The "New Gear/Willy Waving" thread

munge said:
Proud owner of brand spanking, shiny new 70-200 F2.8 IS Mk II :D:D:D

If build quality is reflective of how it feels on the outside, this is one amazing piece of kit.

Going to be carrying rather heavy hand luggage now on my few days on the Alps, but can't wait to have a proper go with it.

I feel like a kid at Christmas!
Click to expand...

my step dad has the isII and it really is amazing. Congrats :)
 
Its not useless on a crop, you just have to concede its not fulfilling its general purpose potential. I think that's what people are saying.

F4 can be an issue, but meh, its not the end of the world. Just could always buy a flash which I would do anyway if doing a lot of indoors stuff.

Its a good lens so enjoy it. I almost bought one myself.
 
D.P. said:
24-105 f/4 doesn't really make sense on a crop body TBH, not wide enough for most uses and t f4 you are not much faster than other lenses.

Still, it is a nice lens for sure and if you make good use of it that is all that matters.
Click to expand...

What uses is it not wide enough for exactly? Perhaps in a confined space where you are limited to how far back you can move, so you can't fit a given subject in? That's about it really? It's not like you can't do landscapes or architecture with it. It's not going to be ideal for interior room shots that's for sure.
 
As I said if you fidn it useful then that is all that matters but for me on crop 24mm on the wide end makes for a specialist lens and at f/4.0 you are not really much better than most variable aperture and kit lenses over most of the focal. I own a 24-70mm f/2.8 and a 16-85mm f/5.6, the 24-70 is almost never used because 24mm on the wide end is useless, I use it as a portrait lens form time to time. The 16-85 rarely leaves my camera (except for wildlife) as the focal length is so much more versatile.

I am not trying to put a downer on your lens purchase it is just very strange for me. You have an 18-50mm f/2.8 (I assume the Sigma), so when would you ever want to use the 24-105 in stead of the 18-50 f/2.8? The difference between 105mm and 50mm is pretty small if you were to actually want extra reach.

I repeat it again that the most important thing is that you are happy with the lens and make use of it but from your other lenses it really looks like a 70-200/300 would be ideal, or something like an 85mm f/1.8 prime for longer portraits, or the 100mm f.28 Macro lens if you want close ups? As for a walk about lens the 24-105mm on crop is certainly not a walk about lens because you are missing probably the most critical focal lengths. Canon 15-85 is a great walkabout lens, wide to moderate telephoto, light, small and sharp, much like the Nikon version is use - the ability to get 24mm FF equivalent on the wide end often means I can leave behind my 10-20mm make an all in one walk about setup. With the 24-105 I can imagine you want to take your 11-16mm with you quite a lot and then swamping lenses in the field?
 
Rojin said:
What uses is it not wide enough for exactly? Perhaps in a confined space where you are limited to how far back you can move, so you can't fit a given subject in? That's about it really? It's not like you can't do landscapes or architecture with it. It's not going to be ideal for interior room shots that's for sure.
Click to expand...

Well, 24mm on a canon crop is pretty much right at 40mm FF equivalent and would counted as a normal lens which is fine for some types of photography but is certainly far too narrow for many.

You can do landscapes and architecture but you may be extremely limited in the perspective you can achieve, and for architecture it can often prove impossible to capture the subject without foreground interference unless you go wide. I find architecture often matches landscape work for focal lengths, I am either in the 10-20mm rnage on crop, or using a the 70-200mm for details avoiding geometry problems.

And no, I am not saying landscapes requires wider lens "to fit more in". I am talking about perspective and creating a scene which has depth, not a flat cardboard cut out. Soemthing with a foreground and background and some visual connection between the two.

For me, the most useful end of the 24-105mm for landscape work would be the 105mm end to concentrate on details. The 24mm would typically result in lifeless photos.
 
Last edited:
How on earth is 24mm on the wide end useless? You don't like it, that's fair enough, but not everyone thinks shots have to be wide. Some of my favourite landscapes that I have seen (not mine, mine are rubbish :D ) are with a 70-200...

I agree that if you like wide then a 24-105 on a crop isn't a good choice, but if you're into detail then it's pretty solid.
 
Rojin said:
How on earth is 24mm on the wide end useless? You don't like it, that's fair enough, but not everyone thinks shots have to be wide. Some of my favourite landscapes that I have seen (not mine, mine are rubbish :D ) are with a 70-200...

I agree that if you like wide then a 24-105 on a crop isn't a good choice, but if you're into detail then it's pretty solid.
Click to expand...

I clearly never said that shots have to be wide at all, my preferred landscape lens is a 70-200 and I said that. I very clearly stated that wide angle lenses are not useful "to fit more in",m but to add perspective and depth, to be able to include foreground interest as will as distant vistas. You need a wide angle lens to be able to accommodate that. I even said that the 24-105 when used at 105mm would be very useful for landscape work.

Most people using UWA lenses for landscape work get terrible results,while using a telephoto lens they can get good results, but talented people (I am not there yet, I am still working on my compositional techniques) can get fantastic photos from wider angle lenses.

I have never seen many interest landscape photos shot at 40-50mm FF equivalent? Of curse there will be loads of counter examples but in general it is not a desirable focal length such work because you cannot control the depth of the photo very easily. The 40-50mm normal range is just boring for the most part, you are neither exaggerating perspective nor emphasising subject and isolation.
 
My first filter, didn't think there was any glass in it at first as it's so clear, not quite an extravagant purchase but I am happy with it.
Looking at flashguns atm, my mind boggles as there is so many different makes, anyone recommend a good value for money flash? camera is D3100.

6147b9ad0f155aacfded24d822e4a3a8.JPG
 
D.P. said:
I clearly never said that shots have to be wide at all, my preferred landscape lens is a 70-200 and I said that. I very clearly stated that wide angle lenses are not useful "to fit more in",m but to add perspective and depth, to be able to include foreground interest as will as distant vistas. You need a wide angle lens to be able to accommodate that. I even said that the 24-105 when used at 105mm would be very useful for landscape work.

Most people using UWA lenses for landscape work get terrible results,while using a telephoto lens they can get good results, but talented people (I am not there yet, I am still working on my compositional techniques) can get fantastic photos from wider angle lenses.

I have never seen many interest landscape photos shot at 40-50mm FF equivalent? Of curse there will be loads of counter examples but in general it is not a desirable focal length such work because you cannot control the depth of the photo very easily. The 40-50mm normal range is just boring for the most part, you are neither exaggerating perspective nor emphasising subject and isolation.
Click to expand...

Well we have to disagree on the 50mm focal length, I love it :) My response was actually to your original post, but dealing with my daughter meant it came after your other response! :eek:
 
Andy90 said:
An excellent lens by all accounts :)

Don't forget to claim back £235 with the Canon Spring 2013 Cashback Offer

http://www.canon.co.uk/springcashback/index.aspx
Click to expand...

Oh yes, that was a factor in the decision making process!

I'm so looking forward to having a go with it. Having researched it fully, I actually thought it'd be heavier and longer than it is, that's not to say its light or discrete. The hood adds a chunk if length on too.

Need to persuade her in doors that this is the zoom I had all along...
 
My Sigma 8-16mm arrived today - it's pretty wide ;) The widest non Fish Eye lens available.
12.8mm - 25.6mm on my Canon APS-C camera


8613467967_54f930dbaf_b.jpg
8613435305_93996f63ce_b.jpg
 
Last edited:
I had the SIgma 8-16mm on the 40D, was good and optics offered good results but the images were just too dark and the aperture too slow for my liking!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom