canon xs and 24-105 L

[rebeca_grabek]

<p> Are these two a good combo? I understand the crop factor, This is the range that I usually shoot. Is it going to be to heavy for my camera?<br>

I had the canon 18-200, as the old saying goes, one lens cannot do everything well. So I returned it. The weight was ok for me.<br>

I usually just shoot pictures of my daughter and rthings around my neighborhood. I would also like to take it to disney since we go twice a year.<br>

I have seen alot of things written about ff cameras, but not the rebel xs, so I was hoping for your imput<br>

thanks!</p>

[andy_szeto]

<p>That is a very good lens. I've used it on a 40D on a couple of trips. Although it is not wide enough for my shooting (church interiors), it is very good otherwise: rugged, IS, constant f4, weather sealed (with a UV filter on) and not too heavy. Image quality is very good too. If this is the zoom range you use the most, it would be a very good combination. Hope this helps.</p>

[DickArnold]

<p>rebeca. If you are doing family and Disneyland I personally think the 24-105 is overkill. I have three L lenses and have done professional work in my own business. However I also have an XTi(earlier version, size and wt. of the XS). I have an 18-55 IS kit lens for that body. The camera and lens only weigh 1.7 lbs. Perfect IMO for family pictures. As you progress, I believe, you come more and more to want something wider than 24mm on a crop body. If you do a little cost benefit analysis 150 dollars to a thousand dollars makes a lot of sense. You can cover a longer lens and then some before you get to the cost of the 24-105. Now if you want to do professional or semi-professional work and want to do a high level of post processing, or do big prints then the 24-105 is fine. </p>

[DickArnold]

<p>I also have a 5D for big prints and use with my L lenses. These combos are heavy. I do not think the incremental benefit is that that great for your use compared to the cost of the 24-105.</p>

[luis_g]

<p> The XS/1000D/Kiss is a good amateur level DSLR. It's gotten good reviews, with its main shortcomings being the small buffer, which makes shooting repeat shots in RAW slow, and its JPEGs are on the overprocessed side, though Canon gives the user a lot of options on that score. It also tends to overexpose in high contrast situations. The 24-105 on that body, gives you a 38mm at the wide end. That's going to put you at a disadvantage indoors. It's just not wide enough. You're right that no lens can do everything, but giving up the wide end when you only have one lens is costly. You may want to consider the Canon 17-55 or Tamron 17-50 both are f/2.8s, which makes them more flexible in low light, but you do give up a bit at the long end, lighter, and less bulky.</p>

<p> </p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Although I no longer use a cropped sensor camera, I did use the 24-105 on one for a while and it worked great. If you are really sure you won't miss wide angle coverage (which this lens really does not provide on crop) there is really no functional downside to putting it on your camera.</p>

<p>The "lens to big for your camera" business is essentially a photographic urban myth. Don't give it any credence.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>"Is it going to be to heavy for my camera?"</p>

<p>Yes, this does not make any sense. Any camera is just a little blip along for the ride on one of the longer telephotos. None of them "balance" any better: you just the hold the combination somewhere near the centre of gravity, typically near the mid-point of the lens.</p>

[DickArnold]

<p>I agree with Dan. I have very effectively used a three pound 100-400L on the XTi. When extended with hood it is fourteen inches long. I did, however, have to buy a battery grip so I could get a firm handhold on that little body with the big lens on it. But I think the X bodies make extremely good pictures for their size and cost and I see no significant limitations in their use with upscales lenses. My comment about weight is about the permanent crick in my neck from lugging heavy equipment around for years and my 5d and two of my lenses weigh in at about four and a half pounds apiece or more. </p>

[rebeca_grabek]

<p>I have the 18-55 is kit lens, 50 1.8 and the 28-105 II. I very rearly use the 18-55 because I do not like the range.<br>

I love the range of the 28-105, but it has dust and the lens is pretty scratched.<br>

I returned the canon 18-200, so now I have the credit to buy another lens. So since I like the range of the 28-105 II, I was thinking of upgradeing, Thats why I was asking about the 24-105 L</p>

[DickArnold]

<p>You can get a 28-105 II for about $220 new at B&H, if that will fill your needs. I have one and for your stated uses it would certainly fulfill my needs. It's not very heavy at about one pound. My bias is weigth versus required performance. </p>

[wgpinc]

<p>Rebeca,<br>

If you like the range of the 24-105mm (38mm to 168mm equiv) on your camera the lens produces very high quality images. I use my 24mm-105mm on my XSi sometimes. It isn't too big but it does have some heft to it. Best way to do it is to try it on the camera in a store if you can and see if it works for you. Good luck!</p>

[eric merrill]

<p>Rebeca:</p>

<p>Yes, the 24-105 produces excellent results with 1.6x crop bodies, like the Canon Rebels.</p>

<p>The 17-55/2.8 IS also is a great lens for 1.6x crop bodies. Slightly cheaper than the 24-105. About the same size. A stop faster, though. I'd recommend going with that, with the idea of later adding a 70-200 to really give you more reach.</p>

<p>That said, I bought a Rebel a few years ago to go on vacation, paired with the 24-105. Couldn't have been happier. </p>

<p>Eric</p>

[geoffm]

<p>Here's another very happy user of the 24-105 on a 350D (?XT)</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>If you like the 28-105mm FL and you are already happy with than on a cropped sensor camera and you don't mind the cost of the 24-105...</p>

<p>... it should work great for you.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[rebeca_grabek]

<p>I just ordered It from adaroma, display condition with warrenty for 889, with the credit I had from my canon 18-200, It only cost me about 300. It should be here on thursday and I will let you know how I like it!</p>

[dogbert]

<p>I use it all the time on my 450D works great. I do combine it for travel with the EF-S 10-22 for wide angle stuff.<br>

It probably wouldn't be my first choice as a Disneyland lens, due to its weight.</p>

[markonestudios]

Have a blast! It is a superb lens, I have one which I often use on my XTi.