when used on a FF body...
Canon 24‑105mm f4.0 L IS USM
- Thread starter Admiral Huddy
- Start date
when used on a FF body...
If you're thinking of moving to full frame then the 24-105 makes more sense- it's wide enough for GP and the aperture deficit would be compensated to a degree by the extra noise floor (just push the ISO a couple of stops higher). You can't really compensate for the depth of field though.
Personally I like the flexibility of an f2.8 aperture. I find the price, weight and zoom range deficit is worth it.
Personally I like the flexibility of an f2.8 aperture. I find the price, weight and zoom range deficit is worth it.
Nikon fanboy here, but thought i'd weigh in on the f4 vs f2.8 as I've had (admittedly slightly different focal length) 17-35 f2.8 and 16-35 f4 and I have to say I have since ditched the f2.8. f4 is lighter, albeit less tough, but losing the stop doesn't make a massive difference, as people have said above with higher ISOs).
24-105 does seem like a little bit of overkill for a mid-range zoom though. I personally prefer having a 16-35 and 70-200 and walk between 35 and 70
24-105 does seem like a little bit of overkill for a mid-range zoom though. I personally prefer having a 16-35 and 70-200 and walk between 35 and 70
I absolutely agree with Raymond here.
I got a 24-105 f/4L as a kit lens with my 5D. It went on the camera 3 times in several years (once to check it when I bought it, once when I actually used it, and finally to check it before I sold it on ebay last year).
I simply prefered the 24-70 (even for protraits), despite it being heavier and not having the IS (which I never missed).
Money and weight no object I'd agree but the 24-70 is a huge chunk of glass and a big wedge of cash when compared to the 24-105mm!
It's a great travel lens for general photography on full frame, it hardly left my camera in Iceland last week and when it did that was usually to attach the 14mm for Northern Lights shots. It is sharper than most lenses and renders a nice image it's not the greatest for people shots if you want back ground separation but that's the compromise of the size and weight. The IS is really useful for taking hand held landscapes and scenery shots and can cover for a flawed technique, cold hands or a strong breeze all of which I suffered from!
I wouldn't touch a 24-105mm F4L on a crop body I'd opt for either a 17-50mm f2.8 or if I wanted more length and width a 15-85mm.
Don't get me wrong I'd have a 24-70mm f2.8 if I could justify the cost but I have found the extra width, length and IS a real bonus coming from a Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 and I didn't miss the stop of light too often.
Last edited:
yeah, on FF it starts to make more sense; the focal length is much nicer, you are a stop faster anyway and have the shallower DoF and you get a lens more like a 17-65mm f/2.8 on crop. But then that is just the point, why pay for a FF body and then use a lens that you would easily get equivalence to on a crop camera and get identical results? I would rather have a Nikon D7100 with a 17-55mm f/2.8 than a D800 with a 24-105mm f/4.0 (24-120mm in Nikon land) and have money left over for more lenses with.
The 24-70mm f/2.8 is really where its at on FF for wide-normal zooms. To get the equivalence on a crop camera you would need a 16-45mm f/1.8 lens which traditionally would be impossible to get... until Sigma released the 18-35mm f/2.8!
yeah, the 24-105 is smaller and lighter then the 24-70mm f/2.8, but the 24-70 is not exactly big or heavy. And if weight and size is an issue then you shouldn't be using a FF DSLR at all, go get a nice mirror-less setup
I'm with Raymond on this one, the 24-105 and Nikon 24-120mm f/4. are really glorified kit lens that kind of sit in a no mans lands of inbetweenness. The Nikon is marginally more temping because 120mm starts to become noticeable above 70mm but not really. What would temp me was if the lens was a 24-200mm f/4.0 or a 18-75mm f/4.0 or 20-140mm f/4.0 etc. Either give me more reach, go wider or a bit of both while maintaining f/4.0, then you have a cracking GP lens but 24-105 just doesn't given anything above the 24-70 to justify loosing a stop and accepting reduced IQ, IMO.
But horses for courses, if it works for you that is great, I just don't see it work for me. I also see too many people taken in by the marketing that FF bodies, L glass, red/gold rings, nano coatings suddenly gives you magic abilities and instantly turns you pro. L glass in particular is really misunderstood, it mostly just refers to build quality and price rather than anything particularly relevant to an amateur photographer like image quality, aperture, etc.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 75,903
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
There are occasions where the 24-105 is useful, one, doing video (Digital Rev). It is a decent enough focal length for that, the IS helps reduce vibration and in that respect, it is very good and on the grand scheme of things in the L lens line up, it is one of the cheapest one if not THE cheapest one.
I have a 24-105 on a 6D and it is a decent lens. However, and it is a big however, I got the 6D and lens for £1350, the equivalent of body-only over here. Effectively, I got the lens for free.
On FF, the focal range is pretty useful as a walkabout. The f/4 does stunt it a little. However, for low light the great performance of the camera's sensor does mitigate that for certain applications.
I have not tried it on my cropped 7D as I have a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 for that.
On FF, the focal range is pretty useful as a walkabout. The f/4 does stunt it a little. However, for low light the great performance of the camera's sensor does mitigate that for certain applications.
I have not tried it on my cropped 7D as I have a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 for that.
I picked up a 24-105 a while back, and to be honest I was expecting to sell it on. It is the archetypical Jack of all trades, master of none lens. F4 doesn’t bother me as much as I thought it would, but I do use it mainly on a FF body. As for suitability on a crop body, if you don't shoot wide it may fit your needs fine. There are plenty out there who really like the Tamron 28-75 on a crop body...
I'd probably stick with the Tamron 17-50 you already have though, and consider a 70-200. There are various models to choose from Canon, Tamron and Sigma.
I'd probably stick with the Tamron 17-50 you already have though, and consider a 70-200. There are various models to choose from Canon, Tamron and Sigma.
- Joined
- 17 Feb 2003
- Posts
- 29,640
- Location
- Chelmsford
I get this impression.