MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => Photography Equipment => Cameras / Lenses => Topic started by: 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?
-
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)
-
yeah, but 28-105 is cheap lens (250eur), and 24-105 is L glass (1100eur)! :D
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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
-
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, in this site
[url]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[/url]
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...
-
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 :D
-
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.
-
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.
-
24-70 2.8L is much better lens than 24-105, but even 24-70 suffers from chromatic aberation
(http://i36.tinypic.com/xoqe7b.jpg)
>:(
-
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
-
take a look at CAs at cheap plastic 50mm f1.8, there are none! ;D
In real life photos you can live with that
yeah, tell that to Istock reviewers, lol
-
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.
-
24-70 2.8L is much better lens than 24-105, but even 24-70 suffers from chromatic aberation
([url]http://i36.tinypic.com/xoqe7b.jpg[/url])
>:(
Has the 24-70 got IS? That is what I need with my shaky hands.
-
No IS in the 24-70, they are talking about a new 24-70 with IS but just a rumour.
-
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.
-
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??
-
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.
-
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....
-
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.