Your opinion of the 24-105 F4

[er1]

I find the 24-105F4 invaluable in my event photography. I have used this lens

in 90+% of the images that I have posted. There is some acceptable vignetting

at F4 and also barrel distortion at 24mm, regardless, I believe this is a very

good lens for a journalist. I would like the pros & cons of other 24-105 users.

[steve_newberry___northern_]

I have been using one for about 10 weddings and really enjoy it.

Has a nice range and I was getting non blurry images at 200 ISO

inside dark churches down to F4.0 @ 1/8.

Works great for the reception when dragging the shutter

Some vignetting at 4.0 but tolerable.

Great sharpness. Complements the 50 1.4 & 85 1.8 very well.

[eric_lawson1]

Absolutely LOVE mine. My wife used it the other day and I was lucky to get it back. She loves it also and I'm scared.

[matt_k1]

It's almost the perfect all around lens for me. Only improvement would be if it was an f/2.8

or faster.

[er1]

Matt, When the 24-105 F2.8 becomes available I will have one the same day : )

[wedding-photography-denver]

Ed, like you, I find mine attached to one of my 5d's pretty much full time these days.

 

Pros; range, IS, fairly sharp images considering that range too, light weight and the durability.

 

Cons; price for an f4 lens and f4, though I am used to its need for decent light now.

 

I currently (consistently) use two zooms, this one and the 70-200is. I do have several others, but they see little use now. This has largely replaced the 24-70's; 16-35 and some of the use of the longer 70-200is.

 

Merry Christmas. D.

[mozammel]

I've been using this one for most of the time during my Wedding coverages. On the other end, I currently rely on my Sigma 70-200 2.8 one.

 

Pros: Fast focus, and good handling. Contrast/Sharpness of the images are quite acceptable even wide open.

 

Cons: Haven't found any particular one yet.

[ptucci]

Great question. I was sold on the 24-105, but after comparing sharpness and contrast to the 24-70 on www.the-digital-picture.com, I think I'll get the 24-70. Did the reviewer have a bad copy of the 24-105? A few posts below this one ("For those who use the 85 F/1.2 L"), there is a guy who says that 24-105 is fine but not stellar.

I find it interesting that some who have both the 24-105 and the 24-70 use the 24-105 more.

What to do, what to do?

[ptucci]

Somebody recently said that you'd get shallower DOF with the 24-105 than with the 24-70 at the long ends. I checked that out with f/Calc and found:

 

105mm f4 at 20' gives DOF from 19.2' to 20.9', or 1.74' deep

 

70mm f2.8 at 13.3' gives DOF from 12.7' to 13.9', or 1.22' deep

 

So, at a given magnification, the 24-70 will blur the background more, but you'll have to get closer.

[grant g]

I love using this lens...and for weddings and events, it has replaced my 24-70 100%.

 

The only real negative to me compared to my 24-70 is that it is not very flare resistant. But it's not like I *try* to shoot into direct sun, so that's no big deal to me.

 

But to the post above about the bokeh...DOF does not equal background blur disc size. I'd rather have 105/4IS over 70/2.8 any day. In reality, if I am reaching for a portrait lens...it'll be the 85/1.8, 135/2 or 70-200/2.8IS.

[ptucci]

I'm glad to hear that you prefer the 24-105 to the 24-70. I've ordered the 24-105.

 

I didn't mention bokeh in my post though. Good bokeh or bad, it is often important to have the ability to strongly defocus distracting elements in the background, no?

[rtrace]

Peter, yes f/2.8 will allow you to get shallower DOF, but it's not that huge over f/4. I guess the pros of the longer focals (70-105) outweigh the small cons (distortion and vignetting at 24mm - 28mm, f/4, more flare, etc.) for many, since 70mm is not a good focal length for portrait work (unless on a crop camera), which is a good part of weddings and events. Not only that, but the lens is 1/3 lighter too which is no joke. I used to have the 24-70 and it was a brick. I also hated how it extended out so much. The 24-105 is less so - and when you use it for hours on end, it counts. Those who say ergonomics are not that important, don't shoot so much where they would realize that they are IMO.

 

Bogdan

[grant g]

"So, at a given magnification, the 24-70 will blur the background more, but you'll have to get closer."

 

"I didn't mention bokeh in my post though. Good bokeh or bad, it is often important to have the ability to strongly defocus distracting elements in the background, no?"

 

Peter,

 

I know you weren't specifically talking about bokeh, but in my mind, background blur and bokeh go hand-in-hand. In practice, I find it easier to defocus background elements with the longer 105mm over the 70mm. In your example, say the distracting background elements are 15 feet behind the subject. With the 70mm the background is 28.3' away and with the 105mm it would be 35' away for the same composition. That's when 105/4 has the advantage. With the background at or near infinity, the two are roughly equal IMO regarding blur disc size.

[er1]

Bogdan, I used to shoot with the 24-70 as well. I could not agree more with you. On a lengthy & tediously photo shoot it felt like I had a brick attached to my camera. Just another heavy reason to join the 24-105 group : )