Author Topic: How is the Canon 24-105 L for stock? (Read 13333 times)

Dantheman · « **on:** October 28, 2012, 12:01 »

Hi everyone,

i am thinking of buying a zoom lens for my 60d. At first my top choice was the 24-70L but since the new version is very expensive and the older one is getting more difficult to get, i was thinking about the 24-105 L.

How is it for stock? Is the Sharpness good?

Kind regards
Daniel

PS: I own a 50mm 1,8II, 28mm 2,8 and a 55-200mm (which i haven't used in 2 years).
I really think a 24-105 would fit in well

.

ClaridgeJ · « **Reply #1 on:** October 28, 2012, 12:29 »

Well the 24-105L. is probably the best workhorse lens you can buy, superb colors, contrast and tack sharp. I have the 24-70L.II, as well, dont really like it, soft corners, CA, etc.
The 24-105L is slightly slower but offers a wider zoom range. You cant go wrong with it.

Dantheman · « **Reply #2 on:** October 28, 2012, 12:56 »

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on October 28, 2012, 12:29

Well the 24-105L. is probably the best workhorse lens you can buy, superb colors, contrast and tack sharp. I have the 24-70L.II, as well, dont really like it, soft corners, CA, etc.
The 24-105L is slightly slower but offers a wider zoom range. You cant go wrong with it.

Thanks for the info. I always thought the 24-70L was absolutely tack sharp.

Happy to hear this, since the 25-105 is now at 870Euros and i think that this is a very fair price.

Does anyone else have this lens?

oxman · « **Reply #3 on:** October 28, 2012, 13:45 »

I did an extensive shoot out with my old 24/70 and a new 24/105. The tie breaker for the 105 was much less chromatic aberration which is a pain to always have to clean up. The 105 only goes to f/4 so you miss some of the advantages of the lower f-stops but the Image Stabilization of the 105 makes up for that. And I don't go below f/4 much anyway -- or I slap on my 100mm Macro that goes to f2.8 with IS.

As far as sharpness... the 24/105 is awesome and I use it for about ALL of my location shooting.

Dantheman · « **Reply #4 on:** October 28, 2012, 14:21 »

Quote from: oxman on October 28, 2012, 13:45

I did an extensive shoot out with my old 24/70 and a new 24/105. The tie breaker for the 105 was much less chromatic aberration which is a pain to always have to clean up. The 105 only goes to f/4 so you miss some of the advantages of the lower f-stops but the Image Stabilization of the 105 makes up for that. And I don't go below f/4 much anyway -- or I slap on my 100mm Macro that goes to f2.8 with IS.

As far as sharpness... the 24/105 is awesome and I use it for about ALL of my location shooting.

Cool, ya, at first i also thought that F/4 could get annoying, but the IS seems to be quite good and if i need lower f-stops i can always use my 50mm 1,8 prime (with which 90% of my protfolio ist shot

)

I'm very happy to hear that the sharpness is good

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #5 on:** October 28, 2012, 15:38 »

Well, I must have had a bad copy of the 24-105 because I dumped it for the 24-70 and am pretty happy. On my 5DMII F/4 wasn't overly sharp and neither was 50-90mm. So for my type of subjects I left it on f/8 and avoided 50-90 which made it a compromise and not what I would expect from a $1,000+ lens. My 24-70 is consistently sharper and I like it a lot more.

ClaridgeJ · « **Reply #6 on:** October 28, 2012, 16:29 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on October 28, 2012, 15:38

Well, I must have had a bad copy of the 24-105 because I dumped it for the 24-70 and am pretty happy. On my 5DMII F/4 wasn't overly sharp and neither was 50-90mm. So for my type of subjects I left it on f/8 and avoided 50-90 which made it a compromise and not what I would expect from a $1,000+ lens. My 24-70 is consistently sharper and I like it a lot more.

Youre in luck then Paul, most people that I know including myself have issues with the 24-70, same with the 16-35. Soft corners and CA.

In fact when it comes to Canon wide-angles Im not too sure I trust them all that? I mean take the Nikon 14-24, it simply slaughters the rest and in everything. As the saying goes, Nikon for wides and Canon for teles. Rather expensive to practice.

gostwyck · « **Reply #7 on:** October 28, 2012, 16:46 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on October 28, 2012, 15:38

Well, I must have had a bad copy of the 24-105 because I dumped it for the 24-70 and am pretty happy. On my 5DMII F/4 wasn't overly sharp and neither was 50-90mm. So for my type of subjects I left it on f/8 and avoided 50-90 which made it a compromise and not what I would expect from a $1,000+ lens. My 24-70 is consistently sharper and I like it a lot more.

I use the 24-70 for 95% of my shots and have done so for about 7 years. I've 'tested' it with about 300K shutter operations so far.

I've just checked Ebay and used 24-70 lenses are actually selling for more than I paid more mine new.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #8 on:** October 28, 2012, 17:22 »

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on October 28, 2012, 16:29

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on October 28, 2012, 15:38
Well, I must have had a bad copy of the 24-105 because I dumped it for the 24-70 and am pretty happy. On my 5DMII F/4 wasn't overly sharp and neither was 50-90mm. So for my type of subjects I left it on f/8 and avoided 50-90 which made it a compromise and not what I would expect from a $1,000+ lens. My 24-70 is consistently sharper and I like it a lot more.

Youre in luck then Paul, most people that I know including myself have issues with the 24-70, same with the 16-35. Soft corners and CA.

In fact when it comes to Canon wide-angles Im not too sure I trust them all that? I mean take the Nikon 14-24, it simply slaughters the rest and in everything. As the saying goes, Nikon for wides and Canon for teles. Rather expensive to practice.

I'm not so much concerned about the corners. The center at least needs to be sharp and my 24-105 had center soft spots. Fine for people shooting casually but hard to make it work for stock.

I also have a 17-40 and the center is very sharp at f/4-f/11. The corners are mush but I'm fine with that.

humannet · « **Reply #9 on:** October 28, 2012, 18:08 »

Quote from: Dantheman on October 28, 2012, 12:01

Hi everyone,

i am thinking of buying a zoom lens for my 60d. At first my top choice was the 24-70L but since the new version is very expensive and the older one is getting more difficult to get, i was thinking about the 24-105 L.

How is it for stock? Is the Sharpness good?

Kind regards
Daniel

PS: I own a 50mm 1,8II, 28mm 2,8 and a 55-200mm (which i haven't used in 2 years).
I really think a 24-105 would fit in well .

I shoot 95% of my photoes with 24-105, I like it very much.

Ed · « **Reply #10 on:** October 28, 2012, 19:20 »

I'm surprised how many folks are saying the 24-70 has soft edges....after I was bashed for pointing out the same thing a few months ago LOL

I've heard the new version 24-70 isn't as bad as the old version.

With relation to the 24-105....I've had two copies. The first copy wasn't all that great - I used it on a 1Ds MK II and on a 30D. I wasn't happy with the image quality.

The second copy I owned I used on a 5D MK II and I was pleased with the image quality. I purchased the lens for a friend (but decided to test it first). I did a photowalk with it in the business district between 9:30 and 10:30am (normal, sunny day). There were areas on the street where I found myself cranking up ISO in order to shoot at 1/125 handheld and I wished I had my 24-70....however, the lens is lighter than the original 24-70 so it was a trade off.

I don't think you'll be disappointed witth the lens unless you're regularly shooting in low light. In studio, it doesn't make a bit of difference. It will also make a difference on which camera body you are using with it. There is an advantage with the focusing system on the 24-105 if you are using it with a 5D MK III or a 1Dx. I don't know why Canon did this, but shooting with a 24-70 and a 70-200 side by side (the 24-105 has the same focus points as the 70-200 but the 24-70 does not) it can be a mind screw

Personally, I like faster glass and I'll be upgrading my 24-70 first generation.....I need to pay for a trip I'm taking in the spring first though.

ClaridgeJ · « **Reply #11 on:** October 29, 2012, 00:03 »

Quote from: Ed on October 28, 2012, 19:20

I'm surprised how many folks are saying the 24-70 has soft edges....after I was bashed for pointing out the same thing a few months ago LOL

I've heard the new version 24-70 isn't as bad as the old version.

With relation to the 24-105....I've had two copies. The first copy wasn't all that great - I used it on a 1Ds MK II and on a 30D. I wasn't happy with the image quality.

The second copy I owned I used on a 5D MK II and I was pleased with the image quality. I purchased the lens for a friend (but decided to test it first). I did a photowalk with it in the business district between 9:30 and 10:30am (normal, sunny day). There were areas on the street where I found myself cranking up ISO in order to shoot at 1/125 handheld and I wished I had my 24-70....however, the lens is lighter than the original 24-70 so it was a trade off.

I don't think you'll be disappointed witth the lens unless you're regularly shooting in low light. In studio, it doesn't make a bit of difference. It will also make a difference on which camera body you are using with it. There is an advantage with the focusing system on the 24-105 if you are using it with a 5D MK III or a 1Dx. I don't know why Canon did this, but shooting with a 24-70 and a 70-200 side by side (the 24-105 has the same focus points as the 70-200 but the 24-70 does not) it can be a mind screw

Personally, I like faster glass and I'll be upgrading my 24-70 first generation.....I need to pay for a trip I'm taking in the spring first though.

Ed! I hate to say this but my experience with the 24-70, is with the new 24-70 second generation lens, didnt find it much better then the first.
However it might unluck? test a few copies before buying.
I dont do low-light at all and almost always work at base ISO but I do demand uniform sharpness across the entire picture.

Ed · « **Reply #12 on:** October 29, 2012, 18:38 »

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on October 29, 2012, 00:03

Ed! I hate to say this but my experience with the 24-70, is with the new 24-70 second generation lens, didnt find it much better then the first.
However it might unluck? test a few copies before buying.
I dont do low-light at all and almost always work at base ISO but I do demand uniform sharpness across the entire picture.

No worries....I've decided to wait on upgrading after reading that Canon may be working on an IS version (again)

http://www.slrlounge.com/rumor-canon-24-70-f2-8-l-is-coming-soon

enstoker · « **Reply #13 on:** October 30, 2012, 23:43 »

24-105 is perfect choice.

And a real Canon candy is the newest Pancake 40 2.8.

This is realy winning combination and low budget, as well.
And not only for stock...
Proven with 60D if You need 1.6 x, with full frame (5D MarkII) no comment

ClaridgeJ · « **Reply #14 on:** October 31, 2012, 02:56 »

There is a misconception among many people that fast glass is optically better then slower lenses. This could not be more wrong. Listen to lens producers such as Schneider, Rodenstock, Zeiss, Leitz, etc and you soon find out.
An "idiot" friend of mine proudly told me about his new 50 mil.1.2 and the guy is doing daytime photography under a blazing sun?

No matter how many Aspherical elements you pump into a lens, there is no guarantee for a better optical performance. As an example, todays Zeiss lenses made for Canon and Nikon by Cosina are very good but they are a far cry from the original Zeiss.
Nikon is today the only manufacturer who actually still make their own glass, ensuring top quality in the original glass, hence on an average the Nikon lenses are slightly better then lets say Canons.
Nikons legendary 24-70 will outperform both Canons 24-70 and 24-105, anytime and on every focal-range. Nikons super 14-24, well? it will just kill off Canons wides, even some of their primes.

What Im trying to say is, for the type of stock we are doing, even RM stock, its highly doubtful you need a Schneider-super Angulon quality.
We buy zoom because they are practical, right? but in reallity they havent got much chance against their fixed prime counterparts.

lisafx · « **Reply #15 on:** October 31, 2012, 11:22 »

The 24-105L is my go to lens now. It rarely ever comes off my camera. I used to use the 24-70L and it absolutely cannot be beaten for image quality, but I find the 24-105 more convenient because it is lighter and has that extra reach.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #16 on:** November 02, 2012, 12:20 »

Quote from: enstoker on October 30, 2012, 23:43

24-105 is perfect choice.

And a real Canon candy is the newest Pancake 40 2.8.

This is realy winning combination and low budget, as well.
And not only for stock...
Proven with 60D if You need 1.6 x, with full frame (5D MarkII) no comment

I was looking at that 40mm pancake, interesting.

For the 24-105 the other part of the question is what camera. Seems that people who shoot full frame have a different opinion that people with a crop of any sort. Might be the answer right there?

And like so many other, the 24-105 is the lens that's always on the camera to start with. For the T2i I have the old 28-135 for a walkabout lens. On the 10-D and 20-D the lenses are something to keep the dust out. One has a 18-35 that I got free. Also passed on the same lens for $5 at a rummage sale. Now that's a lens that I won't use for stock.

24-105 is a fine lens and versatile. Oh ps I shoot at 100 ISO all the time, except in the rain on a cloudy day or at night. Then I go "all the way" up to 200 ISO. There are many more factors involved that just the lens.

enstoker · « **Reply #17 on:** November 02, 2012, 12:36 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on November 02, 2012, 12:20

Quote from: enstoker on October 30, 2012, 23:43
24-105 is perfect choice.

And a real Canon candy is the newest Pancake 40 2.8.

This is realy winning combination and low budget, as well.
And not only for stock...
Proven with 60D if You need 1.6 x, with full frame (5D MarkII) no comment

I was looking at that 40mm pancake, interesting.

For the 24-105 the other part of the question is what camera. Seems that people who shoot full frame have a different opinion that people with a crop of any sort. Might be the answer right there?

And like so many other, the 24-105 is the lens that's always on the camera to start with. For the T2i I have the old 28-135 for a walkabout lens. On the 10-D and 20-D the lenses are something to keep the dust out. One has a 18-35 that I got free. Also passed on the same lens for $5 at a rummage sale. Now that's a lens that I won't use for stock.

24-105 is a fine lens and versatile. Oh ps I shoot at 100 ISO all the time, except in the rain on a cloudy day or at night. Then I go "all the way" up to 200 ISO. There are many more factors involved that just the lens.

I have both: cropped 60D and fullframer 5D MarkII.
Satissfied with both. As You already mentioned, it depends what photos will be taken... in what conditions,...
I have (so far) good acceptance with both, on IS 80 %, on other agencies even better ...
So, results taken with this combos are ok for inspectors

And Yes, everything what is in various test reports and on forums about 40 /2,8 is true: PANCAKE RULZ !

Dantheman · « **Reply #18 on:** November 05, 2012, 10:53 »

Ok, so after reading all your advice, i decided to buy the lens.

Can't wait to test it

MarcvsTvllivs · « **Reply #19 on:** November 06, 2012, 10:02 »

Quote from: Dantheman on November 05, 2012, 10:53

Ok, so after reading all your advice, i decided to buy the lens.

Can't wait to test it

I bought a like-new used version last month. I knew what I was getting, as I had used it on a friend's camera before. It's great, you won't regret it, and the price is unbeatable IMHO.

sdeva · « **Reply #20 on:** November 06, 2012, 11:39 »

Dont know about the 24-105 but I use the 24-70 f/2.8 L and the 70-200 f/4 L usually with 5D markII and between them I got pretty much everything that I need covered for stock. The 70-200 is tack sharp but the 24-70 doesn't lag too behind either.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: How is the Canon 24-105 L for stock? (Read 13333 times)

Dantheman

ClaridgeJ

Dantheman

oxman

Dantheman

PaulieWalnuts

ClaridgeJ

gostwyck

PaulieWalnuts

humannet

Ed

ClaridgeJ

Ed

enstoker

ClaridgeJ

lisafx

RacePhoto

enstoker

Dantheman

MarcvsTvllivs

sdeva

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors