# Lens suggestion - Alternatives to 24-105



## kabelleger (Mar 4, 2012)

Hi forum,

I'm currently using a 50D with a 17-55 2.8 IS and a 70-200 4.0 L. I mostly use the 17-55, and it is ok IQ wise (could be a bit better in the corners for larger apertures), and sometimes I'm missing a few mm on the long end. Now that I want to buy a 5D mk III, I'm not sure what lens to buy. The 24-70's range on FF is not enough for me (even shorter than my current lens on APS-C), so I'm thinking about buying the 24-105.

* A great fractor in favor of the the 24-105 is the price - buying the kit I would get the 24-105 for 550 CHF, which sounds like a really good deal.

* I read various things about the 24-105's image quality, some say the resolution isn't that good. However since the 5D3 isn't a MP monster, will it be ok?

* F4.0 disturbs me a little. Since one of the main reasons why I want to switch away from my 50D is low-light performance/ISO noise, I feel a bit stupid bying a FF superduper-ISO-performance body and at the same time an F4.0 lens. Are there any 3rd party lenses worth considering? Should I buy an additional prime instead (50mm sounds reasonnable for my purposes, but which one)? Or (I'm not kidding, since all I have to loose is the 70-200 4.0 L, which I could totally live with) would Nikon have a great offer for my purposes?


----------



## Jamesy (Mar 4, 2012)

I started a thread yesterday which is very similar here: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,3929.0.html and many have already chimed in with great information - check it out.


----------



## kabelleger (Mar 4, 2012)

Great thread, thanks. Although it doesn't mention any alternatives to the 24-105 (in the same zoom range) - Does this mean there aren't any?


----------



## Jamesy (Mar 4, 2012)

There are a couple but they are not as long that I am aware of - they are the 24-70/2.8 the new 24-70/2.8 Mk.II and the Tamron 24-70 VC. There are also non IS versions of the Tamron and Sigma offerings too.

For the price, value, overall quality and versatility - I will likely be adding a 24-105 to my 5D3 when I bite the bullet.


----------



## lexonio (Mar 4, 2012)

Actually there is a Tammy, more specifically the 24-135mm. It's quite blurry and the build quality is subpar compared to the good old 24-105mm. I think the 24-105mm is one of the best lenses ever produced by Canon, all factors considered.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 4, 2012)

There are always alternatives. Canon has a 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, which was originally a consumer film body kit lens. Nikon has a 24-120mm f/4 VR. Neither offer IQ as good as the 24-105L.

The 24-105mm is a great lens, IQ is very good, range is useful. I've got 12 lenses, 10 of them L-series, and the 24-105mm has seen the most use of them all. It's really an ideal walkaround lens on FF. When it comes down to it, f/2.8 isn't all that fast, either - so, combining a slower zoom with a fast prime makes sense. 

If you're looking for a similar focal range and a faster lens, you're not going to find it - your f/2.8 options are 24-70mm or 28-75mm (the Tamron 24-135mm mentioned above is f/3.5-5.6). If you're looking for a broader focal range without a faster aperture (what you'll get is slower/variable), there are a few options - the 28-135mm being one. If you're looking for a _really_ broad focal range, with IQ equivalent to the 24-105mm, you're only real option is the Canon 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS. It's big, heavy, and expensive, but the only way to get the convenience of a superzoom for FF without sacrificing IQ - and that's why I've got one...


----------



## Tijn (Mar 4, 2012)

The 24-105L is pretty lonely with that wide range, at least from Canon. There's also the 28-300L, but other than that, it's just the 24-70L. I too would find its range a bit too short for my main fancies. But there's a reason for this 24-105 loneliness: it's just great, there's no need for any others.

Some things:

- Getting primes for low-light situations is a good idea.
- The 24-105L is great, even though it's f/4, and it will surely outresolve 22Mpx.
- The increased light performance from the 5D Mk3 _means_ you can use these lighter, wider-range, smaller aperture lenses in the same situations. You're buying the possibility to take a step backwards lens-wise on light performance, while still being in decent condition due to several steps forwards from the camera body. And on several other aspects, the lens is a step forward, too. You get slightly shallower DOF wide open, increased sharpness, much better build quality and weather sealing, bigger zoom range, and less weight (compared to an f/2.8 lens, that is)...
- Consider the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 (pinched to f/2) and the Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 (wide-open) as some decent cheap&sharp primes.


----------



## Harv (Mar 4, 2012)

Yes, the 24-105 is a full stop slower than some of it's f/2.8 cousins, but remember it has IS which more than makes up for the one stop.

I currently use a 24-70 f/2.8L which replaced my original 24-105. I sometimes wish I still had the 24-105 for the long end. It's an excellent lens.


----------



## MikeHunt (Mar 4, 2012)

kabelleger said:


> * F4.0 disturbs me a little. Since one of the main reasons why I want to switch away from my 50D is low-light performance/ISO noise, I feel a bit stupid bying a FF superduper-ISO-performance body and at the same time an F4.0 lens. Are there any 3rd party lenses worth considering? Should I buy an additional prime instead (50mm sounds reasonnable for my purposes, but which one)? Or (I'm not kidding, since all I have to loose is the 70-200 4.0 L, which I could totally live with) would Nikon have a great offer for my purposes?



If you're seriously thinking of getting the 5D Mk III, then get the 24-70mm f/2.8L too. It will be a devastatingly good combination - both speed (since f4 bothers) + sharpness (see new MTFs)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 4, 2012)

Harv said:


> Yes, the 24-105 is a full stop slower than some of it's f/2.8 cousins, but remember it has IS which more than makes up for the one stop.



...as long as your subjects don't move. Being able to handhold at 1/4 s isn't helpful for shooting people at an event, unless Medusa was invited to the party...


----------



## Jamesy (Mar 4, 2012)

MikeHunt said:


> kabelleger said:
> 
> 
> > * F4.0 disturbs me a little. Since one of the main reasons why I want to switch away from my 50D is low-light performance/ISO noise, I feel a bit stupid bying a FF superduper-ISO-performance body and at the same time an F4.0 lens. Are there any 3rd party lenses worth considering? Should I buy an additional prime instead (50mm sounds reasonnable for my purposes, but which one)? Or (I'm not kidding, since all I have to loose is the 70-200 4.0 L, which I could totally live with) would Nikon have a great offer for my purposes?
> ...


You are referring to the 24-70mm f/2.8L II - correct?


----------



## kabelleger (Mar 4, 2012)

Thanks to you all. I guess I will go for the 24-105 then.

@buying an additional 24-70 (II): Not going to happen (for now). I cannot justify the price tag and the added weight given that I probably will not need f2.8 very often. But the 50mm f1.4 sounds like a good idea.


----------

