Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 USM L IS on a 40D

[churchi]

Hi all,

been looking into the EF 24-105 F/4.0 lens for my 40D.

just wondering if anyone out there had had this combination setup before? if so how did you find it?

i am wanting to use this lens for mostly a day to day walk around lens. so my only fear is that on a crop body that the 24-105 is not a good focal range by the time you multiply it by 1.6 factor.

just wondering if anyone else has some experience with this setup and how they found it.

cheers

 

[MickyD]

That's my usual lens on my 40D and it's great. I would love it to be a bit wider, but the long end provides a better range than what the 17-55 or 17-85 provide. I have owned both of those, but felt my 17-85 had not-so-great IQ and the 17-55 was way too short for me.

I am really happy with the colour rendition and sharpness of my 24-105. Build quality is great.

I have a Sigma 10-20mm so have the wide end covered when I need it. I certainly couldn't live with 24mm (ie short end of 24-105) as my widest, so for me a 24-105 would not be suitable if I could only have one lens. Especially indoors (eg shots of my kids, family parties etc).

Cheers,
Mike.

 

[B_G]

This is my day to day combination. It best suits my needs most of the time. I also carry a 17-40 for those times when I desire something wider.

I'm very happy with the 40D 24-105 combo.

 

[churchi]

cheers guys for the replies.

its a bit of a hard decision.

Mike i totally agree that i couldn't live with 24 as the widest part of my lens range too but having a good size zoom can help to get a few more shots without a lens change. do you think that you could get away with a 17-40 lens instead of the 10-20? or on a crop the 10-20 is a handy lens to carry?

i too at the moment own the 17-85 and are just not happy with the pics from it, so i am trying to find 2 lenses that would replace this lens. i love the range of it however if the quality was a bit better i would stick with it.

do you think a 24-105 and a 17-40 combo would suite to catch most situations? or the 10-20 is quite a handy lens to compliment the 24-105?

 

[MickyD]

do you think that you could get
away with a 17-40 lens instead of the 10-20? or on a crop the 10-20
is a handy lens to carry?

I have used a 17-40 before, and the IQ on it was better than my 10-20. Having said that, my 10-20 is still great, and it goes to 10mm, which is WIDE! I do consider it more of a "special circumstances" lens, and as such, it doesn't see a lot of action.

A 17-40 has a reasonable overlap with the 24-105. If you are happy with the overlap, I think 17mm is sufficiently wide enough for most situations. As you own a 17-85, do you find yourself wanting wider? I think that will give you your answer.

i too at the moment own the 17-85 and are just not happy with the
pics from it, so i am trying to find 2 lenses that would replace this
lens. i love the range of it however if the quality was a bit better
i would stick with it.

Agreed.

do you think a 24-105 and a 17-40 combo would suite to catch most
situations? or the 10-20 is quite a handy lens to compliment the
24-105?

As stated above, I think it comes down mostly to your personal shooting style - do you find yourself wanting to go wider than what your 17-85 can provide...?

I know it's a tough call. I agonised over it for ages. I had both the 17-55 and 24-105 for a while, but sold the 17-55. However, I wouldn't have done so if I didn't already have the 10-20.

Good luck!

Cheers,
Mike.

 

[PG69156]

Hi all,

been looking into the EF 24-105 F/4.0 lens for my 40D.

just wondering if anyone out there had had this combination setup
before? if so how did you find it?
i am wanting to use this lens for mostly a day to day walk around
lens. so my only fear is that on a crop body that the 24-105 is not a
good focal range by the time you multiply it by 1.6 factor.

just wondering if anyone else has some experience with this setup and
how they found it.

cheers

I have both the 24-105/f4IS and the 17-55/f2.8IS. The 24-105 is almost never on the camera in favor of the 17-55. You can always crop an image taken with the 17-55 but you'll never get back what was missed from 24 not being wide enough. Also the 17-55 is one full stop faster along with the IS which I find very useful. The 17-55 is wonderfully sharp with good contrast and color, and while the 24-105 is also an excellent lens it's FL is better suited for a FF body (where it unfortunately shows strong vignetting) IMO.

 

[boredphuck]

the 24-105 was almost always on my camera except when i want to shoot portraits outdoors. even then, i use the 24-105 very frequently. now that i just got a 24-70, i force myself to bring the new lens out for shoots often but i always get tempted to use the 24-105 each time.

 

[R Valentino]

It's a great lens, sharp at ALL FLs, focus is very fast and IS works very well.

Gene

 

[Darryl_Lessere]

I started off with a 20D and a tamron 28-75 and ended up with a 40D w/ 24-105 and find I am not wanting for much. I just sold off about 6 lenses.

I kept: THe 24-105, 85mm f/1.8 and Tamron 17-35 just in case I end up in a cramped room and hit a wall when I back up.

AF performance on the 24-105 is very very good even in dim light and the lens is a very strong performer. I find I do not have to do much in post.

I might suggest keeping a wider fast lens like a Sigma 30 f/1.4 or one of the sigma 28/24/20 f/1.8's for the occasional dark room where you want to preserve the ambiance and not have to overflash it.

With a 20mm f/1.8 you can pull off good shots doing tabletops in candlelight at 1/10th -1/30th@ ISO 1600.

A F/4 lens goes down for the dirt nap in those conditions unless you flash the scene.

For your described use as walkaround , you will do just fine with a 24 - anything lens and the Canon 24/105 is an excellent choice which will serve you well.

 

[Mark-B]

i am wanting to use this lens for mostly a day to day walk around
lens. so my only fear is that on a crop body that the 24-105 is not a
good focal range by the time you multiply it by 1.6 factor.

Canon doesn't make an ideal walk around lens in my opinion. The closest focal range they have is the 17-85, but it is too slow. The fastest they have is the 17-55, but it is too short. 20-120 f/2.8 would fit my shooting style perfectly.

The 24-105 is a good compromise of features. Sometimes you will want faster and sometimes you will want wider. Overall, it is a versatile lens that covers a nice focal range with a constant aperture and IS. I think it is more practical for outdoor use than indoor use, but the term "walk around" indicates mostly outdoor use to me anyway.

I have a 20D with a 28-105 lens. 85% of the pictures in my gallery were shot in that focal range. No one lens will be perfect, but I think this focal range requires fewer compromises than a range ending at 50mm.

I say this knowing that my tendency is to "zoom in". If your tendency is to "zoom out", then this may not apply to you.

--
Mark-B
http://www.msbphoto.com/

 

[KENTGA]

I'll agree with the other posters except the one that prefers the 17-55. It's zoom range just isn't wide enough for me. The 24105 is on both my 5D and 40D almost all the time. Like the others said either the 17-40 or Canon 10-22 for wider. The 17-40 is a good lens and not subject to some of the issues the ultra wides have.

Kent

 

[CAndersson]

It's a great lens, sharp at ALL FLs, focus is very fast and IS works
very well.

Gene

Also for me the 40D/24-105 is my day to day combination. I agree on Valentinos remarks above.
It really comes down to your needs. Think hard and make the decision

 

[churchi]

cheers thanks for posting the follow up.

i see what you mean about asking if i go wider than 17 at the moment. there are some times when i find i would like a little more, however that is like 5% of the time. so maybe the 10-20is the way to go.

generally speaking unless i am taking in doors shots or shots of cars then i am always finding myself zooming in some distance. so maybe the 24 (around 38 on my 40d) will cover 70-80% of my shots which would be ideal.

i thought hard about the 17-55 as well but from what you are saying, that the zoom is not that much, then it can make quite a few more lens changes and i would have to fill in the 50-75 or so focal length. if only the 17-85 was a L lens or a much better quality lens

mike are you happy with the shots indoors from the 24-105? even with a flash? and were you happy with the 17-40L outside and indoors? or did you find a 2.8 would be much more suited to have in at least the 17-40 or the 24-105?

i guess i am kinda thinking of 3 lenses now. only really wanted to purchase two, but if this gives the best coverage then it may be the way to go.
the sigma 10-20, 17-40 and the 24-105. then my 70-200 for the rest.

 

[churchi]

did you find the quality of the 24-70 very good in and outdoors for the shots you took? or did you find that you needed the 2.8 at times?

 

[churchi]

thanks guys, do you have a smaller lens than a 24? if so what do you use for the wider angles?

 

[churchi]

cheers kent,

i totally agree. just wondering if any of the lenses you mentioned you have used in lower light or indoors?

what do you use for the wider range around 17mm for indoors? do you have a fast sub f/4.0 lens for this shooting or the 17-40 does the job.

 

[KENTGA]

Curchi,

The only primes I have other than macros are the 50 1.8 and the 85 1.8. I'm mostly a zoom man. Actually my wife "took" to photography and I bought her a 30D, the 17-55, 10-22 and 70-200L f4 IS. I have a Sigma 12-24 for FF and 17-40, 24-105 and 100-400. I don't really use anything less than f4 so I guess the answer to the question is f4 minimum is adequate for me. I do have a 580 flash with a Stofen diffuser I use if I need it for darker situations.

Some praise the 16-35 2.8 and 24-70, but I don't own either. It's not the money as much as I really don't see the need for them. The 17-40 is half the price of 16-35 (and gets good reviews) and with 24-70, you're getting back to narrow zoom range.

I seriously thought about getting the 16-35 and posted a thread on this forum and even those that owned 16-35's (or both) said unless you need the 2.8, to stay with the 17-40.

Kent

 

[churchi]

Hi Kent,

i too thought about the 16-35 2.8 however like you said it depends on how much you need the 2.8 speed when a 4.0 could do the trick.

do you find that on the 30D that the 17-55 performs well? does it perform well in the low light conditions? or do you just prefer to use a flash?

i am a zoom person as well and love the versatility of the zoom. however i was thinking of getting a 50m prime as that would best suite fore the night time shots in doors and in available light.

would you say that you use the slower f4.0 when there is adequate light and maybe a prime for the lower light where you don't want to use the flash?

 

[KENTGA]

Churchi,

Focus is fine for the 30D. The features on the 40D put the 30D in the dust, but My wife is satisified with her 30D. She only uses it in we go on a photo workshop or photo-taking trip.

Not just for my use, but a flash or tripod is useful in darker situations when you are at f4 and lower than 1/30. You get camera shake, etc. Some have said that there's a range below 1/30 that mirror shake is an issue as well as when you depress the shutter button.

The 2.8 crowd will disagree, but the 2.8's are more bulky, etc. and, as I said, I haven't missed the one f/stop or I haven't noticed it. I usually shoot outdoors and as I said I use a flash if I'm indoors and I need it, but that's just me.

The 50 1.8 may be a good choice for a very affordable lens. Although I could afford to buy them, I just can't see the value I'd get out of a 50 or 85mm f1.2 lens, but, again, that's me. I just don't use primes that much and 85mm on a crop indoors is "tight". Some people like new cars and I don't mind driving my 8 year old Mazda. That's why we have so many choices.

One place I can't compromise on is with the Canon L zooms. I tried a Tamron 28-300 VC for a walkaround, vacation lens and it didn't cut it.

Kent

 

[carlk]

Yes I like the 17mm wide end, f2.8 and better IQ of my 17-55 too. I did not keep my 24-105 after I got the 17-55. Don't think I will use it much even if I still have it. I also agree the difference of long end is not as significant as it might look. Most times a few step foot zoom or some crop will take care of it. It's the wide end that you can't do much about if you miss it.

To op: at the long range there is another lens 70-200 4IS that is also way sharper than 24-105. Keep this in mind if you want to make a good lens planning. I would never put 24-105 on my camera if my kit also includes 17-55 and 70-200 4IS. On a crop camera 24-105 is really not that good a choice but it's your own decision to make.

Hi all,

been looking into the EF 24-105 F/4.0 lens for my 40D.

just wondering if anyone out there had had this combination setup
before? if so how did you find it?
i am wanting to use this lens for mostly a day to day walk around
lens. so my only fear is that on a crop body that the 24-105 is not a
good focal range by the time you multiply it by 1.6 factor.

just wondering if anyone else has some experience with this setup and
how they found it.

cheers

I have both the 24-105/f4IS and the 17-55/f2.8IS. The 24-105 is
almost never on the camera in favor of the 17-55. You can always crop
an image taken with the 17-55 but you'll never get back what was
missed from 24 not being wide enough. Also the 17-55 is one full stop
faster along with the IS which I find very useful. The 17-55 is
wonderfully sharp with good contrast and color, and while the 24-105
is also an excellent lens it's FL is better suited for a FF body
(where it unfortunately shows strong vignetting) IMO.