Ef 24-105mm 4.0 thoughts?

[GorillaJJitsu]

I’ve owned this lens for about 4 months now. It’s the original kit lens.

I still can’t figure out what it’s best for as I’m branching off the fixed primes now. Only thing I’m seeing it useful for is landscape? Maybe I’m missing something... It’s also just too slow for anything other than landscape it seems... thoughts?

 

[ronlane]

No, it's not fast enough for sports photography but the 24-105 f/4 is a really good general purpose lens and can be used effectively for portraits, street, landscape and travel photography.

Having it on as you travel is nice because you get the different focal lengths without having to carry and change lens all the time.

 

[GorillaJJitsu]

No, it's not fast enough for sports photography but the 24-105 f/4 is a really good general purpose lens and can be used effectively for portraits, street, landscape and travel photography.

Having it on as you travel is nice because you get the different focal lengths without having to carry and change lens all the time.

That’s a good point. I’m thinking the next step would be the 24-70 2.8 if i wanted Something faster and sharper.

 

[ronlane]

I agree with you there but since you have the f/4.0, my suggestion would be to wait until you can't do shots with the f/4 before moving. Branching off into the primes is a solid idea and you still have the 24-70 that is paid for.

The question really is what do you want more, the 24-70 2.8 zoom or primes?

 

[Derrel]

The 24 to 105mm is it an L series zoom with image stabilizer. I owned it for over 10 years, and made many beautiful pictures with it. It is extremely useful.

It's strength is its extensive focal length range. You have the focal lengths of 24 mm, 28 mm, 35 mm, 50mm, 70 mm, 85 mm, and 105 mm --in other words you have seven well-known focal lengths in one high-quality zoom lens that has ultrasonic motor focusing, and image stabilizer technology. The lens is designed to basically do almost every general purpose task.

My opinion is that the focal length range of 24 to 85 mm or 24 to 105 mm is vastly more useful for actual picture making than the 24 to 70 F/2.8. In today's digital era and speeds of 400 to 3200 ISO, the value of an F2.8 lens only becomes realized in the most marginal of lighting conditions.

I understand your fascination with
lens maximum aperture, but I think you are misguided in assuming that an f/ 2.8 lens is somehow inherently more useful and a better picture-maker than a lens with a much wider range of focal lengths but with a maximum aperture that is only one f/stop slower. I personally think that the 24 to 105 was one of the best zoom lenses I have ever owned from any maker in the general purpose category.

I grew up shooting a wide range of prime lenses from 24 to 200 and 300 mm in length, and I am not really a fan of the limitations that shorter and medium range prime lenses carry with them. However today, with many people coming from slow consumer lenses and going right to high-grade prime lenses, there is this fascination with what a single focal length lens can do. I'd likeb it to the tendency of many young people today to value style over substance in many things, such as cars, clothing, and musical artists. For example the singer Katy Perry… Very popular, but not a very capable musician… But pretty, and she makes good videos… But is she a real musical talent?

For example you mentioned the canon 85 mm F/1.2 lens....are you aware of that particular lens's extremely strong longitudinal chromatic aberration signature when used at wide lens apertures? Although many people rave about this lens, to me its bad longitudinal chromatic aberration signature, which is uncorrectable in post processing software,is a huge liability. and yet I have read many reviews, glowing reviews, of how beautiful the Bokeh is from this lens...when in reality I do not think it has beautiful bokeh,but rather offers a high degree of background blurring, which is not the same thing as Bokeh !

 

[GorillaJJitsu]

I agree with you there but since you have the f/4.0, my suggestion would be to wait until you can't do shots with the f/4 before moving. Branching off into the primes is a solid idea and you still have the 24-70 that is paid for.

The question really is what do you want more, the 24-70 2.8 zoom or primes?

Ugh! That’s such a difficult question to answer. Because if i get A prime I’m stuck at that focal length, but obviously i would get my moneys worth. If i wanted To go prime (another stinking difficult predicament) it would be a toss up between :

50mm 1.2
85mm 1.2
Or possibly a 35mm 1.4

 

[GorillaJJitsu]

The 24 to 105mm is it an L series zoom with image stabilizer. I owned it for over 10 years, and made many beautiful pictures with it. It is extremely useful.

It's strength is it's extensive focal length range. You have the focal lengths of 24 mm, 28 mm, 35 mm, 50mm, 70 mm, 85 mm, and 105 mm --in other words you have seven well-known Focal lengths and one high-quality zoom lens that has ultrasonic motor focusing, and image stabilizer technology. The lens is designed to basically do almost every general purpose task.

My opinion is that the focal length range of 24 to 85 mm or 24 to 105 mm is vastly more useful for actual picture making than the 24 to 70 F/2.8.

Do you have a Facebook or Instagram that showcases your photography?

 

[Derrel]

My thoughts on the zoom lens in question: keep the lens for weekends and shoots where you need a wide range of focal length in one lens, and do not wish to change lenses every two minutes. The ability to go from 24 mm wide angle to 105 mm,medium telephoto, in less than one second, is extremely valuable. There is a reason, several reasons actually, like seven of them, that The Canon company has paired this lens with their fairly expensive full frame camera kits for over a decade. This lens is designed to do many things, quite well, and if you sell it, you will not get much money for it, And my idea has always been not to sell lenses, but to add lenses and keep those lenses which I find useful for at least some uses.

 

[Derrel]

Prime lenses are designed to be part of a large kit. Each one is a specialty tool. I have about 3000 of my photos on Facebook, but it is not designed as a showcase of my photography. I have been taking pictures for around 45 years now.

The 35,50,and 85 mm lenses that you mention are all very good lenses, but to decide between the three is like deciding between a saw and a hammer and a screwdriver… Each one is its own entity. I personally think that the 50 mm is the most overrated of the three, and what it does can easily be handled by a slower 50 mm lens.

I understand where you are coming from, but it is not the lens as much as it is the photographer's approach to working the scene. Buying any lens and expecting the lens to vastly improve your photos is typically not the right course of action. You could spend a great deal of money on the 50 mm F1.2 lens, or you could buy the vastly more affordable 50 mm F1.4 and do pretty much the same things, and also have enough money left over to buy the 35 mm f/2.

 

[GorillaJJitsu]

My thoughts on the zoom lens in question: keep the lens for weekends and shoots where you need a wide range of focal length in one lens, and do not wish to change lenses every two minutes. The ability to go from 24 mm wide angle to 105 mm,medium telephoto, in less than one second, is extremely valuable. There is a reason, several reasons actually, like seven of them, that The Canon company has paired this lens with their fairly expensive full frame camera kits for over a decade. This lens is designed to do many things, quite well, and if you sell it, you will not get much money for it, And my idea has always been not to sell lenses, but to add lenses and keep those lenses which I find useful for at least some uses.

Yea definitely came in handy yesterday at knotts Berry farm!

 

[GorillaJJitsu]

The 24 to 105mm is it an L series zoom with image stabilizer. I owned it for over 10 years, and made many beautiful pictures with it. It is extremely useful.

It's strength is its extensive focal length range. You have the focal lengths of 24 mm, 28 mm, 35 mm, 50mm, 70 mm, 85 mm, and 105 mm --in other words you have seven well-known focal lengths in one high-quality zoom lens that has ultrasonic motor focusing, and image stabilizer technology. The lens is designed to basically do almost every general purpose task.

My opinion is that the focal length range of 24 to 85 mm or 24 to 105 mm is vastly more useful for actual picture making than the 24 to 70 F/2.8. In today's digital era and speeds of 400 to 3200 ISO, the value of an F2.8 lens only becomes realized in the most marginal of lighting conditions.

I understand your fascination with
lens maximum aperture, but I think you are misguided in assuming that an f/ 2.8 lens is somehow inherently more useful and a better picture-maker than a lens with a much wider range of focal lengths but with a maximum aperture that is only one f/stop slower. I personally think that the 24 to 105 was one of the best zoom lenses I have ever owned from any maker in the general purpose category.

I grew up shooting a wide range of prime lenses from 24 to 200 and 300 mm in length, and I am not really a fan of the limitations that shorter and medium range prime lenses carry with them. However today, with many people coming from slow consumer lenses and going right to high-grade prime lenses, there is this fascination with what a single focal length lens can do. I'd likeb it to the tendency of many young people today to value style over substance in many things, such as cars, clothing, and musical artists. For example the singer Katy Perry… Very popular, but not a very capable musician… But pretty, and she makes good videos… But is she a real musical talent?

For example you mentioned the canon 85 mm F/1.2 lens....are you aware of that particular lens's extremely strong longitudinal chromatic aberration signature when used at wide lens apertures? Although many people rave about this lens, to me its bad longitudinal chromatic aberration signature, which is uncorrectable in post processing software,is a huge liability. and yet I have read many reviews, glowing reviews, of how beautiful the Bokeh is from this lens...when in reality I do not think it has beautiful bokeh,but rather offers a high degree of background blurring, which is not the same thing as Bokeh !

Damn derrell you own it every time!

 

[Derrel]

Pretty much with only a handful of exceptions over the past 40 years, almost every lens I have purchased has been used. I have had very few duds, and today with digital it is easy to check out a lens in-person before buying the lens. I would encourage you to think about buying used from a dealer that offers you a reasonable return privilege. Unless of course you insist upon paying full, new, list price, then it is a good idea to buy brand new.

 

[Derrel]

Between the 24 to 70 and a 70 to 200… They are tremendously different tools… The 24 to 70 is designed to document things, and is a good lens when you want mainly wider angle shots, while the 70 to 200 is a telephoto zoom, which shows a lot less of the scene behind the foreground subject. I think if you look at Paige W's photos, and you will see a sort of documentary "real life" sort of approach, whereas the 70 to 200 lens lends itself more to "slice of life,extracted " types of photos, with less of an angle of view behind foreground subjects. This is a matter of lens focal length, which is not only angular view of close things, but also is related to how many degrees of angle of view are shown behind the subject at distances of 10 to 1,000 feet.

This is pretty much true of all sorts of lenses. A wide angle lens shows a wide angle of View not only at the subject, but also behind it. A "normal" lens shows the subject in the normal way and also shows a normal amount of background width. A telephoto lens makes things Which are up close look big and shows a fairly narrow and magnified-in-physical-size background.

I will leave you with this brief riddle: what good is a nail without the hammer? What good is a hammer without nails?

 

[GorillaJJitsu]

Hahahah!!! Touché touché!!!!

Between the 24 to 70 and a 70 to 200… They are tremendously different tools… The 24 and 270 is designed to document things, and is a good lens when you want mainly wider angle shots, while the 70 to 200 is a telephoto zoom, which shows a lot less of the scene behind the foreground subject. I think you look at Paige W's photos, and you see a sort of documentary "real life "sort of approach, whereas with the 70 to 200 lens yields itself more to "slice of life extracted "types of photos, with less of an angle of view behind foreground subjects. This is a matter of lens focal length, which is not only angular view of clothes, but also is related to how many degrees of angle of view are shown behind the subject at distances of 10 to 1,000 feet.

I will leave you with this brief riddle: what good is a nail without the hammer? What good is a hammer without nails?

Hahahah!!! Touché touché!!!!

 

[Derrel]

I don't know much about Brazilian jujitsu, but I do know A fair amount about collegiate style wrestling. You need to have at least two takedowns that you are goood at, and it really helps to have at least two escapes that you are good at, and it is a good idea to know at least five or six counters to common takedown types. You need to know how to wrestle from the top and how to wrestle from the bottom.