Thinking what to do with my 24-105 F4 IS L (mark I)

Hi fellow photographers;

 

I have bought that lens the 24-105L at a decent price used from ebay a few years ago.

I have noticed that I often substitute this lens on my photo trips in my country (Australia) with my 17-40L wide angle plus one of either 100 macro or 70-200 f4 is to get a bigger more practical range.

Only when I am lazy or going overseas do I pack the 24-105L for guaranteed practical range.

 

I am interested when packing overseas; wether I could spice up the collections practicality a bit...

So wanted your advise if you would prefer this setup or this:

 

1) 24-105F4 IS + Sigma 50 art 1.4 (current setup) ~ 1485 grams combined

2) 24-70F2.8L II + Canon 50 1.8 II (suggested change) ~ 935 grams combined; but more $$$

 

Because before I bought the sigma 50 art...even actual owners from its flickr page told me for travel they would much prefer the lightweight canon 50 1.8 and don't think it's worth carrying around overseas on your back....which I now feel is true.

 

So just to the floor what you think about option 2 as a travel option and thus would mean selling my 24-105L for the 24-70L and keeping my sigma for now but if I find the 50 1.8 II used more then eventually sell the sigma too.

 

I read raving reviews of the 24-702.8L its basically the best standard zoom on DXO; and surpasses many canon primes.

 

Also given 24-70 tamron VC is rated very highly and is $1000 cheaper than the amazing Canon 24-70F2.8 II; but the latter has better weather seal; better built; clearly top AF and very strong used market demand; I am interested if someone tried both and tells me about them.

 

Regards

Pete

Or clearly the lighter and cheaper option would be to 3) keep my 24-105L IS and just pack a 50 1.8 with it ~ 800 grams total.

 

I just found that overseas I mostly shoot indoors with snaps of families as we get together..and found out using 24-105L with flash; with ISO 1600 with F4 and was still getting dark underexposed photos; so wondering if that means I would benefit from F2.8; hence I was suggesting option 2 and thinking about it although I am puzzled as F2.8 will probably mean not everyone in the image will be sharp.

I would go with #3) 24-105/4 + 50/1.8.

When I shot with a 43-86/3.5 lens on film in the 70s, I found many times I was wishing I had just a little more reach, so I would not have to change lenses at much. So I was happy when the 35-105 came out, and it has replaced the 43-86 on my old film camera, as the GP lens.

 

Even today, unless I NEED the speed of a f/2.8 zoom, I would take the wider zoom range of an f/4 zoom.

If I need to, I can and do crank up the ISO another stop, to compensate for the slightly slower lens.

 

As for the 24-105 + flash getting underexposed photos, I think you need to really investigate WHY the shots were underexposed.

I don't buy that the lens was the sole reason for the underexposed shots.

I also suggest the 24-105 + 50 f/1.8 combination for travel.

 

I used to carry the 24-105 + 50 f/1.4 for travel. Since I bought the new Tamron 35 f/1.8 VC, the 50 f/1.4 stays home.

I’d also keep the 24-105 but investigate your flash settings. However, I’m not sure why you’re even considering the 50 1.8 II. That’s a nasty plastic lens, now superseded by the 50 1.8 STM: a much better built, better performing lens only marginally more expensive.

I also suggest the 24-105 + 50 f/1.8 combination for travel given the two choices.

I also suggest the 24-105 + 50 f/1.8 combination for travel given the two choices.

 

Another vote for this as a light traveling package, but another choice for low-light and modest cost is the EF 35mm f/2. Faster 35mm lenses are also available for low-light, , but cost more, of course. the 35mm focal length is dandy for either full-frame or APS-C.

I own no Canon wide worth mentioning yet. I suppose sticking with your 24-105 is a good idea although reviewers (Northrup on YouTube) claim cropping images from a (previous) Tamron 24-70 would give better results at the long end.

Weight concerned tourists don't carry tripods, do they? - My reason to get Canon at all were IS lenses. While the 24-70/2.8 might serve a flashing people photographer well, it is too short to make me feel complete. I'd rather have a 35-105 to cover my long end and 21mm Zeiss on Leica than an urge to bring a 2nd SLR with 70-200.

Upon 50mms: Are they really working for you or just a traditional or budged dictated backup choice? - I'd look at the 40/2.8 as a decent and compact lens or at the Tamron 45/1.8 for low light. - Combining your 100mm with the promising 35/2 IS would also feel very natural to me. But I don't see a real edge promised by the 50/1.8. - will you switch to it to shoot it at 1/500, f5.6 for quality in broad daylight? Or are you after the narrow DOF look in your tourist shots too? - I thought that was only desirable around ugly and boring home towns.

I wouldn't take

has better weather seal

serious. - Weather protection means the manufacturer made some not necessarily successful effort and guarantees nothing. Better pack rain covers and plastic bags anyhow. Or stick to cheap gear you can loose laughingly.

Only you can make up your mind what you want and need how badly. - Maybe lugging a compromise around is worth it? But isn't a lazy tourist zoom just that and exchanged against the regular pair in normal situations?

I prefer the 24-70 f2.8, but in your circumstances, I would go with what others say the 24-105 + 50/1.8. I could easily make do with just a 24-70 f2.8 myself and no 50mm, but you may miss the 70-105 range. The 24-70 performs as well as the 50mm for all practical purposes.

I prefer the 24-70 f2.8, but in your circumstances, I would go with what others say the 24-105 + 50/1.8. I could easily make do with just a 24-70 f2.8 myself and no 50mm, but you may miss the 70-105 range. The 24-70 performs as well as the 50mm for all practical purposes.

 

Agree.

With the 24-70 f/2.8 vs 50 f/1.8, it is just over 1 stop difference vs. the 24-105 f/4, where it is just over 2 stops difference.

So with the 24-70 f/2.8 you could leave the 50 f/1.8 at home, as it would not buy you as much speed increase as with the 24-105 f/4.

I personally would go with the 24-70 F2.8 and leave the 50 1.8 at home. For travel I leave my Canon 5D mark IV at home and take my Canon 5D mark II, Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VC, Tamron 70-300 F4-5.6 VC. $399.00 when I got it has image stabilization is super light and takes great pictures. I have the 24,35,50,and 85 1.2L primes which I would never travel with, way too heavy and attract too much attention due to the large lens opening in the front. My absolute favorite lens is my 70-200 F2.8 IS II, but that lens is way too heavy to travel with it is a tank. The Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VC is super light equal in IQ to the Canon L-serieis counterpart but better when hand-holding do to the VC \ IS especially when shooting video or night shots with no flash.

 

I personally do not like the Canon 24-105 F4L IS, when compared to my 17-40 F4L i noticed a lot of distortion from the 24-105 (basically, dump that lens an upgrade).

Thanks everyone for this discussion; it’s been helpful. I definitely agree with many that having a F2.8 standard zoom with me when travelling minimises my need for the nifty fifty when compared to carrying the 24-105L. Also I agree with most who said the 24-105L Is the more practical travel option. Thanks to all.

Everything is a compromise; size/bulk, weight, cost, etc.

In the end, it comes down to what is the best compromise for YOU, and what and how YOU shoot.

 

I have back-peddled on several purchases because of new thoughts.

But in this, there is the danger of analysis paralysis, and thus doing nothing.