# Canon 24-105mm f/4 IS : Seller's remorse?



## CANONisOK (Aug 23, 2013)

So I have a buyer lined up through CL to sell off my hardly-ever used 24-105mm for $800. Ever since purchasing the 24-70mm mk2, it has been gathering dust. I'm not lacking anything over that FL range, so it shouldn't bother me, but...

I just wonder, am I missing something obvious about this lens? I have wanted to love it since I bought it over a year ago. So many people on this forum and others extoll its virtues (IQ, versatility, IS). To be frank - I just haven't seen it. And I think it sounds great on paper - good FL range, IS, compactness. It _SHOULD_ be my go-to walkaround lens. But it isn't.

I did the AFMA on focal, but I've never been able to get true sharpness from this lens in darn near any situation. My prior workhorse was a Canon 17-55mm 2.8 on a T3i, and I didn't observe signiciant difference in the "upgrade" to the 24-105 (although, I felt color was noticeably better). 

I'd hate to have seller's remorse if there is some secret to its awesomeness I just haven't unlocked yet. Or maybe I just have a crap copy. I suppose since I'm getting about the same as I paid for it. No loss, and hopefully prices will be similar in the future if I want to try to jump in again. What do you think; will I regret it?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 23, 2013)

I sold mine and haven't regretted it. The only real advantage I see to the 24-105L over the 24-70L II is that the former has IS - if you're shooting static scenes in dim light without a tripod, that can be a huge advantage, giving you the exposure of an f/1.4 lens without the thin DoF.


----------



## curtisnull (Aug 23, 2013)

I sold mine a week after I got the 24-70/2.8 II. That was 6 months ago and I haven't missed it yet.


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 23, 2013)

I'm not sure if the mkii is lighter than the original, but from previous conversations purple have gone back to the 105 because it was lighter and didn't cause an ache over a full day of shooting.

I think you will be fine and my concern is whether I want to sell mine to get a 24-70mkii... but I see no reason to have both.


----------



## tphillips63 (Aug 23, 2013)

If you did not sell now but kept it for another six months or so and still not using it, you'll know for sure that it will be ok to sell.


----------



## tron (Aug 23, 2013)

I do not have 24-70 2.8 II so maybe I am not entitled 10)% to express an opinion but I am satisfied with my 24-105. You will not lose only IS but the 70-105mm range as well. You may have this range in another lens, say a 70-200 but unless you always carry 2 bodies you will have to switch lenses more often. Unless you tend to use the lens more at the wide end.


----------



## tron (Aug 23, 2013)

tphillips63 said:


> If you did not sell now but kept it for another six months or so and still not using it, you'll know for sure that it will be ok to sell.


+1 That I admit is a good idea. I would make it a year though to increase the possibility that most (if not all) of activities that OP is involved are encountered.


----------



## fyah5dmarkiii (Aug 23, 2013)

There is no comparison between the 24-70ii and the 24-105 is...24-70 is just incredibly sharp! All serious photographers need the 24-70ii and the 70-200ii in their kit!


----------



## cr316892 (Aug 23, 2013)

CANONisOK said:


> I just wonder, am I missing something obvious about this lens? I have wanted to love it since I bought it over a year ago. So many people on this forum and others extoll its virtues (IQ, versatility, IS). To be frank - I just haven't seen it. And I think it sounds great on paper - good FL range, IS, compactness. It _SHOULD_ be my go-to walkaround lens. But it isn't.



If you are using the 24-105 on a cropped-frame camera, it will never be anywhere near as sharp as if you use it on a full-frame camera.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/%28lens1%29/169/%28brand%29/Canon/%28camera1%29/619/%28lens2%29/164/%28brand2%29/Canon/%28camera2%29/619/%28lens3%29/164/%28brand3%29/Canon/%28camera3%29/795


----------



## insanitybeard (Aug 23, 2013)

fyah5dmarkiii said:


> All serious photographers need the 24-70ii and the 70-200ii in their kit!



All serious photographers with deep wallets that is.... Or are you not a serious photographer without these lenses?


----------



## bluegreenturtle (Aug 23, 2013)

I have found as a video shooter that the 24-105 is just a perfect B roll lens. Light, great at wide, great at 105, has IS, allows fairly shallow DOF at long end wide open, but too shallow. It's just a workhorse - I might shoot 100-150 clips in a day on a project for B roll and it works well. That said, if somebody made a 16mm-70mm 2.8 or 4 IS that would be the perfect lens, paired with a 70-200.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 23, 2013)

fyah5dmarkiii said:


> There is no comparison between the 24-70ii and the 24-105 is...24-70 is just incredibly sharp! All serious photographers need the 24-70ii and the 70-200ii in their kit!



Guess I'm not a serious photographer then 

Seriously, it depends upon how much pp work you are able to do. For those who need to produce images straight off the camera due to time or volume constrains then you'll see a difference. For those that want a higher quality IS standard zoom the 24-70 f4 is very good in practice, despite the so-so reviews. 

There seems to be an unacceptable amount of copy variation in the 24-105. This may explain why some people are dissatisfied with theirs.


----------



## jthomson (Aug 23, 2013)

insanitybeard said:


> fyah5dmarkiii said:
> 
> 
> > All serious photographers need the 24-70ii and the 70-200ii in their kit!
> ...



Serious photographers use primes ;D


----------



## insanitybeard (Aug 23, 2013)

jthomson said:


> Serious photographers use primes ;D



You've done it now. I'm off to take cover!


----------



## CANONisOK (Aug 23, 2013)

cr316892 said:


> If you are using the 24-105 on a cropped-frame camera, it will never be anywhere near as sharp as if you use it on a full-frame camera.


I agree completely. Shortly after getting the 24-105, I moved to a 5D3... where its flaws are even more apparent IMO. Thanks for the feedback!


----------



## unfocused (Aug 23, 2013)

insanitybeard said:


> jthomson said:
> 
> 
> > Serious photographers use primes ;D
> ...



Serious photographers don't waste time on forums.


----------



## dirtcastle (Aug 23, 2013)

I would like to sell my 24-105mm also, but I'm holding onto it (for video) because it's the widest Canon lens with IS.


----------



## insanitybeard (Aug 23, 2013)

unfocused said:


> Serious photographers don't waste time on forums.



I downgrade my photographer status forthwith! :'(


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 23, 2013)

CANONisOK said:


> So I have a buyer lined up through CL to sell off my hardly-ever used 24-105mm for $800. Ever since purchasing the 24-70mm mk2, it has been gathering dust. I'm not lacking anything over that FL range, so it shouldn't bother me, but...
> 
> I just wonder, am I missing something obvious about this lens? I have wanted to love it since I bought it over a year ago. So many people on this forum and others extoll its virtues (IQ, versatility, IS). To be frank - I just haven't seen it. And I think it sounds great on paper - good FL range, IS, compactness. It _SHOULD_ be my go-to walkaround lens. But it isn't.
> 
> ...



It's a great lens (and I love it too) but if it does not suit your shooting style, yes, sell.

This is why I'm getting rid of my 24-70 MkI; a year has passed without it being used.


----------



## fyah5dmarkiii (Aug 23, 2013)

insanitybeard said:


> jthomson said:
> 
> 
> > Serious photographers use primes ;D
> ...



I am not saying that if you dont have these lenses you are not a serious photographer. 24-70ii and 70-200ii are Canon's workhorse lenses! These are the two must have lenses...of course if you can afford them. LOL @ serious photographer's use primes. Primes are good, but you will definitely miss shots if you are an event photographer! I sold my primes in the 24-70 range for the 24-70ii. The 24-70ii is sharper than the primes in its range! Not to mention to own the L primes in the range of 24-70ii (24L,35L,50L) is way more costly than owning the 24-70ii!


----------



## sunnyVan (Aug 23, 2013)

You already own all the best primes. You definitely are not missing anything. You're very lucky to be able to sell it at 800. If someone offered me 700 I'd sell mine today.


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 23, 2013)

sunnyVan said:


> You already own all the best primes. You definitely are not missing anything. You're very lucky to be able to sell it at 800. If someone offered me 700 I'd sell mine today.



Agreed, 800 is above market value at the moment. jump on the offer.


----------



## tron (Aug 23, 2013)

fyah5dmarkiii said:


> There is no comparison between the 24-70ii and the 24-105 is...24-70 is just incredibly sharp! All serious photographers need the 24-70ii and the 70-200ii in their kit!


Hmmm, suddenly I feel ... half-serious since I have only one of the two lenses... ;D


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 23, 2013)

Two words for you: *SELL IT*


----------



## Northstar (Aug 23, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> sunnyVan said:
> 
> 
> > You already own all the best primes. You definitely are not missing anything. You're very lucky to be able to sell it at 800. If someone offered me 700 I'd sell mine today.
> ...




I agree with these guys....$800 is a great price and you can always buy it back if you want.

I sold mine and I do have some regret because I miss the 70-105....but at the end of the day the 24-70ii is sharper and produces better IQ.


----------



## crasher8 (Aug 23, 2013)

I've sold two! I sold the first for 150 more than I bought it for and the 2nd I 'gave it away' for 100 less than I bought it for to a dear friend on a budget. She's happy so so am I. 
Tamron 24-70 VR was what I replaced it with. SOOOOOOOOO much better in every way.


----------



## bholliman (Aug 23, 2013)

I have the same dilemma. I purchased a 24-105L last summer and just added a 24-70 2.8 II a month ago. 

The 24-70 is an awesome lens! Extremely sharp with little distortion and smooth bokeh. I use it frequently. However, I still find plenty of uses for the 24-105. I must have a good copy as it's pretty sharp above 24mm. The 24-105 is an ideal lens for attending festivals or day outings when I don't want to carry multiple lenses. It's nice to have the 70-105mm range when carrying a single lens and the IS saves shots that I would probably blur otherwise.

So, I'm hanging onto my 24-105 for now. If it starts to gather dust at some point down the road, I'll sell it.

CANONisOK: $800 is a really good price, I would take it since you haven't been using the lens anyway.


----------



## awinphoto (Aug 23, 2013)

unfocused said:


> insanitybeard said:
> 
> 
> > jthomson said:
> ...



^100+++ guess my 10 year old studio and career isn't "serious" haha since all but 1 of my lenses are F4 lenses... It's that what gear you have, it's how you use it. I would love the 24-70 m2 but i am NOT going to plunk down the cash for that lens when I cant guarantee it wont give me any more $$ in sales... not worth it.. I am, though interested in picking up a second 24-105 for my backup lens...


----------



## Eli (Aug 23, 2013)

If its gathering dust then sell it, what makes you think time will change your opinion? The 24-70ii is a beast compared to the 24-105.
The 24-105 was great because its a 'good' all rounder lens at a cheap kit price.
I've sold mine after getting the 24-70ii also, don't miss it at all unless you're planning to shoot video.


----------



## CANONisOK (Aug 23, 2013)

*GONE!* ;D

Thanks for all the feedback. It seemed like a really good price for a not-spectacular copy (but in all fairness, it was also in pristine condition). The buyer was also at a point in her hobby where I could see the 24-105mm as a big step-up in quality. Her enthusiasm made me feel good about selling it.

Maybe someday there will be an amazing mark ii version which can be the ultimate walkaround lens, but I'm plenty happy with my other current options. Now, if I can find some takers for my 17-55mm, 50 1.4, an old 18-200mm(!), etc...


----------



## dhachey77 (Aug 23, 2013)

Eli said:


> If its gathering dust then sell it, what makes you think time will change your opinion? The 24-70ii is a beast compared to the 24-105.
> The 24-105 was great because its a 'good' all rounder lens at a cheap kit price.
> I've sold mine after getting the 24-70ii also, don't miss it at all unless you're planning to shoot video.



I just did a complete refresh of my gear, but I kept three items (7d, 24-105 and 70-200 F4L IS) because they were too good to sell. Also too useful as backup equipment. The 24-70ii and 70-200ii are my main lenses now. The 24-70ii took a bit of getting use to, but don't miss the IS as much as I initially thought. It is sharp, sharp, sharp! Kept the 24-105 for a walk about lens because of IS and wider focal range, for those times I only want to carry a single lens.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Aug 23, 2013)

CANONisOK said:


> I did the AFMA on focal, but I've never been able to get true sharpness from this lens in darn near any situation. My prior workhorse was a Canon 17-55mm 2.8 on a T3i, and I didn't observe signiciant difference in the "upgrade" to the 24-105 (although, I felt color was noticeably better).



17-55 to 24-105 is actually a bit of downgrade in my opinion IQ-wise (although the converse is true for build quality and ergonomics). The 'upgrade' from APS-C to FF however more than makes up for this deficit.
I tried my 24-105 (when I owned it) both on a FF (5DII) and on my APS-C (7D), and the results were clearly better on the FF. So if you noticed more flaws after you switched to the 5DIII, you probably had a bad copy.
$ 800! Nice deal!


----------



## Wildfire (Aug 23, 2013)

I love my 24-105. It's an absolutely fantastic lens with sharpness, color, and focal range that leave me stunned every time I use it (it's currently my main lens, so I use it a lot!). Perhaps I have a better copy than most, as I've tested it against a 24-70 2.8 Mk I and I thought it was sharper than the faster zoom, both wide open on the go and stopped down in the studio.

However, I'd sell the 24-105 in a heartbeat if I had the 24-70 II as I do a lot of low-light event shooting and the extra stop helps immensely. But for all my work where I need an f/4 or smaller aperture, I know I have a single lens I can take that will cover all the focal lengths I'll need... the 24-105.


----------



## dinsy (Aug 23, 2013)

I use my 24-105 at weddings, and find that for indoor portraits, eg at the bride's house, I use it at 80-105mm and get better results bouncing flash from ceilings. Being further away gets a more flattering light across people's faces. And even at f4, it's quite sharp enough in the centre and blurs backgrounds nicely. Works for me.


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 24, 2013)

CANONisOK said:


> *GONE!* ;D
> 
> Thanks for all the feedback. It seemed like a really good price for a not-spectacular copy (but in all fairness, it was also in pristine condition). The buyer was also at a point in her hobby where I could see the 24-105mm as a big step-up in quality. Her enthusiasm made me feel good about selling it.
> 
> Maybe someday there will be an amazing mark ii version which can be the ultimate walkaround lens, but I'm plenty happy with my other current options. Now, if I can find some takers for my 17-55mm, 50 1.4, an old 18-200mm(!), etc...



I doubt you would have hard time selling 17-55 and 50 f1.4. Those are great lenses.

The question is, what are you going to do with the money? :

1. 1D X
2. 300 f2.8 IS II
4. 400 f2.8 IS II
5. 200-400


----------



## duydaniel (Aug 24, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> CANONisOK said:
> 
> 
> > *GONE!* ;D
> ...



Get some Nikon lenses with EOS adapter maybe


----------



## jhpeterson (Aug 24, 2013)

tron said:


> fyah5dmarkiii said:
> 
> 
> > There is no comparison between the 24-70ii and the 24-105 is...24-70 is just incredibly sharp! All serious photographers need the 24-70ii and the 70-200ii in their kit!
> ...


I must be another of the half-serious ones, as I, too, only have the 70-200ii! But, I also have the 16-35ii, which I consider more useful than a 24-70 when I'm in a 2-lens situation. What falls between 35 and 70 seldom seems important to me. Then again, I've never considered myself "normal", at least photographically! 

I do, though, have a 24-105, and, from what I read on here, mine must be one of the better copies. It's not as sharp as my 70-200 and certainly not as good as my 300/2.8, but I've never received complaints from clients. In fact, my tough critic (myself) is happy with its results almost all the time! And, for what I paid for it, I'm more than pleased. It's turned out to be much better than the earlier 24-70 I'd had.


----------



## pwp (Aug 24, 2013)

unfocused said:


> Serious photographers don't waste time on forums.


I'm sure there is a great deal of truth in that. Still, forums are the new meeting place for photographers since the days of going to the lab several times a week become a distant memory. That was a great place to have quick conversations with other photographers. It can be quite an isolated profession.

But that's getting off-topic. I've kept my 24-105 f/4is after getting the amazing 24-70 f/2.8II. There are occasions where the IS is valuable, for events work the extra reach is valuable and it makes a great travel lens. I prefer to travel light and generally go with one body, a de-gripped 5D3 and the 24-105. After working all year with a dozen high class lenses within reach, vacationing with just the 24-105 is creatively stimulating as you are constantly pushed to make new decisions about how you're going to approach a subject. It's fun. Some hard working, busy photographers will travel with just a body and a 35 or a 50 prime, maybe with a Leica....or a Sony RX1!

$800 for a pre-owned 24-105 is a very high price. You may want to take it. But I'm certainly keeping mine.

-PW


----------



## duydaniel (Aug 24, 2013)

I have 24-105 as kit on my 5D3 since day 1.
Cannot afford the 24-70 II 
Due to copy variations, the Canon 24-70 mk1 and Tamron are not necessarily optically superior.
Most of us use lightroom so I doubt you would be able to tell sharpness differences in post.


----------



## Zv (Aug 24, 2013)

duydaniel said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > CANONisOK said:
> ...



I'm having a hard time selling the 17-55. Damn thing is in mint condition, cleaned by Canon inside and out and shoved straight back in the box. $799 but nada. I wonder if the Sigma 18-35 is swaying peoples decision?


----------



## CANONisOK (Aug 24, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> I doubt you would have hard time selling 17-55 and 50 f1.4. Those are great lenses.
> The question is, what are you going to do with the money? :
> 
> 1. 1D X
> ...


Only one of each? 
For now, any equipment sold will go toward defraying the cost of my new RRS tripod setup.


----------



## CANONisOK (Aug 24, 2013)

Zv said:


> I'm having a hard time selling the 17-55. Damn thing is in mint condition, cleaned by Canon inside and out and shoved straight back in the box. $799 but nada. I wonder if the Sigma 18-35 is swaying peoples decision?


I've had the exact same problem for probably six months. Still no takers at $700. 
I think part of my problem is I am in a small market. I can't tell you how many people have asked why it is so expensive even though it is "almost the same as the kit lens". ???


----------



## Zv (Aug 24, 2013)

CANONisOK said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > I'm having a hard time selling the 17-55. Damn thing is in mint condition, cleaned by Canon inside and out and shoved straight back in the box. $799 but nada. I wonder if the Sigma 18-35 is swaying peoples decision?
> ...



Tell them to put the kit lens on in AF then try and turn the focus ring. That will break it and they'll have to buy the 17-55! Haha! Also, they've now learnt about Full Time Manual focus! See? Educational as well!


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 24, 2013)

CANONisOK said:


> So I have a buyer lined up through CL to sell off my hardly-ever used 24-105mm for $800. Ever since purchasing the 24-70mm mk2, it has been gathering dust. I'm not lacking anything over that FL range, so it shouldn't bother me, but...
> 
> I just wonder, am I missing something obvious about this lens? I have wanted to love it since I bought it over a year ago. So many people on this forum and others extoll its virtues (IQ, versatility, IS). To be frank - I just haven't seen it. And I think it sounds great on paper - good FL range, IS, compactness. It _SHOULD_ be my go-to walkaround lens. But it isn't.
> 
> ...



I've sold it three times ;D and never a hint of seller's remorse! (buyer's remorse three times though, quick too, as no copy lasted more than 7 days in my house)

And man $800 for it? SELL IT SELL IT FAST! It's virtually impossible to get that much a new copy now, never mind used! Many used copies go $600 these days, even $550!!


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 24, 2013)

Zv said:


> duydaniel said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



The 17-55 experiences more depreciation than some of canon's lenses. I sold a good condition (some dust inside) lens for 750 on amazon, and my take away was around 690. I actually bought it for 575, so I made a nice little profit off of it, but considering how much it costs new, it seems surprising.


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 24, 2013)

CANONisOK said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > I'm having a hard time selling the 17-55. Damn thing is in mint condition, cleaned by Canon inside and out and shoved straight back in the box. $799 but nada. I wonder if the Sigma 18-35 is swaying peoples decision?
> ...



If you have to ask... maybe you shouldn't be in the market for a 17-55. That's harsh.


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 24, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> CANONisOK said:
> 
> 
> > So I have a buyer lined up through CL to sell off my hardly-ever used 24-105mm for $800. Ever since purchasing the 24-70mm mk2, it has been gathering dust. I'm not lacking anything over that FL range, so it shouldn't bother me, but...
> ...



It is awful the depreciation the 24-105 is experiencing. Even the 50mm f/1.8 mk ii maintains its value better (new retail pricing v. used resale value).


----------



## Pi (Aug 24, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> The 17-55 experiences more depreciation than some of canon's lenses. I sold a good condition (some dust inside) lens for 750 on amazon, and my take away was around 690. I actually bought it for 575, so I made a nice little profit off of it, but considering how much it costs new, it seems surprising.



I had similar troubles with it 1 1/2 - 2 years ago. I sold my 10-22 and 60 macro quickly but the selling the 17-55 was hard.


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 24, 2013)

Pi said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > The 17-55 experiences more depreciation than some of canon's lenses. I sold a good condition (some dust inside) lens for 750 on amazon, and my take away was around 690. I actually bought it for 575, so I made a nice little profit off of it, but considering how much it costs new, it seems surprising.
> ...



I think it might be the dust issue. Most people who upgrade to a 17-55 are going to be knowledgeable, so maybe they shell out more for a new one... It maybe reminds me of the used market for the 50mm f/1.4 usm and its reported AF issues.


----------



## Zv (Aug 24, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > jdramirez said:
> ...



Well, based on that logic said people should also be aware that the internal dust has no bearing on IQ! But mine has none and it still wont sell!! What the frick? Might as well have not had it cleaned! There's a dude selling it for $660 in "very good" condition. I highly doubt that. Prick. Might as well just give it away!


----------



## Ron Bailey (Aug 24, 2013)

Have not read all the posts...but if you can sell it for $800 in the market I would jump on it. You can always purchase it again cheaper than what you are currently selling it for.


----------



## tron (Aug 24, 2013)

CANONisOK said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > I doubt you would have hard time selling 17-55 and 50 f1.4. Those are great lenses.
> ...


I guess the new moto could be: all serious photographers must have the above equipment (all of it!) ;D ;D ;D


----------



## dgatwood (Aug 24, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> CANONisOK said:
> 
> 
> > Zv said:
> ...



Not really. It's a fair question. Your big problem is that the kit lens got a lot better recently. The focal length is almost the same, the newest version of the kit lens apparently has better resolution, less CA wide open, less pincushion distortion (though somewhat more vignetting and barrel distortion)....

The answer is obvious, of course. The 17-55 is faster, and for that extra bit of speed, you pay an extra grand. The reason resale is hard is that most people don't need the extra bit of speed. If you're just trying to get less DOF, chances are you'll buy a prime instead of a different zoom lens. If you do a lot of low-light shooting, it might be a nice upgrade, but otherwise, it probably isn't worth the extra cost.

Your best bet is probably to resell it through Amazon, honestly.


----------



## Zv (Aug 25, 2013)

dgatwood said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > CANONisOK said:
> ...



I AM selling it on Amazon!


----------



## sagittariansrock (Aug 25, 2013)

Zv said:


> dgatwood said:
> 
> 
> > jdramirez said:
> ...



Yeah, this worries me too since I will have to sell my EF-S gear next year. The problem of moving from APS-C to crop with my current situation is that I can't sell any of the lenses piecemeal. I cannot replace any of my EF-S lenses with FF lenses that will still work equally with the 7D, so I need to sell them all together. 
I had put all my gear on Craigslist while I was still considering going FF this year, but the response was so lukewarm that I decided to squeeze more out of what I had for now. Most of the people were only interested in the 10-22 and none in the 17-55 and 7D. 
Even Adorama often sells 7D refurb with 1 year warranty at $ 850 (and grey market ones cost $ 800)- I shall be lucky to get $ 500 for it. And 7D, yeah there is a guy on CL selling it for $ 650 with OEM hood. A month-old post at that. So...


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 25, 2013)

sagittariansrock said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > dgatwood said:
> ...



why can't you sell it piece by piece? how is your Amazon rating? if it is good you really shouldn't have a problem if you post photos and give a detailed explanation of the condition.


----------



## BL (Aug 25, 2013)

got my 24-105 as a kit lens with my 5D. used it off and on then sat in my bag for almost 5 years before selling. no remorse, no regret.

was the softest lens in my kit, but stopped down did ok. IS was quite useful at times, however.
never was a fan of how it renders bokeh - it has this rolled condom look and always found it a bit busy.


----------



## duydaniel (Aug 25, 2013)

105 f4


----------



## sagittariansrock (Aug 26, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> why can't you sell it piece by piece? how is your Amazon rating? if it is good you really shouldn't have a problem if you post photos and give a detailed explanation of the condition.



I have only ever sold a 50D on Amazon and never got a rating for that, so my Anazon rating is nonexistent, but that's beside the point.
The problem with selling piece by piece is I can't replace any single APS-C glass with a single FF replacement, so until I change my camera I can't really replace any of the lenses, and then I would need to change them rightaway because none of the EF-S lenses would work.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 26, 2013)

BL said:


> was the softest lens in my kit



You must have had a bad copy - mine is really good (and made me sell my 24-70 f/2.8 ). Even when compared to my 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, I'm happy with the sharpness. My 17-40 is noticeably softer, but not bad at all when stopped down.


----------



## Pi (Aug 26, 2013)

mrsfotografie said:


> BL said:
> 
> 
> > was the softest lens in my kit
> ...



Well, that really depends on the kit!  My 24-105 is the softest lens I own as well but then the rest are lenses that is hard compete with. I like the 24-105 a lot, and use it very often. I find the IS to be very capable even though it is "old". 

Here is a recent shot with it. It was incredibly muggy but that actually contributed to the shot. Using a zoom helped to find the right (IMO, anyway) angle and perspective. I had the 35L in my bag as well but I did not bother using it.




The Shanghai oriental pearl tower


----------



## Zv (Aug 26, 2013)

Pi said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > BL said:
> ...



Nice! I agree that the 24-105L is plenty sharp. All of these were done with it and I had to dial down the sharpness in some.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/zanjum/sets/72157634937545323/


----------



## BL (Aug 27, 2013)

mrsfotografie said:


> BL said:
> 
> 
> > was the softest lens in my kit
> ...



you know, you're right. i think i'm under-representing the sharpness of the lens.

what was in my kit at the time when i sold it was the 100L, 85L II, and 70-200 2.8 II.

so yes, softest lens in my kit, but that can mean anything i suppose!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 27, 2013)

BL said:


> so yes, softest lens in my kit, but that can mean anything i suppose!



I suppose the softest lens in my kit would be the MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro. But somehow it performs better at 5x magnification than any other lens I own...


----------



## R1-7D (Aug 27, 2013)

I had a relatively good copy of the 24-105 that I just sold a week ago Monday. I replaced it with the 24-70 f/2.8 II on Sunday. So far I am not missing the 24-105 at all, despite it having more reach and IS. it was a great lens, but the 24-70 is something else. The colours it produces and the sharpness are amazing. 

Maybe when I see Getitdigitial sell the 24-105 for $649 again I'll pick up another copy in the future.


----------

