Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by michael_lowe|3, May 27, 2008.

  1. Alright guys,

    I've reached an impasse. I'm getting a deal on a 24-105L for $875, full warranty and
    a chance to check out the lens for any blemishes, etc...

    Even though I feel like it's a great deal, I'm having some moral issues with parting
    with so much money. I'm about to go on a couple of great vacations this summer
    (Costa Rica and Yellowstone) and want to bring a good travel lens and I'm also
    working on becoming a more serious amateur photographer.

    I think I need some moral support...anything you can tell me?
  2. Which camera do you have? On a full frame camera 24-105 is a good range. On an APS-C digital 24mm isn't very wide.

    The lens itself is very good indeed.
  3. Its only dirty paper, you'll make more. Seriously, I am about to order mine and I am
    getting it new and I feel no guilt on spending $1000 on something I really want. I think
    for travel you can't get a better lens.
  4. I'm using a Canon 300D, I know, old school...but I figure I could compensate with a good lens. Also, eventually I'm planning on buying a 10-22 to get the wide end. That is after I'm repaired some of the damage this lens will cost!
  5. Bob's points are very important. While the 24-105 is an excellent lens and the price
    you describe sounds quite good, be sure that this lens provides the best
    functionality for your purposes.

    It is frequently used as a normal "walk-around" lens on full frame cameras, where it
    provides quite decent wide angle coverage and some short telephoto coverage.

    On a crop sensor body (e.g. - a Rebel or a X0D body) the 24mm wide angle end is
    not really very wide at all.

  6. Dan, Bob, Do you have any other alternative suggestions for lenses?
  7. It is a very good lens. If you buy it as a kit with the 5d costs $700. Alone, $ 1059 in BH. Not bad price, you share the difference with the buyer of the kit. Fair deal.
  8. You can get a refurb copy from Adorama for $899 right now.
  9. Since the beginning of my recent activity as a photo hobbyist I have avoided buying APS-C lenses. I knew I was going to finish with a full frame. A couple of weeks ago I bought the 5d+24-105 Kit. I really needed wide angle and got it with the FF camera and the Sigma 12-24 and the Canon 16-35. Surprisingly, the first one is the one I prefer for this purpose (buildings).
    One day, your 300D may suddenly die. What are you going to buy then? This is the question for which you need an answer.
  10. Michael, $900 is not a terribly large amount of money to spend on a top quality lens. It
    should certainly outlast your camera body and shouldn't depreciate much if you decide
    to sell it later. I think of buying great lenses as really cheap rentals with full cash
    collateral up front. From that perspective, it doesn't seem so crazy.
  11. If you were spending that money on the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, you might have reason to feel "wrong" and question yourself, but the 24-105 is very solid and very much worth the cost.
  12. I bought the 24-105 about six months ago and use it with my aging 300D. Before buying, I checked a large sample of my photographs over the past few years to see how often I shot wider than 24mm - and found that it was almost never! So the lack of a very wide angle is not a problem for me. Your situation may be different - check your photos and see if you really use the wider angle.

    This lens rarely comes off my 300D (I do use a simple 50mm 1.8 for low light situations and a 70-300 IS for longer), but the 24-105 is on the camera 95% of the time.

    It's only money... and you'll get over the price in a few months!
  13. Yes Mr.B that is why I did not get the 17-55. I can't see why it cost the same as an L
    without the build quality. That lens should be priced at around $700 to $800 tops.

    Really there is no reason to question the purchase of any L lens.
  14. It's a fine lens. The question is whether its range suits your needs. You say you're using (present tense) a 300D, which suggests that you already have a lens. Will that existing lens compensate for the lack of a wide end on the 24-105?
    I can't see why it cost the same as an L without the build quality.
    Most of the cost is in the glass, and pretty much every test, review, or commentary says that, optically, the 17-55 is a match for L zooms (other than vignetting more on a 1.6-crop body, but that's arguably an unfair test, as an equivalent L zoom on a full-frame body will also vignette). AF speed is also high-end.
    How often does the average user need the build quality and sealing of an L lens (particularly since all 1.6-crop EOS DSLRs to date lack weather sealing)? In December, I replaced my last non-L zoom (28-135) with an L zoom (24-105), but in the ~10 years from when I started with EOS equipment, I never had a single problem with build quality of non-L zooms. All my non-L zooms were from the high-end consumer line (as is the 17-55), and not once did the lack of L build quality cause me any problem whatsoever. The L build quality is nice, certainly, but it's not the reason I've been upgrading to L zooms, and in fact, if I stick with 1.6-crop, I will eventually replace my 17-40/4L with the 17-55.
  15. I look at it this way when it comes to spending money on glass. If originally I buy less than what I want I will eventually end up paying more for it. I needed a wide angle lens for my 30D and after much research found that the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 was the best choice for the money at the time. For my 30D I love this lens. However, I just got a great deal on a 1D MkIII which this lens is useless on. So now I have to go through all the research to find new wide angle glass and the total cost of that lens is increased by the cost of the Tamron 17-50. Remember, your glass if well cared for will not only outlive your camera but it will outlive you. Go for it!
  16. There are some other options. If I were looking for a high quality general purpose
    zoom for a Canon cropped sensor camera right now I would almost certainly
    consider the EFS17-55mm f/2.8 IS.

    If you want a bit more range but are OK with less image quality, the EFS 17-85mm
    f/4-5.6 IS could work, though I would not be tempted myself.

  17. Get it. Its a good lens. If you have a crop sensor body then couple it with a 10-22. Thats my combination for the 40D.
    [signature snipped]
  18. Buy a new G9 for $500 - perfect travel camera, huge focal range, good pics...if spending less will make you feel better.
  19. A bit more about the 17-55, or at least my impression of it.

    True, it is "not an L." But it is possible to make too much of the "L" designation. There are plenty of
    non-L lenses that are excellent performers. Take a look at a number of non-L primes. Note that two of
    the three Canon tilt/shift lenses are not designated as "L" lenses either. (On the other side of the
    equation, note that the builtin lens on the Canon Pro 1 _does_ have the "red ring" - and it definitely is
    not an L...)

    The real question is not "is it an L lens?" but "what does it do and how does it perform?"

    The feature set of the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is virtually unparalleled at that price point. It provides a)
    reportedly very good image quality - on par with L lenses, b) f/2.8 maximum aperture - llke the 24-70mm
    f/2.8, c) image stabilization - like the 24-105mm f/4 L IS, d) a very useful focal length range for a crop
    body - roughly equivalent 28mm-90mm in FF equivalent terms.

    A L lens with this feature set would retail for well over $1000, and not work any more effectively. And
    there is not equivalent L lens that is as ideally suited to this purpose on a crop sensor body.

  20. I love my my 24-105L, it is attached to my 20D. Obviously styles differ from photographer to photographer but it has been wide enough for me. I have used it on a sailboat, hiking, walking around town, and capturing my monkeys inside and outside.

  21. I just got the lens myself and I am very happy with it. But your decision should really depend on the camera you're using and what other lenses you have in your kit. I bought my 24-105 with a 5D. I am still getting used to the loss of the crop factor. You are going to Yellowstone and Costa Rica. If you want to take landscape pics, great choice. But if you want to get pics of wildlife - bison and toucans - you're going to need a good zoom, like a 70-200 L. You can get the f4 version for even less money. If you don't have one of those already, you might want to consider investing in that instead, again depending on what you already have and what you really want to shoot.

  22. I bought the 24-105 about 3 years ago and paid about $1250. It was my first "L" lens and I saw a dramatic improvement in IQ on my 10D.... over the old 28-105. Contrast, saturation and sharpness are fantastic by comparison.

    I now use the 24-105 on my 5D and love it even more. I'm into low-light scenes without a tripod and this lens ROCKS for that.
    See my hand-held night shot slide show and note the shutter speeds:


    Unless you're depriving your family of groceries to buy this lens ENJOY IT!

    I don't think anybody on their deathbed was heard to say " I wish I had more money in the bank."
  23. If not the 24-105, then the 17-40L. You just can't go wrong with L glass. I had a choice between EF-S and L lenses for my 350D / 40D.... All said and done, I'm extremely glad I went the L route. There are so many more options later. L glass has better resale every time, and garunteed you'll be glad you went the L route when 5 years down the road you are using a 5D mkV
  24. This is my favorite travel lens and the only one I bring. I've used it on a 20D and 5D. Though not as wide as say a 17-40L on the 20D, I only brought 1 lens and it was the 24-105L.
  25. You won't be disappointed in the image quality of the 24-105L, but you might want something wider for travel, to supplement it. What I would do is probably buy the 24-105L (875 USD is indeed a great bargain if it's legitimate), throw in a 50 f/1.8 for portraits of locals and low-light (no flash) shots and then rent a 10-22 on the two occasions you're planning to travel.
    <p>It also seems to me like you might benefit from the use of a decent tripod for some nice twilight and night shots in both venues.
  26. I have the 10-22 and 24-105 and they work very well together. I just got back from Alaska today. The wildlife shots were with the 100-400, but most all the other images were from the 24-105 with Hoya Pro 1 dmc polarizer. I love this lens. Below is a link to the pictures from Alaska. We were on the Kenai Penninsula (Homer and Seward).

  27. As Mr. Harrington said it's a great lens for a 5D. However on a crop lens 24 is 42mm equivilent. I had a wonderful 28-70 2.8L that, when I got digital I kept twisting the 28 side of the lens trying to make it go wider, so I traded it for a 17-40 4L which does go wide enough for me. I am not sure that that was a sensible move but If I go to a full frame the 17-40 it may pay off. I use fixed focus lenses to fill the gap between that and my 70-200L. If my intention were to stay with a crop camera, and I did not have the 17-40 I would probably buy the 17-55 2.8 IS just to keep from changing lenses so often as I do now. I do think the results that I have had with the 17-40 are outstanding. See below.
  28. I have a 24-105/4L for my 5D and it's a great lens, but it's kind of big and heavy and good as it is, the 50/1.4 is a lot sharper. So I guess what I'm saying is that you should make sure that it doesn't make your 300D a little frontheavy, that you're willing to carry it, and that you might not be better served if you're on a budget with a few small primes.

    It is a great zoom though.
  29. "If you were spending that money on the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, you might have reason to feel "wrong" and question yourself, but the 24-105 is very solid and very much worth the cost."

    Mr. B what are you smokin? The 17-55 is one of the finest lenses in the Canon line up. Right now I can sell mine on Ebay for $100 more than I paid at B&H, go figure. Bad example.... ; )

    Now to Michael's question. There are several capable lenses you could get for a lot less money to start. The 24-105 is a fine lens and although I don't consider any of this an investment, you'll certainly get more mileage out of it than you will out of any camera body.

    You could consider a Sigma 17-70 2.8-4. It has superb image quality for under $300 but lacks IS. On your crop body it has similar focal range to the 24-105 on a FF. This is what I use on my 400D for a travel kit. I also carry a 70-300 IS for the travel kit. It's a great flexible combo for travel and the two lenses together can be had for what you'll pay for that 24-105. Just my 2 cents.
  30. Michael - I know EXACTLY what you mean. I was in an indentical situation couple of years ago before a trip to the Canadian Rockies wanting the 24-105 and fighting the moral battle. Went round and round for weeks, and one day for no apparent reason really, took the plunge. Suffice to say not only was the lens FANTASTIC, but the pictures from the trip were really fabulous. That was my first brush with L'coholism. I would say that if you have money budgeted for it, go for it, and post some pictures here later. BTW I've been to Yellowstone several years ago (before the 24-105), and if I were to go again, this lens without question, will be part of my kit. Good luck!
  31. Michael, you want moral support? ;-)

    All I can tell you is that the 24-105 is a keeper -- best lens in my collection. It was a lot cheaper than my $400 28-135 (first EOS lens I ever bought), because I actually use it and will continue to use it. If you have any ambitions of owning one someday, you're better off getting it now than getting a "good/close enough" lens for right now and then buying the 24-105 later. Lenses don't really get much cheaper, unless they become obsolete (the exception being the period just after the release of a new model).

    On the other hand, analysts are currently bullish on the US dollar, so if you're a Yank, you might have a bit more buying power this time next year.
  32. Thanks everyone.

    Dan, great Alaska pics! I especially liked the one with the sun shining through the
    clouds. Well done.

    I think I've finally gotten the courage to take the plunge thanks to you guys. If
    anything, I guess I could always resell it since it seems to have a great resellability (if
    that's even a word...)
  33. You won't be selling this lens. Enjoy.
  34. "I think I've finally gotten the courage to take the plunge thanks to you guys."

    Our job here is done! :-D

Share This Page