Spec me a general use lens
- Thread starter Stinky
- Start date
I've never quite understood that logic, quite a low % of my shots that are taken wide open and given that many lenses are of similar optical performance stopped down a little then it really doesn't matter.
Also I never had any issues with distortion when I owned a 24-105, nothing Lightroom couldn't sort out in a second
There are 3 main reasons to bother with a FF camera:
1) Shallow DoF when using wide aperture lenses
2) Increased Low light capability when using wide aperture lenses
3) Increased resolution when using high optical quality lenses
The 24-105 type lens just doesn't really make any sense for most people as a primary lens on FF. Sure, if you frequently shoot fats primes wide open but want a lazy walk about lens then i can see the appeal, but not as an alternative to 24-70 or primes. Better sticking to a corp camera and saving a lot of weight and money.
The difference between 105 and 70mm is pretty negligible but the optical quality and extra stop of a 24-70 or better still 2-3 stops of the primes is noticeable.
I think the 24-105 would be more attractive if it it had noticeably more reach, something like a 24-150mm f/4.0 lens would be very interesting and clearly offer something the 24-70mm doesn't do, but as it stands the 24-70mm f/2.8 just makes more sense IMO.
EDIT: I'm not saying the 24-105 is a bad lens, far from it, it just seems like there are better choices out there. I;m sure a Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 mk 1 can be picked up for much lens than new 24-105 for example. Plus the tamron 24-70mm is also a good option.
1) Shallow DoF when using wide aperture lenses
2) Increased Low light capability when using wide aperture lenses
3) Increased resolution when using high optical quality lenses
The 24-105 type lens just doesn't really make any sense for most people as a primary lens on FF. Sure, if you frequently shoot fats primes wide open but want a lazy walk about lens then i can see the appeal, but not as an alternative to 24-70 or primes. Better sticking to a corp camera and saving a lot of weight and money.
The difference between 105 and 70mm is pretty negligible but the optical quality and extra stop of a 24-70 or better still 2-3 stops of the primes is noticeable.
I think the 24-105 would be more attractive if it it had noticeably more reach, something like a 24-150mm f/4.0 lens would be very interesting and clearly offer something the 24-70mm doesn't do, but as it stands the 24-70mm f/2.8 just makes more sense IMO.
EDIT: I'm not saying the 24-105 is a bad lens, far from it, it just seems like there are better choices out there. I;m sure a Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 mk 1 can be picked up for much lens than new 24-105 for example. Plus the tamron 24-70mm is also a good option.
Last edited:
Nobody's wrong here, but I'd just add that we don't buy kit because there isn't anything better, we buy it because it's what we can afford and, well- because we want to. Or at least I do.
Compared to a crop camera at a similar budget you should gain some noise control even with the classic 5D, so you can pull the 105's stop or so or light loss back by bumping up the ISO. ISO 3200 is usable on a 5D, whereas I actively avoid it on my 50D.
And you gain the extra reach, a significant saving vs the 24-70, not to mention IS.
Personally I don't buy lenses slower than f2.8, but I can see why others do. Swings and roundabouts.
Compared to a crop camera at a similar budget you should gain some noise control even with the classic 5D, so you can pull the 105's stop or so or light loss back by bumping up the ISO. ISO 3200 is usable on a 5D, whereas I actively avoid it on my 50D.
And you gain the extra reach, a significant saving vs the 24-70, not to mention IS.
Personally I don't buy lenses slower than f2.8, but I can see why others do. Swings and roundabouts.
Just thought I'd throw in my 2 cents here, I upgraded from a 60D with the 17-55 2.8 to a 6D with a 24-105 4 at the start of the year and kind of see both sides of the argument here.
I found it hard to find uses for the 24-105 at first because of its speed, but have recently started using it more and more, primarily for landscapes or other areas you would want a deeper depth of field. While true that if you were only going to shoot at f/4 or above, you could have sticked with a crop, however, as you do already have a few primes from what I can see, you already have some low light capability.
The 50mm on a FF is a great walkabout/low light lens, plus if you added an 85 1.8 (my pride and joy
) then you have the best of both worlds!
As for the wedding, maybe look at renting the 24-70 and some primes and get a real feel for them?
Last wedding I did, I only used primes (some rented) - 35, 50, 85 and 100mm Macro.
I found it hard to find uses for the 24-105 at first because of its speed, but have recently started using it more and more, primarily for landscapes or other areas you would want a deeper depth of field. While true that if you were only going to shoot at f/4 or above, you could have sticked with a crop, however, as you do already have a few primes from what I can see, you already have some low light capability.
The 50mm on a FF is a great walkabout/low light lens, plus if you added an 85 1.8 (my pride and joy
) then you have the best of both worlds! As for the wedding, maybe look at renting the 24-70 and some primes and get a real feel for them?
Last wedding I did, I only used primes (some rented) - 35, 50, 85 and 100mm Macro.
Thanks for all the info here. This is my first step into the bold world of FF a 24-105mm will set me back best part of £500 new with a filter, the 24/70 m2 is around £1400 new! A massive difference that I will sure see, and will upgrade, but for now I'm going to see how I get on with the primes and the 24-105.
The 50mm I have is only the 1.8 not 1.4 I'll look at upping that soon
The 50mm I have is only the 1.8 not 1.4 I'll look at upping that soon
Thanks for all the info here. This is my first step into the bold world of FF a 24-105mm will set me back best part of £500 new with a filter, the 24/70 m2 is around £1400 new! A massive difference that I will sure see, and will upgrade, but for now I'm going to see how I get on with the primes and the 24-105.
The 50mm I have is only the 1.8 not 1.4 I'll look at upping that soon
I think the 24-105 works OK if you also have some fast primes but if you are really on a budget adding a couple more primes would work out cheaper and give you better images (the 85mm f/1.8 is only 275 for example)
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Apr 2006
- Posts
- 6,412
- Location
- SE England
The 24-105 is not a bad lens at all. I think we all tend to get lost in the 'Ooo wide aperture, bokeh land'.
As a general use lens the 24-105 is arguably more useful than a prime. Sometimes it's just not possible to zoom with your feet, shot missed. Or while your repositioning/swapping lenses, the opportunity for the shot passes you by.
I don't agree with argument that a full frame body is wasted on a f/4 lens. A full frame body is able to resolve higher detail and less noise in high ISO shots compared to a crop sensor body. It depends on what you're shooting and in what conditions of course, but there isn't always a need to shoot wide open.
Owning a zoom and a few primes is the way to go though.
As a general use lens the 24-105 is arguably more useful than a prime. Sometimes it's just not possible to zoom with your feet, shot missed. Or while your repositioning/swapping lenses, the opportunity for the shot passes you by.
I don't agree with argument that a full frame body is wasted on a f/4 lens. A full frame body is able to resolve higher detail and less noise in high ISO shots compared to a crop sensor body. It depends on what you're shooting and in what conditions of course, but there isn't always a need to shoot wide open.
Owning a zoom and a few primes is the way to go though.
I didn't realise the 85mm could be got at that price. Seems a steal..... Are they cheaper in the USA? Going there in September
I check BHphotovideo and they would be a tiny bit cheaper at 250. If you are going to NYC then you can visit their really cool shop (but I think you would add on the 7% sales tax in store).
The 85mm f/1.8 is an absolute steal, as sharp as the 85L and faster auto focus. f/1.8 gives extremely narrow DoF on FF and the Bokeh is very good (some people actually say the 1.8 has better bokeh quality than the 1.2L lens which can be harsh)
I'll look at that for sure then in the next few weeks, what are your thoughts on the 70-300 canon lens, I'm borrowing one for the f1 buts it's never long enough, although I have never tried it FF
How do extenders work? Useful or useless
The Canon 70-300s are all pretty good really for the price and size.
Extenders (or teleconverters) take the central part of the lens's image projection and stretches it over a larger area, effectively cropping in the lens itself. This does a few things. First, if the lens is not very sharp then then you get a soft blurry image. You only get effective increase in focal length if the lens is out-resolving the sensor, otherwise you are better off just cropping in post. Also since only a smaller subset of the image covers the sensor you loose a lot of the light. A 1.4xTC will loose 1stop, a 2xTC will loose 2 stops. This loss in light also affects the autofocus system so you will tend to get slower focus.
ultimately, you can only use TCs on very sharp lenses with fast apertures. You can't use then on a 70-300 f/5.0 for example, it is likely the TC wont even mount (it wont with Nikon anyway), and you will loose auto focus altogether on almost all cameras, and even if you circumvent those issues the images will be very soft, no better than just cropping in lightroom.
I just ordered my UAV from the main company in China and it was here quicker than a UK stockist could offer, tax paid and everything. Not sure why UK companies can't do this, outside of the large ones of course.