The "New Gear/Willy Waving" thread

[Raymond Lin]

24-105 (mk1 at least) is one lens I am most confused about.

1 - For an L, it is not that sharp
2 - For an L, at that focal length, it really ought to be a constant 2.8, not 4.0. Of course it can't do that with the existence of the 24-70 which is the king of that focal length zooms

Ultimately it is not good really at anything, it feels like a glorified kit lens which by the fact that it is provided as a kit lens, supports that idea. The only thing good about it is that it has IS, to help with the fact that it is not a 2.8 but then you don't have that bokeh.

Basically, the 24-70 all day long, plus if you get the 70-200/2.8, you don't have that overlap, it all fit neatly together!

 

[Schizo]

I've got the 70-200 2.8 but I do like the 24-105,will suit my style of shooting.

 

[a1ex2001]

It's Is is just not that good and a lot of distortion. The focal length is great though

Never really had an issue with the distortion yes at 24mm it is massive and will show up in architecture shots but it is correctable, beyond that the distortion is well within the normal levels for a zoom lens, the lens produces decent resolution figures in tests and that translates well into the real world. The lens isn't particularly exciting or sexy but it is a great workhorse at a very reasonable price!

24-105 (mk1 at least) is one lens I am most confused about.

1 - For an L, it is not that sharp
2 - For an L, at that focal length, it really ought to be a constant 2.8, not 4.0. Of course it can't do that with the existence of the 24-70 which is the king of that focal length zooms

Ultimately it is not good really at anything, it feels like a glorified kit lens which by the fact that it is provided as a kit lens, supports that idea. The only thing good about it is that it has IS, to help with the fact that it is not a 2.8 but then you don't have that bokeh.

Basically, the 24-70 all day long, plus if you get the 70-200/2.8, you don't have that overlap, it all fit neatly together!

It's not as razor sharp as some L lenses particularly the more modern ones but it is definitely above the average, nobody delivers a constant f2.8 in that range I suspect if it were a sensible option sigma would have done it just to annoy everyone else the fact they haven't speaks volumes.

I would choose it for general walk about over a 24-70mm f2.8 purely for the increased range and reduced weight. It all depends what you a re shooting and where I guess, the f4 on full frame is still fast enough for decent subject seperation, again I guess it depends on how much or a bokeh obsessive you are!

It's definitely not a lens for everyone but it has it's place and has shot some of my favourite snaps.

 

[Dale V]

Done a bit of spending recently
, latest being the 17-55 f2.8, im looking forward to trying that out properly next week in Vegas.

 

[GTRacer]

New lens day:



Pentax 67 55~100mm f/4.5. The combo is sitting on top of a 15 inch MacBook Pro for reference although the distortion exaggerates the size - it'd cover a 13 inch easily though.

Very heavy lens (1.2kg!) but the quality is just as good as the equivalent primes so in a way I'm actually saving weight (A 55+75+100 combo is about 1.8kg). I end up hitting the 105/2.4s minimum focus distance of 1m quite often when doing portraits, the new zoom close focuses to 0.6m across the range which is a step up for the 105 and 75 it replaces (but a step back at the wide end, since the 55 close focuses to 0.4m)

 

[Tysonator]

Never really had an issue with the distortion yes at 24mm it is massive and will show up in architecture shots but it is correctable, beyond that the distortion is well within the normal levels for a zoom lens, the lens produces decent resolution figures in tests and that translates well into the real world. The lens isn't particularly exciting or sexy but it is a great workhorse at a very reasonable price!



It's not as razor sharp as some L lenses particularly the more modern ones but it is definitely above the average, nobody delivers a constant f2.8 in that range I suspect if it were a sensible option sigma would have done it just to annoy everyone else the fact they haven't speaks volumes.

I would choose it for general walk about over a 24-70mm f2.8 purely for the increased range and reduced weight. It all depends what you a re shooting and where I guess, the f4 on full frame is still fast enough for decent subject seperation, again I guess it depends on how much or a bokeh obsessive you are!

It's definitely not a lens for everyone but it has it's place and has shot some of my favourite snaps.

I agree, i have a 24-105L which is a lot better than any kit lens.
Mainly because of size, weight, , focus speed, quite, and perhaps most importantly it's used cost. a lot cheaper than a 24-70L Mk1 let alone the Mk2 !
It may not be the sharpest, or have the constant f2.8, however it is reliable and a work horse of a lens.
Even though I have 70-300L there are a lot of times i can not take multiple lenses with me. For me the 24-105L is a holiday walk about lens on my ASPC sensor 7D DSLR.
And the is the money, oh yeah I have mentioned money. Well I mention it again it is also money is a factor !

 

[MichaelAwkward]

How can a lens that begins at 38mm on APS-C be a good walkabout lens? Where do you go on holiday? A narrow tunnel?

 

[Schizo]

How can a lens that begins at 38mm on APS-C be a good walkabout lens? Where do you go on holiday? A narrow tunnel?

Because you don't think its no good does not always mean its no good to someone else.

 

[Dale V]

I don't think a lens starting at 24mm on a crop is too bad a thing for a walkabout lens. I've used my 35mm and 50mm primes plenty of times as a single walkabout lens, in a way it makes you use the camera better. 24mm would be no issue what so ever.

I've looked at the 24-105 f4 a few times and at £500 ish brand new when jessops has a sale on its been even more tempting but in the end I didn't want to settle for the f4 appature.

 

[CGrieves]

My "walkabout" is a 23mm. I couldn't do without the aperture of a prime personally, but as a focal length, 24mm with the ability to zoom sounds pretty good to me.

 

[Kei]

Pentax 67 55~100mm f/4.5. The combo is sitting on top of a 15 inch MacBook Pro for reference although the distortion exaggerates the size - it'd cover a 13 inch easily though.

Very heavy lens (1.2kg!) but the quality is just as good as the equivalent primes so in a way I'm actually saving weight (A 55+75+100 combo is about 1.8kg). I end up hitting the 105/2.4s minimum focus distance of 1m quite often when doing portraits, the new zoom close focuses to 0.6m across the range which is a step up for the 105 and 75 it replaces (but a step back at the wide end, since the 55 close focuses to 0.4m)

I miss mine. Part exchanged it back in 2004 against a canon 300D when I moved to digital. Only had the 105/2.4 for it but it was one hell of a camera. I've since gone back to 6x7 with a mamiya RZ67, which is an absolute monster. The pentax is deceptive and just looks like a large SLR. The only zoom for the mamiya is a 100-200 which is not a lot of use for general purpose. (plus it weighs in a 1.6Kg and needs a support bracket)

 

[MichaelAwkward]

Because you don't think its no good does not always mean its no good to someone else.

No, but there's a reason why nobody makes 35-1xxmm zoom lenses for FF cameras any more. Zoom lenses for FF typically start at 24mm and zoom lenses for APS-C typically start at 15/16mm-18mm (24mm-27/28mm equivalent) because those are useful focal length ranges which strike the balance between technical complexity and affordability.

If it works for you, that's great but there are better and more useful lenses that are smaller and weigh less and probably cost less than the 24-105 L for use with an APS-C camera. For full frame, a 35-1xxmm zoom would actually work quite well but it only really makes sense with a cheap and light example like the old Nikons or Minoltas.

I don't think a lens starting at 24mm on a crop is too bad a thing for a walkabout lens. I've used my 35mm and 50mm primes plenty of times as a single walkabout lens, in a way it makes you use the camera better. 24mm would be no issue what so ever.

My "walkabout" is a 23mm. I couldn't do without the aperture of a prime personally, but as a focal length, 24mm with the ability to zoom sounds pretty good to me.

Using a prime as a walkabout is an entirely different use. A 24mm F2.8 or faster prime on APS-C makes perfect sense. Carrying around a 670g zoom lens that's only F4 is not the same thing.

 

[Prophet]

I'm off to London tomorrow for a couple of days. I'm only taking the Nifty 50 because it doesn't weigh anything and I want to limit options to test my ability to frame shots. I'll post some up when I'm back.

 

[jonneymendoza]

i have got the sony 100-400 g master lens and the 1.4x TC. going to test it out on the weekend

 

[GTRacer]

I miss mine. Part exchanged it back in 2004 against a canon 300D when I moved to digital. Only had the 105/2.4 for it but it was one hell of a camera. I've since gone back to 6x7 with a mamiya RZ67, which is an absolute monster. The pentax is deceptive and just looks like a large SLR. The only zoom for the mamiya is a 100-200 which is not a lot of use for general purpose. (plus it weighs in a 1.6Kg and needs a support bracket)

Yeah, I was shopping around for a 6x7 that I could shoot fairly quickly like a 35mm, narrowed it down to the Fuji GW670/Mamiya 7/Pentax 67, the Pentax won out in the end since it was easier to find a good deal on a body/lens kit. The RZ67 is really, really good though, the lenses are so sharp and the backs can be loaded very quickly compared to the Pentax.

 

[Dale V]

Using a prime as a walkabout is an entirely different use. A 24mm F2.8 or faster prime on APS-C makes perfect sense. Carrying around a 670g zoom lens that's only F4 is not the same thing.

Nope that wasnt the point you was making, you was on about focal length

24mm is 24mm whether its on a prime or zoom lens, yes the aperture would be better on a prime, but that wouldnt relate to your "Where do you go on holiday? A narrow tunnel?" comment

 

[MichaelAwkward]

Nope that wasnt the point you was making, you was on about focal length

24mm is 24mm whether its on a prime or zoom lens, yes the aperture would be better on a prime, but that wouldnt relate to your "Where do you go on holiday? A narrow tunnel?" comment

But it isn't 24mm, it's 38mm equivalent for him on a 750D.

 

[Dale V]

yes, we know that, thats exactly what everyones been discussing. Its totally fine.

 

[MichaelAwkward]

If you say so, the entire camera industry disagrees though - hence why nobody makes APS-C zoom lenses starting at 38mm equivalent.

 

[Dale V]

sorry, but you really dont know what you're talking about

24mm (38mm crop) "Where do you go on holiday? A narrow tunnel?"
24mm (38mm crop) "Using a prime as a walkabout is an entirely different use. A 24mm F2.8 or faster prime on APS-C makes perfect sense." Its still 24mm (38mm crop), yet because its prime it makes sense, and the narrow tunnel comment you made doesnt apply?!
24mm (38mm crop) "But it isn't 24mm, it's 38mm equivalent for him on a 750D."