# Do I get 24-105



## babiesphotos.ca (Jan 11, 2013)

I have 5d Mark III, Tamron 28-75 2.8, and few primes 40 2.8, 50 1.4, 85 1.8, 135 2.0, and finally 17-40 that I got recently (used) and seem to rarely use. I'm mostly taking pictures indoors, fast moving twins, trying mostly without flash, as I can't bounce effectively when subject is very close (jumping on me).

I use 28-75 quite a bit, always on 2.8, unless one of the primes is on (love shallow depth of field). I find that I often want just a bit more than 75mm to not change position and capture moment. 

So I find myself constantly drawn to 24-105, though I rented it when I had 5D mark II, and I wasn't crazy about it, 4.0 felt slow inside of my house. But, I feel like it would be such practical lens because of range, set and forget, that I'm thinking of selling 17-40 and buying 24-105. But then, I can spend few more bucks and get Tamron 24-70 2.8. Currently, in Toronto, it would be less than 50% to jump from craigslist 24-105 to retail Tamron 24-70 2.8.

Am I just going crazy because I want to spend some money? Or is there real benefit to getting one of these 2...


----------



## RS2021 (Jan 11, 2013)

babiesphotos.ca said:


> I find that I often want just a bit more than 75mm to not change position and capture moment.



Then the 24-105L may be a good call for you... With 5D3 and its higher ISO capabilities, the gain of one f-stop from f4 to f2.8 is a manageable compromise...with longer focal lengths that 24-105L offers, you make-up on bokeh at the tele-end ...plus you seem to have some faster primes for shallow DOF needs.

You will find that the 24-105L is a general purpose zoom owned by many of the practical lens-snobs here... there is some copy variation and you should equally expect a few, but vocal, whiners complain about the 24-105L ...but these are the noisy, squeaky wheels that pixel peep and compare zooms to best of the primes... The operative phrase is "realistic expectations".

If your expectations are realistic, the 24-105L is a highly versatile lens in the Canon line-up as this zoom hits a lot of sweet spots including build, IS, focal length range, IQ and contrast.


----------



## bholliman (Jan 11, 2013)

The 24-105 is a very nice lens. I use mine all the time with my 6D for indoor, natural light pictures of the kids and it works great. F4 is fast enough to capture the action since you can crank up the ISO with a 5D3 (or 6D) and still have clean shots.


----------



## pwp (Jan 11, 2013)

The 24-105 is a fine lens, and like most copies mine is pin sharp wide open. Most users swear by them. But if you're chasing your fast moving twins around the house, and avoiding using flash, you may find an f/4 lens is not ideally suited to this type of work. And your own experience with the rented copy seems to back this up. If your home has plenty of good white ceilings and white walls, it may be time to learn the clever use of flash. Well used bounce flash bears no resemblance to brutal straight flash. Ideally you wont even know flash has been used. Give it some thought.

To be honest you have got a pretty nice set of lenses already, and the 24-105 goes across what you already have. Just use the walking zoom a little more with your primes. I'd keep the 17-40, it's a great piece of glass that may just need a little time to integrate into your shooting style.

-PW


----------



## drob (Jan 11, 2013)

I'm thinking of investing on the same lens. I'm a bit hestitant because I want to get the most bang for my buck and I realize the lens is "older". Even a used version is 800 bucks. Don't want to spend the money if version II is on the horizon, any thoughts? Thanks


----------



## RS2021 (Jan 11, 2013)

drob said:


> I'm thinking of investing on the same lens. I'm a bit hestitant because I want to get the most bang for my buck and I realize the lens is "older". Even a used version is 800 bucks. Don't want to spend the money if version II is on the horizon, any thoughts? Thanks



It is not that old really...plenty of older lenses in the canon catalogue. And next to zero chance of 24-105L being updated with version II near term or even longer term. Even if such a zoom with longer focal length range is marginally better (and usually one expects newer versions to be), it will cut into recently released shorter range 24-70L's ...at the very least the f4. The recent release of higher priced 24-70 f4 IS virtually precludes the possibility of an update for 24-105L. On the other hand, some here have suggested Canon may even kill off the current 24-105L as it is again a lower priced competitor with larger range... I dont buy that either...the 24-105L will remain for a while as it is a reliable revenue generator for Canon; but it is also unlikely to be updated anytime soon.


----------



## dswatson83 (Jan 11, 2013)

I've got a full review of the new Canon 24-70 f/4 IS if you are interested at: http://learningcameras.com/reviews/7-lenses/99-canon-24-70-f4-is-review

It won't get you further than 70mm but it is vastly improved from the 24-105mm. I own the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC as well so i'll have a comparison review up shortly between those lenses which might help you decide. It is a tough decision for sure as the new Canon 24-70 f/2.8, Canon 24-70 f/4 IS, Canon 24-105 f/4 IS, and Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC each have their advantages.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 12, 2013)

babiesphotos.ca said:


> I have 5d Mark III, Tamron 28-75 2.8, and few primes 40 2.8, 50 1.4, 85 1.8, 135 2.0, and finally 17-40 that I got recently (used) and seem to rarely use. I'm mostly taking pictures indoors, fast moving twins, trying mostly without flash, as I can't bounce effectively when subject is very close (jumping on me).
> 
> I use 28-75 quite a bit, always on 2.8, unless one of the primes is on (love shallow depth of field). I find that I often want just a bit more than 75mm to not change position and capture moment.
> 
> ...



with the 5Dmk3 the absolute best lens for shooting your kids in what you describe is the 40mm f2.8 which you have

its very light and short so easy to shoot one handed even indoors your 5dmk3 is good at high iso to keep shutter at 1/80 or 1/100 sec its vey sharp at f2.8 it focuses accurately and it has a 250mm minimum focus distance so very easy to shoot if the kids are right on top of you.
Any of the zooms with the longer barrels are going to be alot more cumbersome to engage with the kids especially if youa re playing with them as you pretty much have to use both hands with the 5D3 and 40mm is very easy to shoot 1 handed


----------



## gjones5252 (Jan 12, 2013)

well, i feel slightly different than what others are saying here. While i agree with what they are saying about IQ, contrast etc. I don't agree that you should just go for it. I have a love hate with this lens. The f/4 is absolutely frustrating if you shooting in a darker(indoors) environment. I have the markiii as well and you can increase the iso which works but you lose the depth of field control. Its seems depth of field is important to you. You can get good out of focus areas with it at 105 and the subject to background distance greater but its still f/4. 

I wonder if you aren't yet happy with your 17-40 because you havent spent to much time with it. If thats not the case i would recommend you look at why you dont like this lens so much. It has a closer focusing distance and same aperture as the 24-105. Now obviously not the same focal range but this can give you a good clue whether that same frustrations will plague you with the 24-105.
All that said there really isnt another lens that is a general purpose zoom that would meet your requirements. I cant say this lens isnt good. It is always on one of my cameras when i do a wedding(unitl i get a 24-70, holding at for the IS as i am not in a crunch without it) or when i am shooting a event that requires constant change of positions and very quick adjustments. I just would examine more why you didn't enjoy it the first time and use the lenses you already have to discover if your going to pour money into something that could have been saved for something you would enjoy more.


----------



## babiesphotos.ca (Jan 13, 2013)

wickidwombat said:


> babiesphotos.ca said:
> 
> 
> > I have 5d Mark III, Tamron 28-75 2.8, and few primes 40 2.8, 50 1.4, 85 1.8, 135 2.0, and finally 17-40 that I got recently (used) and seem to rarely use. I'm mostly taking pictures indoors, fast moving twins, trying mostly without flash, as I can't bounce effectively when subject is very close (jumping on me).
> ...



Yes, you're right, I've already discovered this, 40mm is very useful  Many wonderful pictures from seemingly unremarkable lens. It gets right in there, easy to shot one handed, easy to aim blindly, and somewhat wide angle helps with aiming errors. Gets less attention from kids, so it buys me another minute or two before they notice and attack camera (gimme, gimme) ...

BTW, I thank everyone for thoughtful answers. 

I haven't made any decision, but I'm really blown away with quality of responses and I appreciate differing viewpoints, as they help me reexamine my thinking. I will continue experimenting before making any decision...


----------

