Old 11-30-2010, 11:59 PM   #26
troy12n
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 5,333
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimThias View Post
Anyway, the OP asked specifically about the 24-105 and wanted some feedback from people who own it. I don't get the point of trying to persuade him to buy a cheaper and lower quality piece of equipment. If he wants a high quality lens in that zoom range, purchasing the 24-105 would certainly be considered "spending his money wisely."
I dont care either way, I am just telling the guy there is a viable alternative for several hundred dollars cheaper. You are right the L is the better of the 2, I never said otherwise, I just am giving the guy an alternative...
troy12n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2010, 12:28 AM   #27
Dennis A. Livesey
Senior Member
 
Dennis A. Livesey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,979
Default

Expensive hurts once. Cheap hurts forever.
__________________
Dennis

I Foam Therefore I Am.

My pix on RailPics:

I am on Flickr as well:

"Dennis is such a God, he could do that with a camera obscura and some homemade acetate." Holloran Grade

"To me it looks drawn in in Paintshop. It looks like a puddle of orange on the sky." SFO777
Dennis A. Livesey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2010, 12:32 AM   #28
jnohallman
Senior Member
 
jnohallman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,527
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis A. Livesey View Post
Cheap hurts forever.
There's a difference between cheap and frugal.

Jon
__________________
"Everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it." - Mark Twain

Click here to see my photos on RP.net!

Do not, under any circumstances whatsoever, click here. Don't even think about it. I'm warning you!
jnohallman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2010, 12:36 AM   #29
Freericks
Met Fan
 
Freericks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,039
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis A. Livesey View Post
Expensive hurts once. Cheap hurts forever.
This is gospel...
Freericks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2010, 12:41 AM   #30
Joe the Photog
Senior Member
 
Joe the Photog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 7,892
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis A. Livesey View Post
Expensive hurts once. Cheap hurts forever.
This I should have told myself a year and a half ago.
__________________
Joe the Photog Dot Com
Joe the Photog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2010, 01:13 AM   #31
Cinderpath
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Ferndale, MI (Detroit area)
Posts: 98
Default

I am reasonably happy with mine- I think it is about the best your going to do from Canon for a wide-short tele zoom, and the IS is great.

That said however, at 24mm there is distortion and it somewhat soft on a full frame camera. It also has tendency to flare, like most lenses in this range do. The zoom has becomes loose, and the zoom drifts, unfortunately, this should not happen with a 1.5 year old L Lens. Not impressed here.

It is a trade off between the convenience of a zoom, or a bag full of prime lenses, which I gave up years ago.

So in short: Convenient, Check, decent (but not always outstanding image quality), check, about the best IQ (Image quality for the price/value) in this zoom range, check. Size/weight, check. Dislikes: zoom becomes loose, and zoom drifts, unfortunately, this should not happen with a 1.5 year old L Lens, occasional flare, poor performance at the wide end.
__________________
MY RP. Net photos:

http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=4914
Cinderpath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2010, 01:46 AM   #32
crazytiger
Senior Member
 
crazytiger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: NS Greenville District
Posts: 1,473
Default

Sure, but for someone like me, I wouldn't have that lens for another year or two if I saved up for the big one.
__________________
Peter Lewis | Portfolio | Profile | Flickr | Facebook

Canon EOS 40D
Canon EF 50 f/1.8 II
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM
Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM


Quote:
Originally Posted by A Friend
everytime i see non-train photos of yours i think, "so much talent. wasted on trains."
crazytiger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2010, 02:01 AM   #33
Walter S
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 1,023
Send a message via AIM to Walter S
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by crazytiger View Post
Sure, but for someone like me, I wouldn't have that lens for another year or two if I saved up for the big one.
And if you got it you wouldn't even be able to use it!
__________________
Walter Scriptunas II
Scriptunasimages.com
Walter S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2010, 02:06 AM   #34
crazytiger
Senior Member
 
crazytiger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: NS Greenville District
Posts: 1,473
Default

Well, I'm hoping to switch in the next month, so yes I would.
__________________
Peter Lewis | Portfolio | Profile | Flickr | Facebook

Canon EOS 40D
Canon EF 50 f/1.8 II
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM
Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM


Quote:
Originally Posted by A Friend
everytime i see non-train photos of yours i think, "so much talent. wasted on trains."
crazytiger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2010, 02:30 AM   #35
Bryan Jones
Senior Member
 
Bryan Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Brooks,KY
Posts: 131
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by troy12n View Post
It's expensive for what it is, the EF28-105/f3.5-4.5 USM II is just as good for hundreds less... It lacks IS though if that matters to you.
Bullshit. I OWN and use both the 24-105L F4 IS and the 28-105 F3.5-4.5 USM II and while the little 28-105 is a decent lens for the money it is no comparison to the 24-105L. For about an 18 month period I also had the 28-135 IS as well (back when the 24-105L was first introduced). The 28-105mm was superior to the 28-135 but neither lens is close to the 24-105L. If you actually own these lenses and use them and compare them you would know this. Speculating or just trying someone elses for a few shots is not a comparison.

To the person who started this thread, the 24-105L F4 IS is an excellent choice. It makes for a good walk around or general purpose lens. It is nice and sharp, even wide open at F4 as it should be for a lens of this caliber. The build quality is solid as a rock and its not too heavy. I really have no complaints with this lens and currently use it on an EOS 7D as well as EOS 3 and Elan 7 film bodies from time to time have used in on previous EOS 10D and 30D bodies as well.

Bryan Jones
Brooks,KY
Bryan Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2010, 02:53 AM   #36
Walter S
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 1,023
Send a message via AIM to Walter S
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by crazytiger View Post
Well, I'm hoping to switch in the next month, so yes I would.
Smart man! Making a good decision!
__________________
Walter Scriptunas II
Scriptunasimages.com
Walter S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2010, 03:02 AM   #37
Cinderpath
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Ferndale, MI (Detroit area)
Posts: 98
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis A. Livesey View Post
Expensive hurts once. Cheap hurts forever.

I wished somebody had told me that about tripods back in the day- back in the early '90's I purchased 3 or 4 "cheap" $40 tripods- then I bought a $90 (Back then) Bogan that still works fine. Like they say- cheap cost more, because you buy it once, then buy the good one later, and if your really dumb like me you buy many "cheap" ones. All "L" lenses nowadays.
__________________
MY RP. Net photos:

http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=4914
Cinderpath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2010, 03:38 AM   #38
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cinderpath View Post
The zoom has becomes loose, and the zoom drifts, unfortunately, this should not happen with a 1.5 year old L Lens. Not impressed here.
I've had mine since April of '09, so I'm guessing we bought ours around the same time. No loose zoom yet, but it's possible you've used yours more than mine. My 100-400, on the other hand...3 years old and I can barely get it to lock tight in place any more.
__________________
.
Rhymes with slice, rice and mice, and probably should be spelled like "Tice."

This pretty much sums it up: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Thias
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2010, 04:07 AM   #39
TAMR159
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 367
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cinderpath View Post
I wished somebody had told me that about tripods back in the day- back in the early '90's I purchased 3 or 4 "cheap" $40 tripods- then I bought a $90 (Back then) Bogan that still works fine. Like they say- cheap cost more, because you buy it once, then buy the good one later, and if your really dumb like me you buy many "cheap" ones. All "L" lenses nowadays.
Precisely. After my last $40 Wal-Mart tripod disintegrated on an overpass one night during a night shoot, I went and bought a good quality Manfrotto tripod for $300. Not cheap, but it's built like a tank and is far more solid than the previous one ever was...no more camera shake even with everything locked down "tight."

Ditto on the L glass too...for a while, I shot with a Rebel XT and a 24-70 f/2.8L and got some great quality shots out of it.
TAMR159 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2010, 10:33 AM   #40
milwman
I shoot what I like
 
milwman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Cedar Fall's, Iowa
Posts: 2,474
Send a message via Yahoo to milwman
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis A. Livesey View Post
Expensive hurts once. Cheap hurts forever.
Cheap hurts every time you ware it out as the cheeper ones get sloppy after a lot of zooming and less sharp. The 24-105 F4 L IS, Is made to last and is sharp, At 24 mm barrel distortion hasn't bothered me yet. With a bit of zoom cropping you can get some short tele shots if need be, It's sharp and will take it.
__________________
Richard Scott Marsh I go by Scott long story

http://www.flickr.com/photos/22299476@N05/
milwman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2010, 10:42 AM   #41
troy12n
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 5,333
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Jones View Post
If you actually own these lenses and use them and compare them you would know this. Speculating or just trying someone elses for a few shots is not a comparison.
I actually own the 28-105ii and have borrowed the 24-105L on multiple occasions, I made my decisions to keep the 28-105 and not get the 24-105 for myself based on this. Especially on the 5d, I was really turned off by the distortion and softness on the edges on the wide end. You dont notice it NEARLY as much on a crop camera. Colors were nicer and IS is nice to have on the 24-105. But I stand by my thoughts. To each their own. I think this has played itself out...
troy12n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2010, 10:59 AM   #42
milwman
I shoot what I like
 
milwman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Cedar Fall's, Iowa
Posts: 2,474
Send a message via Yahoo to milwman
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by troy12n View Post
To each their own. I think this has played itself out...
Maybe, But if a lens is going to be your prime ( on most the time ) get the better one, What ones better depends who wants it. For some the 17-40 L F4 is the right lens thats on all the time. In the end if your happy with what you have great! I am set with all I need but would like a EF 100 F2, Had one at one time but sold off a ton of glass but kind wish I had that back.
__________________
Richard Scott Marsh I go by Scott long story

http://www.flickr.com/photos/22299476@N05/
milwman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2010, 12:18 PM   #43
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,800
Default

Let's not forget that the resale value of an L lens is much greater than a non-L lens. There's a good reason for that.
__________________
.
Rhymes with slice, rice and mice, and probably should be spelled like "Tice."

This pretty much sums it up: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Thias
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2010, 02:38 PM   #44
JoeBloggs
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 5
Default

Hi all,

Thanks for all the comments/advice.

I`ll shop around and invest in one from a reputable retailer.

Regards,

Joe
JoeBloggs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2010, 02:47 PM   #45
Holloran Grade
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: In the California Republic
Posts: 2,774
Exclamation Good Vendors

B&H Photo

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/

Or

Adorama

http://www.adorama.com/
Holloran Grade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2010, 03:32 PM   #46
troy12n
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 5,333
Default

I can recommend Canoga camera, they have been really good to me in the past. B&H and Adorama are good as well, but usually a little more expensive.
troy12n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2010, 01:51 AM   #47
Dennis A. Livesey
Senior Member
 
Dennis A. Livesey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,979
Wink

B&H

adorama

canogacamera

Canoga Camera's price for this lens is indeed less expensive than both New York stores by five dollars. But don't forget you have to pay 9.750 % tax if you walk-in. You could order on-line to try and save the five bucks that way but they don't have free shipping. Coast to coast costs from Canoga Camera would add appoximately $17.00.

B&H and Adorama offer free shipping on this item. Tax in NY is less than LA at 8.875% and is not charged out of state.

So the New York stores are cheaper either walk-in or shipping anywhere in the US.
__________________
Dennis

I Foam Therefore I Am.

My pix on RailPics:

I am on Flickr as well:

"Dennis is such a God, he could do that with a camera obscura and some homemade acetate." Holloran Grade

"To me it looks drawn in in Paintshop. It looks like a puddle of orange on the sky." SFO777
Dennis A. Livesey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2010, 02:01 AM   #48
jnohallman
Senior Member
 
jnohallman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,527
Default

Or you could get a used one from KEH.com - one in EX condition listed for $889.00.

Jon
__________________
"Everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it." - Mark Twain

Click here to see my photos on RP.net!

Do not, under any circumstances whatsoever, click here. Don't even think about it. I'm warning you!
jnohallman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2010, 03:53 PM   #49
HelenOster
Junior Member
 
HelenOster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Holloran Grade View Post
Thanks for the recommendation -very much appreciated
__________________
Helen Oster
Adorama Camera Customer Service Ambassador


http://twitter.com/HelenOster

HelenO@adorama.com
HelenOster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2010, 12:22 AM   #50
khalucha
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Posts: 425
Default

I bought mine around March-April 2009 and love it. I use that most of the time and never took it off my camera until I recently bought a 70-200 f/4L.

The year before (200 I bought the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and used that all the time, great lens but nothing like the 24-105.

In my opinion it is money well spent and their is a reason it is really popular.
__________________
Kevin
Phoenix, Arizona

Webshot Photos

flickr stuff
khalucha is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.