Hard Decision on EF 24-105- Warranted?

[scott sanford]

A current photographic "mentor" of mine suggests I'd be better off with a 24-

105 f4/L. My current line up on a 30D is a 70-200 f/2.8L USM IS, EF 17-40

f/4, 50 f/1.4, and 85 f/1.8. I shoot mostly landscapes, outdoor scenes...

often in low light conditions.

 

Does anyone have any advice given my current arrangement? (If $$$ were no

issue, I'd pick up every lense that struck my fancy--but I'm not under this

assumption).

 

Been obviously VERY happy with the 70-200 2.8 (not likely to give this one up

in my lifetime) and 17-40, and aside from not having to swap lenses as often,

I'm not entirely convinced the 24-105 is really going to be that much added

value.

In lower light, I really appreciate the faster 70-200, especially with the IS.

 

Thanks

[dogbert]

If you are happy with what you have got, why get an extra lens? Personally for travel, I use the 24-105 and also a Sigma 10-20 and am quite happy with this combo. I sometime throw in a Canon 70-210 for good measure but don't use it that much. But just because this suits my style doesn't mean it will suit you.

[gdanmitchell]

I absolutely love my 24-105 for landscapes on my crop sensor camera. This lens and the

17-40 make a great pair. They are my core lenses - I use them more than anything else.

 

If your subjects are at all like mine, the f/4 aperture shouldn't be much of an issue since we

generally shoot landscapes at smaller apertures anyway and use a tripod.

 

I also own the 70-200mm (f.4 version) and the 50mm f/1.4 which occasionally use for

landscape work if I'm travelling heavy.

[peter_foiles2]

I think the 24-105 is a great lens for my 5D, but not so hot for my 20D. Your current setup looks pretty good to me.

[steve_dunn2]

<p>What does your "mentor" say when you ask to understand the reasons behind this suggestion?</p>

[sheldonnalos]

I have roughly the same setup (20D, 17-40L, 35L, 50 1.4, 85 1.8, 24-105L) and find that the 24-105 doesn't see that much compared to the fast primes.

 

However I shoot mainly people, indoors, low light without flash - so my purposes are different than yours. Outdoors for all around shooting, the 24-105 is a great choice. If you don't need a longer lens, it would certainly be lighter than packing the 70-200.

[jimstrutz]

I think your money would be better spent on Canons 10-22. Landscapes and outdoor scenes don't usually require fast lens changes, so I can't see that the 24-105 gives you anything you don't have now.

 

The combination of the 10-22 and 24-105 could be sweet, but since you have the 70-200, the 10-22 and 24-70 f/2.8L combo might be better. Then you could sell me that slow dog 17-40. :)

[images_in_light_north_west]

I have a 30D 17-40 f4,24-105 f4, 50 f1.4, 300f4 and will soon add the 70-200 f2.8. I love my 24-105 f4 it is very sharp and very versatile, I use it a lot for landscape panoramas, would not be with out it.

[scott sanford]

His primary reason behind the 24-105 reccomendation is because he sees me swap lenses so frequently between the 70-200 and the 17-40. He also knows (as I do) how good of a lens it is-- only thing I don't like is that it has an extendable barrel (probably a minor issue?). I have so much invested already, I just feel that this one might be a bit redundant, but I see that many others use it as a core lens--perhaps I could part ways with the 17-40....

My issue with the 10-22 is the obvious one-- doesn't work on full frame, which might be down the road shortly.

[delwyn_ching]

You're good with what you have. The 10-22 may offer you some wide angle, especially with the 1.6 cropping factor of the 30D. I have a 20D with the 17-40L and 24-105L and I use the 17-40L most of the time when I shoot landscape.

[mike_broderick]

When swapping lenses between the 17-40 and the 70-200, are you regularly swapping to get the 28-40 range of the 17-40? (My suspicion is that you aren't, but that you want the wider range of the lens). Contrariwise, when you swap BACK to the 70-200, are you usually going after the 70-90 range of the 70-200 lens? If those aren't what you are going after, I'm not sure you'll find the 24-105 saves you that many lens changes. The 24-105 is generally held to be only mediocre below 28 mm or so. My copy also is only "okay" in the 90-105 range, though that problem isn't as generally talked about.

 

To my mind, the 24-105 isn't wide enough to be a general-use lens on a 1.6 crop camera (though I love it for walking around without a tripod on full-frame). If you don't use wide angles much, then you might be okay.

 

Incidentally, if you are shooting landscapes, I'd suggest you try using a tripod, especially if you are shooting in low light (your OP implies you aren't, since you like the speed and IS on the longer lens so much). I'd say that's more improtant than a new lens, you won't believe how much it will help.

 

Last item--My general philosophy is DO NOT buy a new lens unless I'm convinced I can't live without it. Sounds like you are not at that state on the 24-105.

[anthony_hicks]

<i>

"The 24-105 is generally held to be only mediocre below 28 mm or so."

</i>

<p>

Really? I aspire to buying one to replace my Tamron 28-75, but this doesn't exactly fill me with confidence...

[pjmeade]

The 24-105 sat on my 20D all the time, until I moved it to a 5D. It's a very fine lens and don't feel there was too much overlap with the 17-40, which I also own.

 

Providing you are not trying to shoot fast moving abjects in poor lighting conditions, I think it's a splendid choice. The right lens for landscapes is whatever length gives you the shot you want.

 

My 2p

 

Pete

[jeremy_podolski]

You own my dream line-up of lenses, so only go for the 24-105 if you want to make a charitable donation of your current hardware to me :-)

 

Seriously, since you have nearly every focal length between 24 and 105 covered with quality glass, the only reason to switch that I can think of would be convenience. If you currently feel that you are making a lot of inconvenient lens swaps, then it might be a worthwhile buy. Otherwise, it seems like overkill.

[yakim_peled1]

>> His primary reason behind the 24-105 reccomendation is because he sees me swap lenses so frequently between the 70-200 and the 17-40.

 

I have the latter two and would not even consider trading them for a 24-105. Personally, I find no problem in swapping.

 

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[sergey_oboguev]

I would not comment on comparing functionality, but just make the comment on the sharpness issue.

 

I recently purchased 24-105/4 for the coming trip that would involve hand-held photography. Since the lens is known to exhibit significant sample to sample variation, I went to the local store and shot two samples (they declined to allow me to try more than two). There was, indeed, quite a noticeable difference between the two I tried and I ended up getting the sharper one. However even this better sample is not on a par with my old trusty 28-70/2.8 at pretty much all apertures and focal distances. Thus I am retaining 28-70 (and 16-35) for the situation when camera can be properly stabilized and intend to use 24-105 only for hand-held shooting.

 

Thus, I would not consider 24-105 as a prime candidate for landscape lens; certainly not without trying a number of samples first and finding one that might be satisfactory.

 

This said, I was trying it on full-frame sensor body, and the difference in sharpness in corners is more pronounced than in the center. On 30D, significance of the differences may be less; but then again since you are shooting landscapes it is likely that in time you will end up with full-frame sensor body.

[jon_austin]

Don't buy anything (not just lenses) just because someone else tells you to. It's your money, and you know what you need / want.

 

That said, your lens collection is identical to mine, except that my 50mm is the f/2.5 macro, and I do have the 24-105. The 24-105 lives on my 20D 80% of the time.

 

But then, your usage may be different from mine (and your "mentor's").

[scott sanford]

Thanks for all the great input. I'm holding steady and will evaluate a potential 24-105 purchase later, and I'll get my hands on one to really see whether it's going to be the better option based on my specific uses. Have no doubt it's a good lens.

Thanks again, much appreciated.