Author Topic: Canon 24-105mm L IS USM on APS-C sensor? (EOS 400D, EOS 50D) (Read 23469 times)

Peter · « **on:** September 20, 2008, 10:04 »

Is it a good idea to use Canon 24-105mm f4 L IS USM lens, that is made for FF sensors, on APS-C sensor (like on EOS 400D or EOS 50D).

I have 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 USM II lens, but thinking of buying 24-105mm L lens. I do not have (and probably will not have in next 2 years) FF sensor camera.

Is it a good idea?

Alatriste · « **Reply #1 on:** September 20, 2008, 10:22 »

I have read good things about the 24-105 on aps cameras but... having a 28-105 I dont find a reason to change (If you are happy with it, of course)

Peter · « **Reply #2 on:** September 20, 2008, 10:25 »

yeah, but 28-105 is cheap lens (250eur), and 24-105 is L glass (1100eur)!

how much sharper is that 24-105 L comparing to 28-105.

Most important things are: sharpness, precise focusing, and low chromatic aberations (prurple fringe).

Is it worth to give about 1000$ (i would sell my old one) for that lens, comparing to 28-105 non-L glass?

vonkara · « **Reply #3 on:** September 20, 2008, 10:28 »

I have the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 on my D300. There's no problem for using these lens on a APS-C. It also reduce some lens problems like vignetting. But you have to remember that your 24mm wll become more closer to objects. It's only annoying in small places for me.

Peter · « **Reply #4 on:** September 20, 2008, 10:33 »

I know that, I am ok with 1.6x crop factor.

I am just wondering is it worth to pay 4x more money for slightly better lens? Or that lens is really that much better?

vonkara · « **Reply #5 on:** September 20, 2008, 10:38 »

My 24-70 worth all the around 2000$ it cost me. I never see that much sharp pictures compared to the 18-70 I was having before. But I don't know for Canon lens

Maybe you already know this website but still it can help you if not http://photozone.de/reviews

Alatriste · « **Reply #6 on:** September 20, 2008, 11:21 »

Peter, in this site
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?FLI=0&API=0&Sample=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=0&CameraComp=0&SampleComp=0&Lens=355
you can compare 2 canon side by side in every focal lenth and aperture... unfortunatelly they dont have a 28-105 to compare with the 24-105

Peter · « **Reply #7 on:** September 20, 2008, 11:59 »

Quote from: Trebuchet on September 20, 2008, 11:21

Peter, in this site
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?FLI=0&API=0&Sample=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=0&CameraComp=0&SampleComp=0&Lens=355
you can compare 2 canon side by side in every focal lenth and aperture... unfortunatelly they dont have a 28-105 to compare with the 24-105

LOL!

24-105 is ridiculously soft acording to their test! not happy with it...

Alatriste · « **Reply #8 on:** September 20, 2008, 12:13 »

Well at 24 and wide open perhaps but compare it with the 24-70 f2.8 at 24 f4. Not really a great difference.
And compare it at 50mm f4 with the 50mm f1.4 That is a difference

Peter · « **Reply #9 on:** September 20, 2008, 13:28 »

I compared it with one lens that I had, and didnt liked it because it was too soft - canon 70-300 IS. but acording to this test, at 70mm, big one is sharped than this L lens (at f8)! And I dindnt like that 70-300! LOL!

And this 24-105 produces a lot of chomatic aberations, thats not good at all.

icefront · « **Reply #10 on:** September 20, 2008, 15:00 »

I was a fan of the 24-105 until I saw many tests and compared with 24-70, including the tests @ the-digital-picture.

Now I clearly see, for the best results I need the 24-70. Who cares about stopping down the lens? I need an f2.8 lens because I want to use at f2.8. For stock. With the today's 15-20mpx cameras I'm happy if the zoom lens draws me a true 15mpx image. The 24-105 is far away from this at the widest aperture, except the center.

Peter · « **Reply #11 on:** September 20, 2008, 15:20 »

24-70 2.8L is much better lens than 24-105, but even 24-70 suffers from chromatic aberation

Alatriste · « **Reply #12 on:** September 20, 2008, 16:48 »

All lenses gives CAs. Take a look at the 70-200 2.8 Is an expensive glass but it is a lab test where they are exagerated. In real life photos you can live with that CAs I think.
Take a look those red CAs in the 50mm f1.2 (1500€ glass) too

Peter · « **Reply #13 on:** September 20, 2008, 17:11 »

take a look at CAs at cheap plastic 50mm f1.8, there are none!

Quote

In real life photos you can live with that

yeah, tell that to Istock reviewers, lol

stock_fan · « **Reply #14 on:** September 20, 2008, 19:24 »

I have the 24-105 F4L and use it a lot ... on a 20D

It depends really what you want to shoot.

Its a great (convenient) walk around lens due to the focal length and weight.

For "standard stock" (f = 35 -100mm + studio strobes + F8 and higher) it probably is overkill. get a good copy of the 28-135 IS if money matters.

CA at the wide-angle is quite strong. Especially in bright sunlight on high contrast lines in corners.

for weddings 2.8 is nicer, but it works ... or use primes.

litifeta · « **Reply #15 on:** September 20, 2008, 19:31 »

Quote from: Peter on September 20, 2008, 15:20

24-70 2.8L is much better lens than 24-105, but even 24-70 suffers from chromatic aberation

Has the 24-70 got IS? That is what I need with my shaky hands.

Alatriste · « **Reply #16 on:** September 20, 2008, 19:41 »

No IS in the 24-70, they are talking about a new 24-70 with IS but just a rumour.

Eco · « **Reply #17 on:** September 21, 2008, 02:14 »

On a Canon 1.6x crop body there is currently no better zoom than the 17-55 /2.8 IS. Sharp corner to corner (even wide open) with the lowest CA that I have seen in any zoom lens in this focal length range.

py · « **Reply #18 on:** September 22, 2008, 10:38 »

I have EOS 400D and 28-135mm IS (and 50 f/1.8 which I uses a lot for isolated objects). I've been considering the 24-105 IS as an upgrade, for better outdoor images etc.

Is the consensus that it's not worth the money to upgrade to 24-105 for stock images??

Eco · « **Reply #19 on:** September 23, 2008, 02:08 »

I also have the 24-105 for use on my full frame camera (1DsmkII) and found it an excellent lens. On the crop bodies (40D) I prefer my 17-55 /2.8. I think the 24-105 will easily outperform any of the consumer zoom lenses (28-135 / 28-105). Only you can decide if the better performance of the 24-105 is worth the extra $$, but with ever increasing pixel density of the new generation cameras good lenses become even more important.

py · « **Reply #20 on:** September 23, 2008, 08:37 »

According to the comparison tests on www.the-digital-picture.com, the 24-70 lens does seem to have better IQ than the 24-105. The price difference between the two (when not purchased as part of a 5D or 5Dmk2 kit) is only $100 here. It's really hard to decide whether it's better to get the lighter 24-105 with extra 35mm and IS or better IQ with the 24-70 and f/2.8....

Freezingpictures · « **Reply #21 on:** September 23, 2008, 09:19 »

I had to do the same decision and finally decided for the 24-70 2.8 L. I am very happy with the descision. I love using my lenses wide open when doing photos of people. I cannot see myself buying a f4.0 lens in that range, specifically because I am doing also people photography. So I guess it largely depends on your style and what you shoot.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Canon 24-105mm L IS USM on APS-C sensor? (EOS 400D, EOS 50D) (Read 23469 times)

Peter

Alatriste

Peter

vonkara

Peter

vonkara

Alatriste

Peter

Alatriste

Peter

icefront

Peter

Alatriste

Peter

stock_fan

litifeta

Alatriste

Eco

py

Eco

py

Freezingpictures

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors