Finally pick it up 24-105mm 1:4 L IS

New_Zealand

New_Zealand

Veteran
I wasn't sure if I wanted to pick up a 4.0 lens since my other two lens were 2.8 and 1.4 but after reading one person comment about lens (he doesn't shoot below 5.0) I thought to myself neither do I so I went ahead and gotten the 24-105mm 4.0 L IS and even though I only have had it for one day I really like this lens (by the way I'm shooting on the 5d mkiii).

So here is something I started thinking about; now that i have my new lens I wonder if I should sell my Segma 50mm 1:1.4 lens? Would I use it at all? And another question that came up with was my 70-200mm 1:2.8 L IS II. I haven't used that lens at all. Any interior filming the lens is too big I needed more of a wider lens. Is anyone using the 70-200mm on their projects and if so where in the project? Would either of these lens be worth removing from my small group of lens? Thanks for any feedback.

I have read that the L glass is a good glass to add to your Canon lens collection.
 
I used the 24-105 all the time but it is flawed with distortion, even at 50. I use my primes a lot and having straight lines is one of those things when the 24-105 will look good but a prime will look great. Plus the low light and at times needed (god forgive) arty f1.4 shots.
 
I am a stills photographer who also does video. The Canon 24-70 II an 70-200 II are rare zoom lenses that are as good as primes in many cases. I consider them my "bread and butter", core lenses.

When I had a studio, the older 24-70 was used about 85% of the time, even though I had about 15 L lenses - 85 1.2, 45 TS-E, etc.


I use the 70-200 primarily for events. My son is in a largish music group (35-40 people) who do 5-6 gigs a week during the summer. The 2.8 zoom is indispensable there over a 4.0 zoom, for that extra stop of light. But it is a big, heavy lens! I also own the 70-200 4.0 for times when I don't want to haul the heavy lens, and I don't need that extra stop.

Many, many Canon C100- C300 etc. shooters seem to love the 24-105 as their primary, "do everything" lens for "run and gun" shooting. It is a very good quality lens at an excellent price. I tend to be more in that camp, while others are "prime" shooters who do a lot of changing of lenses and framing & set up of shots. It partly comes down to your style of work. Very, very rarely use primes.

I do have the $120 Canon 40 mm STM and $95 50 mm 1.8, along with the 18-135 mm STM zoom. That zoom is the only non-L lens that I really use, for silent auto focus where needed on my T4i. That will become a bigger part of the Canon kit with release of Dual Pixel Auto Focus on new bodies. Right now that is more limited to the 70D and C100.


If you shoot wide instead of long, the new 16-35 4.0 IS looks to be an excellent lens, at $1,200 at first release. That might be a good addition to your kit? If you can wait 6 months, you may be able to pick it up on sale for $1,050, or lightly used at $1,100 if that matters to you.

The Canon 24-70 4.0 IS is also a very good lens. I have seen that available on sale for around $900.

Most Canon L glass holds it's value fairly well. But it does tend to decrease a few $$ after 1-2 years for newer lenses. I bought my 24-70 2.8 II for $1,800 new after rebate from B&H.

Sorry, I lost my thread a bit adding things ... I have to run. I'll try to loop back later.

Cheers!
 
I love the 24-105 for convenience and the IS is one of he best I've seen for video on the Canon DSLR's (I think on the longer lenses IS has a tendency hold and then 'skip' or 'jump' rather than drift smoothly - more photo oriented, perhaps). However the barrel distortion is really noticeable and the zoom creep can be really irritating.

The 70-200 is my most used lens for everything from interviews/head shots to event work. I only pull out a 50mm when I really need it in low light (eg wedding receptions). They all serve their purpose though - I wouldn't let any of them go unless you really need the cash.
 
A 70-200 IS is a must for most event work where you are covering from the back of the audience. Weddings, concerts, presentations, whatever. It makes a fantastic close-up interview lens as well since a 70-135 at f/2.8 or f/4 is about perfect. I have the f/2.8ii but I rarely use it below f/4 for events since the depth of field can get pretty low. The biggest problem with the 70-200 IS's are that they are not naturally parfocal.

I don't think I've ever pulled the 70-200 out for a narrative shoot, though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top