Is the Canon 24-105 L lens worth the price?

[gregory_mclemor]

<p>Hello<br>

I am going to buy the Canon 50d and I want to buy a very nice lens. This will be my first really nice lens. I can spend up to $ 1000 at most. I want to know what is a good lens to buy to start my camera lens set?</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>Define "worth the price" and I may be able to tell you!</p>

<p>The 24-105/4L is an excellent all round lens and there isn't anything better or cheaper that does the same job. It's sort of a bit wasted on a 50D because it's a full frame lens and 24mm isn't that wide on APS-C.</p>

<p>You might look at the EF-S 17-55/2.8IS if you're sticking with an APS-C sensor camera for a while.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>New its about $1200 so its a bit over your budget. I used it on a 40D and it was good but its much better on full frame. In fact on full frame its really the perfect travel do it all lens. If you plan to stick with that body I would go with something that starts in the 15-18mm range depending on your shooting style, needs etc. Many on here will tell you to go with the 17-55 2.8 which is a fine lens right about at your budget.</p>

[steve_dunn2]

<p>Pretty much what the others said: it's a top-notch lens (optics, mechanics, build quality, weather sealing: all of these are up to professional standards), but it lacks wide-angle coverage on a 1.6-crop body like your 50D. If you don't need wide-angle coverage, it's an outstanding choice.</p>

 

<p>The 17-55 is also a top-notch lens and is a better fit for general-purpose use for most people. Its build quality is high-end consumer rather than pro, and it lacks the weather sealing of the 24-105. But optically, it's a match for Canon's L zooms (i.e. pro lenses).</p>

 

<p>I have both lenses. I see nothing in Canon's lineup which would be a better choice for me (and, in fact, each of these replaced another Canon lens which was previously in my kit). I'm not familiar with third-party lens options, nor do I care to look, as these two lenses make me very happy; therefore, I'm afraid I can't point you toward any third-party options which might be worth considering.</p>

[wgpinc]

<p>A few things to consider; the 24-105mm is 4.0, at 1.6 factor it is equivalent to 38.4mm by 168, the 17-55mm is 2.8 (both have IS), equiv to 27.2mm by 88mm. I have both and use the 17-55mm 2.8 more than the 24-105mm 4.0 except for pet photography where the extra length is helpful. The 17-55mm has just slightly better image quality and of course the 2.8 is better in low light. They both are about the same size and weight and balance well on my 40D. You can save some money and get good images with the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 (either the original or the new VC version), enough to maybe afford the very fine Canon 85mm 1.8 lens. Good luck!</p>

[py-photography]

<p>For me it was worth every penny, the sharpness and contrast of the lens was a step up from the 28-135 IS, that I had. However I have found the 24 a little long a little better then the 28 of course. Since I started out with a crop body(Rebel XTi). I've never known FF, so in reality I don't know what I may or may not be missing.<br>

The IS has helped my get more keepers in low light. ie shutter speeds I would never have been able to achieve without the IS. I was thinking of FF, until the 7D came out, and now with the 7D as my body, I might never go FF. The 7D has all the bells and whistles I was wanting from a camera body. <br>

If you want to shoot wide angle, I think I would look at the 17-55 which is also a great piece of glass.</p>

 

[mark_ethridge]

<p>It will all come down to what you like to shoot. I use a 24-105L as my all around lens, but I have the EF-S 10-22 if I need to go wide. For me, the 24-105 is the range that I use about 80% of the time. At f/4, it isn't particularly fast, but IS helps with that in some cases. Image quality is amazing and I absolutely love mine.</p>

[chris_clarke3]

<p>Get the 17-40. Under $1000. I didn't really like the 24-105 on my 20D but it's pretty useful on my 5D2.</p>

<p>Much better focal range on a crop and if you ever go FF you have a great UWA lens.</p>

[jody_stowitts]

<p>I'd get the fast 50 1.4 prime and the 28-135 zoom and save c.400 bucks. You'll probably end up going FF some day and you can keep the 50 prime and unload the zoom for a better "L" lens. Or, get a 50 and 85 prime now and forget the zooms. When you maybe go FF in the future you'll already have two good lenses to give you the image quality and higher resolution that these FF's can gobble up. The aforementioned of course, if you don't need / want the wide end. </p>

[chris_clarke3]

<p>Jody, I think the 50 is too long on a crop, a 35 would be a better FL and give him more of a 'normal' lens.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>For use on a full frame body, I'd recommend without hesitation that you pick up a 24-105/4 L (as well as a 50/1.4 for lower light and shallower depth of field). That zoom is my standard walkabout lens, and I find it to be just about perfect for general use.</p>

<p>However, on a crop body, the 24-105 may be a bit long and not quite wide enough for general use, but that entirely depends on what and how you are shooting. The effective focal length range of the EF-S 17-55/2.8 on a crop body is relatively close to that of the 24-105 on a full frame body, so that may be the lens for you. But then again, you might want more reach and less width. Ditto for primes. While a 35mm lens on a crop body would approximate the "normal" perspective, perhaps you intend to do more potraiture, and in that case, a 50mm prime would be more suitable.</p>

[Stock-Photos]

<p>Greg,<br>

I own the <a href="http://www.slidescanning123.com/canon-lens-reviews/index.shtml">Canon 24-105MM and wrote a short review</a> . It is my most-used lens on my 5D.</p>

<p>Here is a link showing the hand-held shutter speeds which the IS facilitates.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.slidescanning123.com/route-1-saugus/index.html"><strong>Route 1 Saugus Photos</strong> </a></p>

<p>I agree with the others who suggested a wider choice, since you will be using a "cropped sensor" 50D.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>As others have said you may find it a bit wide on the 50D. I am a full frame shooter with the 16-35 F2.8 II, 24-70 F2.8 and 70-200 F2.8 who recently bought the 7D. I find that I have not yet used the 24-70 on the 7D. If I carry the 7D as my walk around camera I use either the 16-35 or the 18-135 kit lens it came with (the new 18-135 is not a bad lens and is very compact - bundled with the 7D it was a case of why not?). Thus as others have said get the 17-55 F2.8 IS if you plan to stay with crop lenses or the 17-40 F4L if you may go to a full frame body later.</p>

[markonestudios]

I started off with a film EOS & a 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 lens. I then got a 400D (XTi) - crop sensor digital - but always knew I'll move to full-frame, so I opted to get the 17-40L instead of the kit lens. That has been my most used lens to date. The range is just what the doctor ordered, for a crop sensor. I then invested in the 24-105L, and can confidently say that it is indeed worth it, especially on full frame; I recently got my 5D2 and can attest to the lens' excellent quality of build and optics. So, as others have said, it is a good lens in its own right but may not be ideal on a 50D. Maybe if you mate it with a 10-22 which is another great lens. Alternatively, the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 VC which is within your budget and expected to be of very good quality too.

[chughtai]

<p>24-105 is an exceptional piece, i say invest in glass. I have a 30D and i find myself using 24-105 more than any other lens i have (16-35/2.8, 50/1.4, 55-250) -- it's truly all around lens. + future proof, works on full frame.</p>

[alexander_c1]

<p>I picked up this lens with the 5D MII a few weeks ago and absolutely love it. So far it produces some of the best images in my lens collection. I am in love with it so I would say definitely worth it. However, as a poster mentioned, won't be the same on a crop sensor.</p>