24-105mm f4 IS for 400d

[steven_martin]

I have a 400d with the 18-55mm kit lens which has just broke (it was a friend's

old lens so there is no warranty). I didn't like the quality anyway, especially

compared to the 50mm f1.8 which I also own. I have debated long and hard over

getting one of the following:

 

EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

 

EF-S 17-85mm f/4.0-5.6 IS USM

 

EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM

 

I'm leaning towards the 24-105 at the moment for the following reasons:

 

It's an L lens (the 17-55 is a lot of money for a non-L),

it has the longest focal length of the 3 (I have missed a number of shots of the

kids with the kit lens because it was not long enough).

Although I lose out on the wide end I can use it with my 500n film body if I'm

going somewhere where I know I'm going to want a wider angle.

 

I mainly take photos of my kids and landscapes/castles etc. Next year I will

get either a 5D or a 10-22mm lens for the landscapes, depending on how much cash

I have at the time.

 

Do my thoughts seem logical?

[robin_sibson1]

Yes.

 

Provided you don't mind the limitation at the wide end, and you seem to have thought that through, the 24~105 is an outstanding lens on a 1.6-factor body. When I'm using the 40D as my walkaround camera, that and the 10~22 are the combination I carry, although the 24~105 spends most of its time on my 5D. For use on a 1.6-factor body, get the EW-83J hood designed for the 17~55/2.8IS.

[bueh]

<blockquote><i>EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM</i></blockquote><p>

Drawbacks: Heavy, expensive, visible distortion, focal range similar to the kit lens.

 

<br> 

<blockquote><i>EF-S 17-85mm f/4.0-5.6 IS USM</i></blockquote><p>

Drawbacks: Very Slow, heavy, expensive, visible distortion, image quality so-so.

 

<br> 

<blockquote><i>EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM

</i></blockquote><p>

Drawbacks: Slow, very heavy, very expensive, visible distortion, limited at the wide end (on 1.6 crop-factor cameras).

<p>

<br> 

If you like the image quality of the EF 50mm f/1.8, why not follows this path and get a couple of used prime lenses? They are much faster, easier and cheaper to replace should one fail/fall, and offer good to excellent image quality. A set of several lenses is also often less expensive than one high-end zoom, and while they lack the convenience of a zoom range, they might get you into previsualizing your shots, choosing the right lens, and taking better pictures.

<p>

Or if you really want <abbr title="Image Stabilization">IS</abbr>, just get the latest version (III) of the EF-S kit zoom, it has this handy feature and is not too expensive.

[fmueller]

If you do get the 5D the 24-105 is a good investment. On a crop factor body I find it to be an inconvenient range of focal length, but that's a very personal matter, and you might feel differently.

 

I upgraded from the kit zoom lens to a 17-85, and found it actually less sharp. I am hoping that it was just my lens, and have just exchanged it, but I haven't had enough experience with the new one to say for sure. The 17-55 is expensive for an EFs lens, and since I am also dreaming of upgrading to FF - although in the distant future - I have been reluctant to spend the money. Also, I really like the reach of the 17-85, and would miss that in the 17-55 - my kids are 8 and 9 and very fast! ;-)

 

Why, oh why doesn't Canon make a EFs 15-65/4 IS that is as good as the 10-22 or 17-55? A huge part of the attraction to FF for me right now is that I would be able to use a mid range zoom that starts at 24mm equivalent. There is nothing out there right now - not even third party!

[beauh44]

Maybe it's just me but I don't find the 24-105mm "very heavy". I guess because I'm used to lugging around the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS.

 

My mom used to carry around a Rolleiflex with flash 40 years ago and I suspect that weighed less than a 400D + 24-105mm.

 

I suspect I wouldn't find the EF-S 17-55mm IS heavy either and if you don't anticipate getting a FF camera anytime soon it'd be a heckuva lot faster in low light. OTOH your style of photography may or may not lend itself to the longer rather than the wider lens. Good luck!

[bueh]

Yeah, I confused the weight of the 24-105, sorry... it is indeed only "heavy", and a good carry-around choice -- if you don't mind the other drawbacks.

<p>

And with weight I mean the subjective comfort... large zooms are very front-heavy and are quite a strain to hand-hold and carry around, but this may not be an issue for everyone. And surely a well-balanced <abbr title="twin-lens reflex camera">TLR</abbr> is more easier to use despite their metal construction (except for those Mamiyas).

[nilangsu mahanty]

The weights are as follows:

 

17-85 mm f/4-5.6 IS : 475 g, 17-55 mm f/2.8 IS : 645 g, 24-105 mm f/4 IS L : 670 g

 

I don't think the 25 g extra weight of the last lens makes it "very heavy". I doubt whether the weight is a factor that the OP is considering. The main issue seeems to be the focal length range.

 

Just a thought.

[sutejok]

24-70 2.8 L is another great option

[gdanmitchell]

Before I went FF, I used this lens on a crop body. It was my most-used lens. It covers a lot

of ground, produces excellent quality images, incorporates IS for those handheld low-

light shots, isn't overly large/heavy for such a lens.

 

My only caveats would be:

 

- 24mm is not very wide at the wide end. I _needed_ another wider lens to complement

the 24-105. YMMV.

 

- While I find that the f/4 max aperture is fine for me, some might need something wider.

 

Dan

[steven_martin]

Thanks for the suggestions. Dan, how useful was the IS for low light? Did you use it in a church for example?

[KenPapai]

"24-70 2.8 L is another great option"

 

I agree -- it is the best option here and it is Super Duper Heavy based on the above scales.

[bob_osullivan]

I innitially strugled over getting this lens because I had a sigma 17-70 and I thought the overlap was a bit redundant. But I needed the IS for theatre work.

 

I'm glad I did. I used to use the 17-70 as my all around walk around lens. But I'm using the 24-105 more and more for this purpose.

 

I find it's easier to back up from a subject you do have access to, than it is to get closer to a subject you don't have access to. So, I don't miss the wide end as much as I thought. I got the sigma 10-20 for when I really need super wide as well.

 

The IQ is great, IS is great, focus is almost instantneous. Go for it.

[gdanmitchell]

<p>Steven asked: "Dan, how useful was the IS for low light? Did you use it in a church for example?"

 

<p>IS is very useful if the subject isn't moving too much. I have successfully used the lens in situations where you might not think that an f/4 lens would do the

trick. I wrote more about this <a href="http://www.gdanmitchell.com/2007/03/23/another-approach-to-shooting-indoor-natural-light/">here</a>. The

following photo is an example:

 

<p><img src="http://www.gdanmitchell.com/images/JamoFiddler20070331.jpg">

 

<p>There are trade-offs involved with almost all lens choices. For example, there are situations in which a large aperture prime could be a better choice, though

with such a lens you sacrifice focal length versatility of a zoom. I'm willing to shoot at higher ISO values - but there can be more noise. (The real question regarding

noise is whether it matters, and that depends upon how the photos will be used.)

 

<p>Dan

[steven_martin]

Thanks Dan. That picture came out really well. Nice website by the way.

[William Michael]

>>> Do my thoughts seem logical? <<<

 

Yes.

 

And, the next logical step is to consider the advantages of a dual format system as opposed to a mass of lenses system, which, it seems, is in your long term plan

 

In that regard, and considering your need for FL, the 24 to 105 seems a good option.

 

However, one point not covered: `photographing kids` implies kids moving around, playing?

 

In that regard, if not already, consider the value of F4 for freezing subject motion in lower light circumstances.

 

Therefore the 24 to 70 F2.8L figures, but the 70mm might not be long enough, and the IS for the 24 to 105 might have benefits for you, which have not specifically articulated.

 

Another option (if a larger aperture is useful), apart from all primes as mentioned, is the 24 to 105 and an 85 F1.8 or 135F2L to compliment the 50mmF1.8 and thus supplement at two points the zoom range at very fast apertures.

 

All these lenes look towards a dual format option, also.

 

WW

[jimstrutz]

The 17-55 f/2.8 IS is arguably the best normal zoom lens made today for crop frame cameras. But if you are thinking about buying a full frame camera in the near future, it makes no sense to buy an EF-S lens that you will not be able to use with it. With that in mind, of the options you listed, only the 24-105 f/4L remains. But then it comes down to deciding if the extra stop of the 24-70L is worth more than the IS and extra range of the 24-105L. That's sounds like a personal decision.

[steve_dunn2]

<cite>It's an L lens (the 17-55 is a lot of money for a non-L)</cite>

 

<p>The 24-105 has more L-ness than the 17-55 in the areas of build quality and weather sealing; the 17-55 is built to high-end consumer standards rather than pro standards, and is not sealed. But optically, by all accounts the 17-55 is of L quality, which shouldn't be surprising because it uses fancy-pants optical technologies which used to be enough to qualify a lens as an L lens.</p>

 

<p>Are professional build quality and sealing important enough to you to disqualify the 17-55? If so, fine; for some people, one or both of those are legitimate reasons to choose or avoid a particular lens. But if not, then forget this notion that the 17-55 is awfully expensive for a non-L, because you've ruled out the only two criteria by which it falls short of L lenses.</p>

 

<p>If I stick with 1.6-crop, I plan on eventually replacing my 17-40/4L USM with the 17-55. I have (and have had) other Canon EF lenses of high-end consumer build quality and have had zero problems with them, and I don't need a sealed lens (no consumer EOS body is sealed).</p>