70-200 (any of them) is a terrific lens.

The 24-105 is really a great lens for the 5D, which is what it was designed for. I had one before I got a 5D and now that I have the body, it is really a nice pairing.

J.

jeff9329 wrote:
John:

Your comments on the 24-105 just refreshed what I already knew,
its just really not that wide or all that long, a good and very
compact lens though.

I didn't want to have to get into the giant lens like the 70-200
(being a compact kinda guy) but you really just have to in order to
get that focal length (and why are they white? break out the black
spray paint!).

So I am modifying your advise and doing this:
EF-S 17-55 for super wide zoom (should be available in a week or two)
EF 70-200 F/4 for zoom/tele lens

Thanks for your help.
Jeff

JohnJ80 wrote:

I have a 24-105 and have used it on my XT. It's a very nice lens,
no doubt and it produces great images. It has got a decent long
end on a 1.6x camera and the wide is ok....

I also own a 17-40, a sigma 18-50 f/2.8 and highly recommend both
of those, even though you said that you felt the 17-40 was too
short. Personally, I'd rather have the 17-40.

What I would do if I were you is this:

Get a 17-40 and a 70-200 f/4.
J.

-- hide signature --

'Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.' -
Mark Twain

(equip in profile)

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads