Wanting to step up to an 'L'....

[jim_cancil5]

I'm now using an EF 28-135 f.3.5-5.6 on my 10D ...and got all excited about the reviews of the 24/70

f2.8 L ..that is 'till I came upon the review for the 24-105 f.4 L I don't shoot indoors ..nothing

unusual ..not as a Pro, etc. So - what do you think? Thanks in advance.

 

Jim

Salisbury MD

 

 

....actually, I've got one decent shot to share: http://wetstuff.com/ideas/court1.jpg

 

Thanks for all your postings - even if most are well over my head.

[uriah]

Jump on the bandwagon and go for it! You can't beat the optical quality and build of an L lens.

 

I was stressed out when I bought my 70-200 2.8L IS. The price tag made me wonder if I was making a good decision or not. Upon viewing the photos I can now say I don't care about the price anymore. I'm now willing to pay the higher prices to get that kind of quality in my photographs.

 

The build quality is great too. IMO you can tell a huge difference between an L and a consumer/entry level lens.

 

Good luck! Get and don't look back. You'll thank yourself and Canon later.

[mars c]

Get the lens, It's worth every penny. That's what I think.

[delwyn_ching]

The 24-70 is a bit sharper than 24-105. I have both and the 24-70 now sits on my 5D most of the time except when I travel and want a single travel lens which is also lighter. I also bring the 50 f/1.4 and a flash when air traveling.

 

You won't be disappointed by either but looks like for your needs, the 24-105 will do the job.

[johnson_d.]

What's wrong with your EF 28-135 f.3.5-5.6? Are you expecting that shots like the one posted will be dramatically better if taken with a $1200 lens? Are you breaking a lot of inexpensive lenses? I'd be willing to guess that what you have now is just fine. I say stick with what you've got.

[sal_lad]

That's a beautiful car, Jim.

[gdanmitchell]

Both lenses are outstanding pieces of equipment that can produce excellent images in the

hands of skillful users. Trying to decide between them on the basis of "quality" is a

hopeless task. One is not "better" than the other in any objective, absolute sense.

 

There are functional differences between these lenses that may make one or the other

more suitable for your specific photographic needs. First step is to analyze your needs;

then consider the feature sets of the two lenses and determine if one matches your needs

better than the other.

 

Dan

[phyrpowr]

I went from the 28-135 to the 24-105, and am glad I did. It's a long term investment, sharp all across the board, more usable at widest ap, nice to have the extra on the wide end, and I don't miss the extra on the tele end (questionable if it was actually 135)

 

That said, the improvements are only incremental, no quantum leap, and at f/8 the diff is very small indeed. On a big print, 13x19, a real human being, i.e., not one of us nutcases, probably would never see a difference. Unless you are seeing some real problems with yours, or need the extra 4mm wide, or the f/4 at 105, I see no need to trade

[beauh44]

Hi Jim, I think Larry's made some excellent points. A really good photographer can get nice shots with a somewhat "mediocre" lens. Conversely a not-so-good photographer can get some awful shots with "L" glass.

 

I have quite a few "L" lenses but lately shoot many portraits with my 85mm f/1.8 and 50mm 1.4 - both of which can take great shots, are sharp as a tack and don't cost an arm and a leg and are quite lightweight.

 

However, after having said all that, believe it or not there *is* a difference in "L" glass and I think Canon summed up what "L" stands for quite well - it's a "Luxury" but not a necessity.

 

I once did a very informal and admittedly unscientific test to compare my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS lens (*very* expensive and heavy!) with the (relatively inexpensive and light) 28-135mm f/3.4-5.6 IS lens. It wasn't even close in the sharpness department with the "L" glass winning easily. But the "L" lens cost over a thousand dollars more than the other so it shouldn't be close.

 

In addition to the optics, many "L" lenses are weather sealed and simply have a better build. In some cases - like very long lenses - "L"'s are all ya' got. For example there is no Canon EF 500mm non-L lens that I'm aware of. So if you shoot birds and want that focal length, "L" is all there is - at least from Canon.

 

Anyway if this photography endeavor is pretty important to you, well, life's short and ya' only go around once. Sometimes it's OK to splurge.

 

A WRX STi has a zero-to-sixty time that's very close to some models of Porsche. If they were close to the same price, I know which one I'd choose! If we equate the quickness of the two cars to the sharpness of two lenses, one "L" and one not, they're pretty close. But some people pay that extra for the engineering - and yes, the luxury - of the Porsche. To many it's not worth it but for lots of others it is. To each their own. Good luck!

[damian_tinsley]

Well, each to their own and all that.

 

I love my 24-105L, having had an incautious moment involving a credit card and too much exposure (heh heh - geddit?) to quality equipment in B&H last year on a holiday trip to NY.

 

I'm glad I didn't get the 28-135, although there is no way I could justify spending the extra in cost benefit terms. Simply put, if you want it, get it. If that Posche is yours Jim, cash is probably not the issue, so go for the feel-good factor!

 

All the best

[jim_cancil5]

Gentlemen: I appreciate your efforts to respond to one of those questions; "Is this blue

shirt ..or this blue shirt.. better?"

 

Johnson & Friedman are certainly correct. I've made a living with sewing machines and

canvas for years ..and you can give me a Korean copy of a German machine ...and I can

make you something decent. I found in surfing; a better board didn't make me any better

at all! Friedman, I believe you about your friend - I'm your surfing example.

 

Hooker: It's interesting. I don't really care that I can outrun ricerbikes and overclocked

Mitsu's. I was fortunate enough to be able to buy this car without leveraging anything and

simply wanted a fine piece of machinery. It replaces a boat at a dock...and my wife can

drop-the-lines and leave the dock anytime she wishes. She drives it more than I. We still

have our Boxster ..and from a pure driving expirence - or organic feel - the Boxster has it

over the 997S. It was/is simply too small for two adults to plan going farther than

perhaps two hundred miles.

 

Tinsley: Interestingly enough, having the cash makes you appreciate it all the more..and

buy harder. In my opinion, one of the worst things to have is a 'line of credit' or a pocket

full of plastic. We Americans could learn a lot from 'those people who live above the

store'.

 

Guys: I'll get one - t'other. I'll partially offset the cost by selling the 28-135. Sharpness

is the goal - tho' I know a prime would probably be better in that regard - I want that

slight versitility gain of a short tele. Again, thanks for your kind input.

 

j i m

[m_barbu1]

IMO, you can always use the 24-70 at f/4, but you can never use the 24-105 at f/2.8. This, alone, would be the reason why I wouldn't get the 24-105. I know you say that you never shoot indoors, but are there any other reasons why you would want a fast lens (in particular, an f/2.8 lens vs f/4)? If there aren't, then you should consider the 24-105, specifically for the versatility of having a zoom in that focal length range. However, having said that, I think you'll find a much larger leap in quality if you upgrade from your 10D to a 30D or 5D (the latter being a full frame body, which will change how your lenses "seem to behave", because of that).

[hubert_fok]

Agree with all of the above comments. But I would guess that you bought the Porsche (and chose the Carrera S, not the Boxter) because of its status symbol, a statement of wealth and taste, and as a collector's item of superb engineering. It is not likely that you bought it because you have the skill of a NASCAR driver, or that this is the only car that is fast enough to get you to ER to save some lives. And you care to show us the photo of your car (I'm sure you have other good photo shots), it tells me that you like to show off and wow the others. Both lenses you mention are items of superb engineering, with optics superior to what you have right now. Doing daylight shots, you won't really need the wide aperture (unless you want the bokeh effect while doing portraits) or the IS. Both lenses have a red circular line at the front of the lens, telling other photographers that you have a L lens. But I think that Canon and Nikon are more like Mercedes and Lexus, they have superb engineering and reliable, but you see them everywhere because a lot of people can still afford them. If you really want to wow the others, the Hasselblad is the Porsche of the cameras.

[beauh44]

<I>It was/is simply too small for two adults to plan going farther than perhaps two hundred miles.</i><P>

 

Cancil: I'd certainly agree having owned one of Mr. Porsche's fine automobiles in the past, as well as a WRX.<P>

 

I drive what I'd have to call a "station wagon" now: A Subie Outback. Not a lick of "sport" in it but as the old VW ads used to say: "It's ugly but it gets you there."

[mars c]

"In my opinion, one of the worst things to have is a 'line of credit' or a pocket full of plastic. "

 

I Agree. Makes me think of cancelling my card.

[m_barbu1]

<p><i>But I think that Canon and Nikon are more like Mercedes and Lexus, they have superb engineering and reliable, but you see them everywhere because a lot of people can still afford them.</i></p><p>Mercedes isn't known for reliability anymore, but I digress...</p>

[damian_tinsley]

Perhaps I should have been a little less emphatic about the credit card in my post - I don't advocate the champagne lifestyle on a beer income using a 'flexible friend' (UK slang for plastic fantastic in case you don't get the same ads we do here...)

 

But if you can afford the good stuff and want it, even if you don't actually need it (and that's true for just about everybody that doesn't earn a living from their camera), then go for it. Be happy and remember you can't take it with you, not even if you sew pockets into a shroud!

 

All the best,

 

Damian