Canon L 24-105 IS 4.0

[Scott Brady]

Any feedback on this lens?

I need to beef up the quality of my equipment, as the environs I am operating in become more and more severe. I am also finding tripod support almost imposible.

So, I am looking into a Canon L IS 24-105 F4.0. It will give me the three stop advantage while hand holding, and a pretty usable focal range. It will make a nice compliment to my 17-35 2.8 Tamron.

 

[articulate]

Well, hmph. I'm curious, too. You've probably read this already?:
http://photo.net/equipment/canon/is_lenses/

Senor Atkins there shows that IS works well. I presume what you mean about tripod support is that you do more hand held shooting since shooting moving vehicles on a trail is cumbersome and consuming with a tripod? You know this already, but lenses that open up wider are going to be far better for you. Since they claim you can get perhaps 3 more stops worth of "freezing," the concept of IS seems like a smart idea for what you do.

I bet you could rent that lens from Tempe Camera for a weekend...?

 

[bigreen505]

As a landscape lens it is pretty decent and reasonably sharp stopped sown beyond f8 or so. There is a very good test of the lens and some good discussion at www.luminous-landscape.com. Overall impression is that it is a decent travel lens and stopped down is about even up with the 24-70/2.8.

 

[Scott Brady]

Thanks for the great feedback.

I am going to check the lens out on Friday.

 

[Scott Brady]

Thanks for the great feedback.

I am going to check the lens out on Friday.

I am also going to check out a 28-75 2.8 Tamron.

 

[Mlachica]

Thanks for the great feedback.

I am going to check the lens out on Friday.

I am also going to check out a 28-75 2.8 Tamron.

Hey Scott,

I checked out the Tamron 28-75 f.2.8 and it's awesome. It was recommended by a friend who runs this site, www.8x10proofs.com. He also shoots for hot topic and other places. This is my next lens of purchase, it'll fill the gap between my 17-40 f/4L and 70-200 f/4L.

My preference is of course to have both IS and a large F-stop but if I had to choose one, I'd go for the large F-stop for the ability to freeze the subject instead of IS which steadies your hand. I also like pictures with low depth of field, they're much more intense :lurk:

And for $399 or so minus a rebate, it wouldn't hurt to add this to the collection.

 

[Scott Brady]

Thanks Mark,

After reading a few more reviews, I think the Tamron is the ticket... It performed better than a 50mm 1.8 prime in a few tests. It also saves me nearly 1lb. and about $800

 

[bigreen505]

Scott, be warned that the Tamron is an excellent lens plagued by absolutely horrible quality control. Best bet is to go to a camera shop that has a good stock of the 28-75's and test them all against eachother, taking notes about which lens is which. Either bring your laptop or go home and analyze the files. I would not be surprised if each lens looked different from the othes. Then buy the sharpest one. Or, just buy one and send it to Tamron and say it isn't sharp. They will align and calibrate the lens and it should be good after that. The good ones are really good, though even though the best ones are very sharp, they tend to lack the snap and contrast of Canon L glass. Also, FWIW the Tamron is not sealed.

If you are willing to deal with adapters, stop-down metering and manual focus, the Zeiss 35-70/3.5 is an exceptional lens that sells for about $500. It is really in another league.

 

[Scott Brady]

Also, FWIW the Tamron is not sealed.

Yes, my major concern...

My 17-35 Tamron 2.8 is pretty tac sharp, so I am hoping the same applies here. I am not willing to put anything on a credit card, so I am somewhat limited with recent expenses to Expeditions West, LLC

 

[bigreen505]

I wouldn't worry too much, if it gets ugly just send it in to Tamron for CLA. I know a lot of people who sold their 24-70/2.8L's for the Tamron. General consesus is it isn't any better, but certainly good enough. Buy it and don't look back, but do try a couple samples.

 

[Scott Brady]

Well, I was striken with the 24-105 4L IS, and now it is mounted to the 20D

What sold me was taking a picture in the camera shop inside, at 105mm exposed at F4 and 1/30, handheld. It was tac sharp with the IS. Perfect for what I do

 

[Mlachica]

Well, I was striken with the 24-105 4L IS, and now it is mounted to the 20D

What sold me was taking a picture in the camera shop inside, at 105mm exposed at F4 and 1/30, handheld. It was tac sharp with the IS. Perfect for what I do

Niiiice!

What were your thoughs on the tamron f2.8 28-75? Obviously subpar to the canon, but lets hear the details! :ylsmoke:

 

[Scott Brady]

I really liked the tamron. Light weight, good construction, very bright, etc.

What really sold me on the Canon 24-105L was the hand holding capability and the extra focal length. I am very cautious about changing lenses in the field because of dust, etc., and I am often trekking or hiking around and can't carry all of my lenses. With the 23mm CMOS, this lens gave me a 38-168mm range. Pretty good.

It will be my 90% lens, mounted nearly all the time and will work great indoors (for the trade shows)

So in summary:

1. Nearly double focal range
2. Hand Holding advantage
3. Construction

 

[Scott Brady]

This image shows the advantages of IS. The sun had already set, and I took this shot at 105mm (160+ effective) 1/50 second at F4. With a regular lens, it would be nearly impossible to handhold at that light level, but you can see the results.

 

[Mlachica]

Thanks for the feedback Scott, great info.

I agree about the whole lens changing in the field. The 24-105 sounds like a great all around lens!