# Do you still love 24-105L?



## sunnyVan (Apr 25, 2013)

I used to like this lens more. Then I began to appreciate prime lenses. All of a sudden this zoom becomes mediocre. It's performance is average but it's versatile. I am debating whether to sell it to fund a sigma 35. But I'm afraid I'll regret selling a general zoom. Plus it's not worth as much as when I bought it. For those of you who own this zoom, do you still use it very much? I realize it's unfair to compare a zoom with a prime but I promise myself not to add a lens without selling one. What a dilemma...


----------



## rpt (Apr 25, 2013)

sunnyVan said:


> I used to like this lens more. Then I began to appreciate prime lenses. All of a sudden this zoom becomes mediocre. It's performance is average but it's versatile. I am debating whether to sell it to fund a sigma 35. But I'm afraid I'll regret selling a general zoom. Plus it's not worth as much as when I bought it. For those of you who own this zoom, do you still use it very much? I realize it's unfair to compare a zoom with a prime but I promise myself not to add a lens without selling one. What a dilemma...


Yes. For primes I have the 40mm and the 100L. I would still shoot with the 24-105 when the light is good. I guess I have been spoilt by zooms and am a lazy photographer. I would rather not change lenses. I guess I have never shot with the f1.8 or 1.4 or 1.2 so I probably don't know what I am missing...


----------



## Skirball (Apr 25, 2013)

sunnyVan said:


> It's performance is average but it's versatile.



That was my expectation when I bought it, so not much changed. I haven't found a buyer for my left kidney yet, so I still don't own a 24-70II, so my views on zoom lenses are just that: not as sharp as a prime, but much more flexible.


----------



## J.R. (Apr 25, 2013)

I've bought the 24-70 and used it for all but 3 days and I'm hooked. I don't think I'll be shooting the 24-105 again ... Will sell it. 

I don't have any doubt this zoom beats the primes hands down in IQ ... The only reason to choose primes is the shallow DOF. 

Give it a thought. 

Cheers ... J.R


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 25, 2013)

I don't use it as much and I also favors my primes, but when I don't know what the shoot will be like, close, far, light, dark, I take it along because I know I can still get a pretty good shot and I'll allow good the camera body to compensate as needed. I won't bet rid of my 24-105, but I will allow it to collect a little bit of dust.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 25, 2013)

Its fine, and better than many primes at f/5.6. I do use a lot of primes only because of low light. Most of the Canon Primes are very good, but many are also far out of date, and time has passed them by. Canon has concentrated on zooms, simply because thats what buyers want. As a result, the newest zooms are better than a lot of the older primes.
Even the new 24-70mm f/4 IS does not surpass it, and Nikon's more expensive 24-120 will really open your eyes if you want to see mediocre.

The newer primes are much improved, maybe we will see more updates.


----------



## Random Orbits (Apr 25, 2013)

sunnyVan said:


> I used to like this lens more. Then I began to appreciate prime lenses. All of a sudden this zoom becomes mediocre. It's performance is average but it's versatile. I am debating whether to sell it to fund a sigma 35. But I'm afraid I'll regret selling a general zoom. Plus it's not worth as much as when I bought it. For those of you who own this zoom, do you still use it very much? I realize it's unfair to compare a zoom with a prime but I promise myself not to add a lens without selling one. What a dilemma...



Try putting it away for a month, and see how you do without it. You already have the focal length covered with what you have.

I never had the 24-105 but I went over a year using primes instead of a general purpose zoom. There may be cases where the zoom would be handy, but the greater range of DOF that you gain offsets it in a different way. I did find myself carrying two lenses more often with primes than when I had a general purpose zoom though. Recently, I picked up a general purpose zoom but I still find myself carrying two lenses most of the time: the zoom and a fast prime, especially if I know I'll want to take pictures inside and outside. I guess what I'm trying to say is that there is a place for zooms and primes. If you find by your experiment that you miss the 24-105, then it might be time to declare a mulligan. ;D


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 25, 2013)

Yes
:-*


----------



## ablearcher (Apr 25, 2013)

I have a lot of love for my 35L and 135L. I enjoy shooting with a small 28 1.8 and with 85 1.8. My 24-105 is a tool. No mad love, no pasion. However, I use it a lot when i work with strobes. This is practically my workhorse for home studio work. This lens for studio plus primes for everything else. So yeah, I'm not planning to sell mine anytime soon. No love, but a very strong practical relationship. ;D


----------



## Jon Gilchrist (Apr 25, 2013)

I've got the 24-105L and love it. I also have the 50/1.4 (along with a bunch of other oddball 50-58mm vintage glass) and the new Sigma 35/1.4 Art lens. Here's my advice: If you want a good prime and you have to dump one lens to add another, get the Sigma 35/1.4 and dump your 50/1.4. The 35 is a bit wider, but at f1.4 there is no comparison to the 50. Sharp sharp sharp, corner to corner. I have to stop down to about 5.6 on my 50 before it gets good, and then you're into the same territory as the 24-105. The 35 has great sharpness and good bokeh, much better than the 50/1.4.


----------



## distant.star (Apr 25, 2013)

.
That sums it up pretty well for me.

I never "loved" the 24-105, but it's a solid and versatile and workmanlike tool. It does an acceptable job in many situations, but lately I'm always finding myself thinking how much I'd prefer the 35 (Sigma) or the 17-40 (Canon) for a particular situation. The 24-105 rarely satisfies beyond 70-80mm so I've ended up using it like a 24-70 -- so I'm pondering the possibility of going to the new 24-70.





ablearcher said:


> I have a lot of love for my 35L and 135L. I enjoy shooting with a small 28 1.8 and with 85 1.8. My 24-105 is a tool. No mad love, no pasion. However, I use it a lot when i work with strobes. This is practically my workhorse for home studio work. This lens for studio plus primes for everything else. So yeah, I'm not planning to sell mine anytime soon. No love, but a very strong practical relationship. ;D


----------



## beckstoy (Apr 25, 2013)

Jon Gilchrist said:


> I've got the 24-105L and love it. I also have the 50/1.4 (along with a bunch of other oddball 50-58mm vintage glass) and the new Sigma 35/1.4 Art lens. Here's my advice: If you want a good prime and you have to dump one lens to add another, get the Sigma 35/1.4 and dump your 50/1.4. The 35 is a bit wider, but at f1.4 there is no comparison to the 50. Sharp sharp sharp, corner to corner. I have to stop down to about 5.6 on my 50 before it gets good, and then you're into the same territory as the 24-105. The 35 has great sharpness and good bokeh, much better than the 50/1.4.



Thanks for the comparison of the 50/1.4 with the Sigma 35/1.4! I'd never even thought about that because I love having that 1.4 in a prime, but I always wish it was just a little wider. If it's really that sharp, well, I might take your advice and sell my canon 50/1.4 for the sigma 35/1.4.


----------



## florianbieler.de (Apr 25, 2013)

Received my Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art today, what a lens. I have minor focus issues on my 5D Mark III but it's no focus shift, only a slight front focus which I corrected in the body settings and now it sits. Really sharp at 1.4. I had the 50 1.2L before and that was quite a bit too soft for me, now I am satisfied. Still it's not 50mm which I wanted at first, but hey, there has to be a new 50mm 1.4 by Canon or Sigma sometime in the near future anyway.


----------



## MarkII (Apr 25, 2013)

For me the 24-105 is a sharp lens (at least my copy) that has an extremely useful focal length. The downside is that the aperture (DOF) and distortion at 24mm (which is noticeable with architectural shots even with correction in LR).

I tend to shoot longer focal lengths, so the new 24-70mm doesn't really make sense for me. Instead I have stuck with the 24-105mm and a set of prime lenses for when I want something more specific.

These days I tend to avoid shooting with the 24-105mm. Yet when I do, I usually really like the results. Maybe I should use it more...


----------



## kentandersen (Apr 25, 2013)

I have a 24-105, and a 135L and a 35mm 1.4, and a 50mm 1.8. And a Sigma 12-24mm.

The 24-105 is on all the time. The primes comes into use when the motive is demanding something bether. Mostly I am not having the time to change lenses, and the quality of the zoom is mostly more than enough for my need.

I am mostly using the 24mm and the 105 mm. I am rarely using it in the midle. I rather get the motive I want, than missing them becouse I am having the wrong lens on. Primes are for slow objects, where I have the time to find the right angle and framing. The zoom is a great thing when shooting kids, street, animals and sport. And of course a great advantage when going hiking or on vacation.


----------



## 7enderbender (Apr 25, 2013)

It's good for what it is. I never loved it and always regretted not buying the original 24-70 instead when it was still available and only very little extra money. The results are certainly more than "good enough" but I never liked the f/4 limitation which makes it actually not a versatile lens for my preferences. I rarely ever leave the house with just the 24-105. It's good for studio style portraits though or anything else where you'd stop down anyway.


----------



## skullyspice (Apr 25, 2013)

I love my 24-105. usually shoot with it at 105 and it is sharp sharp sharp.


----------



## dexstrose (Apr 25, 2013)

I was so happy to replace my old sigma 24-70 (2003 model, heavy as a 6 pack of beer) with the canon 24-105. The 24-105 was lighter to carry everywhere. But now the picture quality is not what I'm looking for. After years with it, I found its not as sharp as it can be. It works really well when I'm outside with good light. Not as well indoors without flash. 

Now I'm saving for the 24-70 2.8 for replacement and will sell the 24-105.


----------



## Dukinald (Apr 25, 2013)

Very much so!

It is on all the time. Perfect for my needs. Pretty sure 24-70 is better and who would not want a 2.8 or primes. But for the versatility and affordability, nothing beats this lens.


----------



## Krob78 (Apr 25, 2013)

7enderbender said:


> It's good for what it is. I never loved it and always regretted not buying the original 24-70 instead when it was still available and only very little extra money. The results are certainly more than "good enough" but I never liked the f/4 limitation which makes it actually not a versatile lens for my preferences. I rarely ever leave the house with just the 24-105. It's good for studio style portraits though or anything else where you'd stop down anyway.


+1 My sentiments exactly, for the same reasons. I've said in several posts on CR that I like it but I don't love it. It's the only lens I have that I don't love...

I decided today that mine is going up for sale. I just don't use it near enough. Hmm, I think I've only locked it on my body 3 times... 24-70mm is definitely in my immediate future... Hmm, May even be willing to give that new Tammi a try... :


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 25, 2013)

If you want sharp + versatile + prime quality, then get 24-70 f2.8 II


----------



## Krob78 (Apr 25, 2013)

MarkII said:


> For me the 24-105 is a sharp lens (at least my copy) that has an extremely useful focal length. The downside is that the aperture (DOF) and distortion at 24mm (which is noticeable with architectural shots even with correction in LR).
> 
> I tend to shoot longer focal lengths, so the new 24-70mm doesn't really make sense for me. Instead I have stuck with the 24-105mm and a set of prime lenses for when I want something more specific.
> 
> These days I tend to avoid shooting with the 24-105mm. Yet when I do, I usually really like the results. Maybe I should use it more...





> The downside is that the aperture (DOF) and distortion at 24mm (which is noticeable with architectural shots even with correction in LR).


The new LR 5 beta has an adjustment tool for that, which with my testing seems to work pretty decent and quickly. DxO is another great option but if your using LR and can make the adjustments there, then why not... try out the LR 5 beta and see what you think, the tool is under the Lens Corrections tab, under "basic"


----------



## Krob78 (Apr 25, 2013)

dexstrose said:


> I was so happy to replace my old sigma 24-70 (2003 model, heavy as a 6 pack of beer) with the canon 24-105. The 24-105 was lighter to carry everywhere. But now the picture quality is not what I'm looking for. After years with it, I found its not as sharp as it can be. It works really well when I'm outside with good light. Not as well indoors without flash.
> 
> Now I'm saving for the 24-70 2.8 for replacement and will sell the 24-105.


Could be time for a quick MFA adjustment and perhaps it will be back to sharp as always! Sounds like it's been a great lens for you, that might just do the trick!


----------



## tomscott (Apr 25, 2013)

I really like the 24-105mm it's a great all rounder.

I find the 24-70mm isn't as versatile because of the focal length, but obviously blows it out of the water for IQ. But you need £1000 extra for it!

You can't get a more versatile standard zoom than the 24-105mm for a walk around lens.


----------



## silversurfer96 (Apr 25, 2013)

It is my most "used" lens. Has enough focus length to cover most of my needs. Would love to try our the new 24-70 2.8 II, but for now, this will do.


----------



## Krob78 (Apr 26, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> If you want sharp + versatile + prime quality, then get 24-70 f2.8 II


Ver I or Ver II are excellent!


----------



## sunnyVan (Apr 26, 2013)

Thank you for your input. Seems like the general sentiment is the same as how I feel-it is useful sometimes but there's no wow factor. Im leaning toward selling it. If I could sell it near the price I paid I probably wouldn't even be hesitating at all.....


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 26, 2013)

sunnyVan said:


> Thank you for your input. Seems like the general sentiment is the same as how I feel-it is useful sometimes but there's no wow factor. Im leaning toward selling it. If I could sell it near the price I paid I probably wouldn't even be hesitating at all.....



I have zero interest in 24-105. I just wonder...what much you paid for it? and how much you want for it?


----------



## tron (Apr 26, 2013)

Since I got 24-105 I added 35mm 1.4 L, TS-E24 L II, 135mm 2L to my collection 
(plus some other that have completely different focal length). Add to that my already existing EF50 1.8 (version 1) and EF85mm 1.8.

So I do not use it so often as I used to. But still remains useful: As a walk around lens lens when 1 lens is better than no lens at all.
Be that excursions, birthday parties, etc. 

I would not sell it.


----------



## mrmarks (Apr 26, 2013)

The 24-105 f4 IS is a versatile lens for dslr videos. The IS helps a lot in stabilization.


----------



## spinworkxroy (Apr 26, 2013)

I kept mine for a really long time after I bought the 24-70ii thinking I'll use it as a travel lens or when I need the extra range.
Sad to say, I've not touched it since and I recently just sold it away. I never had the use of the extra range and I couldn't bring myself to sacrifice IQ over range. I liked it but also never loved it..the iq and distortion was really bad


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Apr 26, 2013)

I still love mine and wouldn't sell it. Even if I got a 24-70II I would likely keep it as a secondary versatile lens. Looking at your lenses there would be a gap in your setup if you sold it for a 35.


----------



## Randy (Apr 26, 2013)

I'm keeping mine even though I got the new 24-70 recently. It's good for shooting events where I need a setup for couples shots while using my 24-70 for candids.I like it also for Asia travel where I carry my 70-200 IS and an older 17-35mm. All three lens use a 77mm polarizer, which keeps things simple when trying to keep up with gear.


----------



## bholliman (Apr 26, 2013)

I like it, don't love it. It's my primary landscape and general purpose outdoor lens however. Last year I had it on my camera most of the time. This year I'm using my primes most of the time. At some point I'll buy a 24-70. 2.8, either the Canon II or Tamron VC.


----------



## awinphoto (Apr 26, 2013)

Works for 80-90% of my every day shooting... It's not the best at any one thing, but very good at many things...


----------



## rpt (Apr 26, 2013)

awinphoto said:


> Works for 80-90% of my every day shooting... It's not the best at any one thing, but very good at many things...


So I woke up in the morning and asked myself this question. Guess what, the answer is still "yes"!


But then I don't have over two thousand dollars for a 24-70L II... So I would not know what I am missing...


----------



## jhanken (Apr 26, 2013)

I do like mine, it is versatile and utilitarian, and I think I would really miss the extra range if I went with one of the 24-70 models. I was very disappointed that Canon came out with the 24-70mm f/4 IS L. Maybe the smaller range makes for better IQ (and cheaper price), but I would have rather seen an update to the current length, even if it picked up a bit of weight and cost.

I do find myself reaching for the Sigma 50mm & 35mm and Canon 85mm f/1.8 more often these days, though. The new Sigma 35mm is freakin' awesome, feels like a Zeiss with autofocus as a bonus.


----------



## RGF (Apr 26, 2013)

I have both the 24-105 and 24-70II. Weight difference is not too significant but the extra 35 mm and IS are nice. Still having a hard time keep both; IQ vs IS and extra length. I guess the 24-105 my walk around lens and the 24-70 II is for use on a tripod. At least for the moment that is how I justify both


----------



## nWmR12 (Apr 26, 2013)

Agreeing with some of the other posters about not really loving it but it is very useful. I usually bring mine on trips where I want to keep the weight to the minimal but since I just got a Zeiss 21mm I am find it hard to even thinking about using the 24-105. Personally I find 24 never quite wide enough for me but I do think the my 24-105 has great IQ at least the one that I own...But I just love my primes. Only time will tell if I really will keep it.


----------



## pwp (Apr 26, 2013)

The 24-105 was a godsend to me after a number of completely hopeless 24-70 f/2.8 zooms. It was sharp wide open, was a great travel lens and refreshingly useful for event work with the IS and extra reach. I considered it a temporary lens until the 24-70 f/2.8II shipped. 

So now the 24-70 f/2.8II has shipped, I know I'll be keeping both. The new 24-70 easily surpasses the 24-105 on most measures of IQ, and is the go-to lens for high quality commercial output, even pushing my primes out of contention. It's that good.

But the 24-105 is no slouch. I like it and it still has a valuable, relevant role in my kit.

-PW


----------



## infared (Apr 26, 2013)

Sold my 24-105mm to fund (a small part of) the purchase of the 24-70 f/2.8L II. Never looked back. 
According to The Digital Picture:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=787&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=355&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

....the 24-70 f/2.8L II @2.8 is quite better than the 24-105mm @ f/4 in all matching zoom ranges except 80mm, 90mm, &105mm! LOL...but one pays dearly for it, so as usual ...everything in photography is a compromise.....


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 26, 2013)

Hobby Shooter said:


> I still love mine and wouldn't sell it. Even if I got a 24-70II I would likely keep it as a secondary versatile lens. Looking at your lenses there would be a gap in your setup if you sold it for a 35.



Many shooters have this same decision, until they shoot with 24-70 II


----------



## docsmith (Apr 26, 2013)

I am still getting used to the 24-105. Thus far I like it. I can't say I love it but it is growing on me some. I am already plotting to either add primes or upgrade to the 24-70 II. 

I just upgraded from the 7D and EFS 15-85 to the 5DIII 24-105. While I am not going back, I have to say, I did absolutely love the EFS 15-85. My images are better with FF, I love the AF and the high ISO performance, so I am not going back, but I loved the sharpness across that huge focal length range of the EFS 15-85. The 24-105 feels stunted in comparison and then the lower IS performance is noticable.


----------



## Random Orbits (Apr 26, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> Hobby Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > I still love mine and wouldn't sell it. Even if I got a 24-70II I would likely keep it as a secondary versatile lens. Looking at your lenses there would be a gap in your setup if you sold it for a 35.
> ...



+1. It really is too bad that its long end stops at 70 rather than 85 or 100mm.


----------



## Click (Apr 26, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> Hobby Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > I still love mine and wouldn't sell it. Even if I got a 24-70II I would likely keep it as a secondary versatile lens. Looking at your lenses there would be a gap in your setup if you sold it for a 35.
> ...



+1


----------



## bholliman (Apr 26, 2013)

docsmith said:


> I just upgraded from the 7D and EFS 15-85 to the 5DIII 24-105. While I am not going back, I have to say, I did absolutely love the EFS 15-85. My images are better with FF, I love the AF and the high ISO performance, so I am not going back, but I loved the sharpness across that huge focal length range of the EFS 15-85. The 24-105 feels stunted in comparison and then the lower IS performance is noticable.



+1

I also think EF-S 15-85 is a better lens than the 24-105L. Too bad it won't work on my 6D! 

I did some quick comparisons with both lenses on my 7D and the 15-85 images were sharper with less distortion at 24-50mm. These were all unscientific tests, I just shot the same subjects at different focal lengths and changed lenses. Its also my observation is the IS on the 15-85 is more effective.


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 26, 2013)

I use mine for non-critical stuff, Like ebay photos, vacation photos and personal stuff. When I do use it for clients it's usually at F/8 so no-one could tell. It's a great lens if your using flash...


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 26, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> I use mine for non-critical stuff, Like ebay photos, vacation photos and personal stuff. When I do use it for clients it's usually at F/8 so no-one could tell. It's a great lens if your using flash...




f8 - that's the key to optimising results from this lens. 

All our Building Panoramics pictures that have been shot with this lens are at f8. 
Even so, it still has to be king of versatility.


----------



## ChilledXpress (Apr 26, 2013)

Always found the 24-105 to be very vanilla... Picked it up as one of the first L and was never impressed. After getting the 24-70 and primes, it has been in a box since.


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 26, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > I use mine for non-critical stuff, Like ebay photos, vacation photos and personal stuff. When I do use it for clients it's usually at F/8 so no-one could tell. It's a great lens if your using flash...
> ...



I viewed your website. Great work! It seems DR is not limiting your creativity.


----------



## candyman (Apr 26, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> I use mine for non-critical stuff, Like ebay photos, vacation photos and personal stuff. When I do use it for clients it's usually at F/8 so no-one could tell. *It's a great lens if your using flash...*




+1


----------



## randym77 (Apr 26, 2013)

I never really loved it. I like it. I bought it as a "kit lens" with one of my bodies. Usually I buy body-only, but the 24-105L sounded useful, and the price was right, so I got the kit.

I like prime lenses. I've got an embarrassing number of them. I also have a 16-35mm f/2.8L II that I prefer for the wider end of things. 

But I still use the 24-105L a _lot_. It's a very convenient "walk around" lens. In bright daylight, it's plenty fast enough, and sometimes it's just not convenient to haul around a bunch of lenses. If I'm going someplace outdoors, in the daylight, and don't want to bring a camera bag full of gear, the 24-105L is the lens I put on my camera.


----------



## sanj (Apr 26, 2013)

I really like the lens.
It is very versatile.


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 26, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...




Thanks Ramon, appreciate that. 

Yes, unlike some I have a vague idea of what under exposure is, and also know how to use that clever 'bkt' feature in the camera menu ;D


----------



## kev8d (Apr 26, 2013)

Wow, Sporgon, your building panoramas are fantastic! 

Back on topic, the 24-105 is my most versatile lens. If we could get a 24-105 f/2.8 IS, I'd happily sell most of my other lenses.







Sporgon said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > I use mine for non-critical stuff, Like ebay photos, vacation photos and personal stuff. When I do use it for clients it's usually at F/8 so no-one could tell. It's a great lens if your using flash...
> ...


----------



## Dick (Apr 26, 2013)

I don't like it at all. If it rains heavily and I need pictures, I grab this garbage lens.

The image quality is quite bad, the AF is kinda slow and inconsistent & on top of that f/4 is not going to help with busy backgrounds.


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 26, 2013)

[


> Wow, Sporgon, your building panoramas are fantastic!
> 
> Back on topic, the 24-105 is my most versatile lens. If we could get a 24-105 f/2.8 IS, I'd happily sell most of my other lenses.







Thanks kev8d, that's much appreciated. I should point out that there are two of us involved in Building Panoramics, and nearly all the pictures are a result of a combined effort, so I can only really claim 50% of the credit ;D

@dick - there seems to be a lot of sub standard copies of this lens out there, probably because so any have been made. With a little pp at around f8 this lens should be able to hold its own against the big hitters .


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Apr 26, 2013)

Dick said:


> I grab this garbage lens.


"garbage lens"? ??? :


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Apr 26, 2013)

kev8d said:


> If we could get a 24-105 f/2.8 IS, I'd happily sell most of my other lenses.


+1


----------



## bholliman (Apr 26, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> [
> 
> 
> > Wow, Sporgon, your building panoramas are fantastic!
> ...



The Building Panoramics pictures are evidence that this lens can take incredible pictures, especially stepped down. Nice work BP!


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 26, 2013)

bholliman said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...




Many thanks bholliman. Your kind praise help to keep me motivated !

When we moved to FF in 2005 my partner bought the 5D 'kit' with the 24-105. At the time I was adamant that we should only use primes for our BP pictures, but in time it became clear that as we were using the 24-105 in its strong zone, ie 35-70 @ f8, there was just no difference in the finished pictures between it and lenses such as the 50 f1.4.

I like to take a few pictures of show jumping for my own pleasure using the 135 and 200 L, and a while ago I thought I would see how the 24-105 fared in this situation. To be quite honest I didn't think it was bad, even at f4.5. I'm not suggesting that this lens can compete with the 135L as a portrait lens, but in this situation I wasn't unhappy with the result. It was shot on the MK1 so the 100% crop isn't that big. It's certainly not _garbage_ 

The rider is Donald Whitaker, the youngest of the world famous Whitaker show jumping dynasty. When he wins a medal at the 2020 Olympics remember you saw his first here, on CR ;D


----------



## jcollett (Apr 26, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> I use mine for non-critical stuff, Like ebay photos, vacation photos and personal stuff. When I do use it for clients it's usually at F/8 so no-one could tell. It's a great lens if your using flash...



Good point Ramon. The 430ex flash is tailor-made for the EF 24-105 f/4L as its head extension matches the focal range perfectly.

I like the lens out in the daylight but I've been trying to get as compact a camera as possible so I've been leaning towards primes lately.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Apr 26, 2013)

I've a brilliant copy, in overall IQ better than some primes I own. Love the sharpness, colors, contrast and versatility. Beats my 24-70 f/2.8 MkI hands down except for light gathering ability. My number-one vacation, and do-it-all-lens.


----------



## tron (Apr 29, 2013)

Having said nice things about my 24-105, I tried it today on my 5D3 and I noticed that IS was noisier than when it was on my 5D2! But even on 5D2 it was noisier than it used to be :-\


----------

