My first L lens - should it be the 24-105?

roxics

roxics

Veteran
Right now I shoot with a 60D and a kit 18-55 f3.5-5.6 as well as a 50mm f1.8. I aquired both of these lenses over a year ago when bought my used 60D. I use them for personal and professional video and photography shoots. Surprisingly I do pretty well with them. But I would like to start investing in better glass and I need to start small. I don't have a ton of money.

Now that I have used this camera and these two lenses for just over a year, I have a better idea of what I'm missing and what I would like. What I'm missing is a constant aperture zoom and something that goes a little more telephoto.

Based on that I'm seriously considering the Canon 24-105 f4. It ticks off a lot of boxes for me:
  • Constant aperture - which will be handy for video since I always have to deal with ligher or darker shots depending on which end of the 18-55 I'm on. Which is a pain when you jsut want to punch in on a wide shot and it gets darker.
  • 105mm - Giving me basically a 168mm lens on the long end which allows me to do more telephoto shots.
  • F22 - Which is not usually advised but is handy when doing video where I don't have an ND filter on me. Usually personal walk around stuff with the family. For HD video resolution I don't find the diffraction much of an issue at these higher f-stops.
  • Full frame coverage - Since I do just as much photography as video I would eventually like to move into a full frame camera. Having this leans would mean that when the times comes I don't have to worry about optics for it since between this and my 50 1.8 I'll already have a couple lenses that can be used.
  • Better build quality - Being L glass, this lens is weather sealed.
  • Price - I can pick one of these up used for about $600, give or take about $50. Hopefully a good copy of it. Price matter a lot to me both financially and psychologically. Anything at or over $800 at this point is just not something I can sell to myself.
I'm open for any other lens suggestions as this point. But there are two lenses I won't consider:

Sigma 18-35 f1.8
Canon 17-55 f2.8

I rented the Sigma a few months ago and while it is fast, sharp and well built, the lack of IS is not something I cared for. Nor does it go long enough on the tele end for it to be usable for me as a walk around lens. I also found it to be pretty heavy as a walk around lens.

I've never used the 17-55 and I've heard its great, but it pretty much mimics the 18-55 I already have. Yeah it's a faster constant f2.8 lens that is optically better, but it doesn't give me any more range. Also, like the Sigma, it's only an APS-C lens. Neither of which will be useful when I go full frame. My goal is long term investment on glass that can be used on both APS-C and full frame.

Again, I'm open to any other lens suggestions I might not have thought of or even just your thoughts on the 24-105 f4 in general.
 
I have a 60D, but got the 15-85 Canon for it. It's not constant aperture though, not L, and is EF-S. I've been very happy with the image quality though, and get very sharp results despite shooting wide open with it most of the time. It's a 35mm equiv. of 24-135.

Frankly, there are not a lot of options if you want constant aperture *and* longer zoom range. The 24-105 is probably your best bet, although I could not personally live with the limited wide angle it provides on a crop factor Canon. It's a 35mm equiv. 38-168.
 
From my own experience- I bought a 60D when it first came out and had the stock 18-135. I quickly replaced it with the 17-55 f/2.8 and used that almost all of the time until I purchased a C100 and the 24-105 replaced it. The problem with not using an f/2.8 on the 60D is that it really isn't that good without a lot of light. I was almost always using the 17-55 f/2.8 wide open. I found the 18-135 to be bad and the 18-55 to be horrible to use. My personal suggestions is to just accept the your 18-55 isn't particularly useful and replace it with the 17-55 f/2.8. If you don't want to do that, then get the 24-105. You will find yourself never using the 18-55 except when you desperately need a wider angle.
 
Seems to me you've sussed things out well. The only alternative I can think of is the 24-70mm f2.8, but your $800 max budget rules it out (unless you can get one heck of a deal on a used copy).

Full disclosure: when I needed something longer than my 17-55mm f2.8 I also went with a 24-105mm f4 also because of the 24-70mm f2.8's high price. But I'm more comfortable bumping up the ISO on my 70D.
 
I think the Canon 24-105 is the best deal around and is a must have lens for video and stills. Like you mentioned buying it used is the best option. I use it all the time. IS is great and the lens is sharp. Go for it!

One thing to be aware of is at the longer end it losses a little light Maybe a half stop.
 
Shooting RnG video 24 is IMO not really wide enought, that lens is perfect for full-frame but on S35 (aps) sensor the 17-55 is IMO more useful.

BTW the 24-105 does get dark at the long end, calling it constant aperture is marketing speak, it is also not the most robust lens.

I like the IS and found it excellent when I had a 5d2.

S
 
24 is not wide enough for really wide shots. But with some exceptions, it's not difficult to work around that limitation. IMO, this is one of the best "standard" lenses for all Canon DSLR cams. And I have been using one copy of it ever since 2006.

For both video and still work, experience has taught me that I shouldn't "abuse" wide shots. An easy way to make a causal vacation snapshot or movie clip stand out is to stop shooting wide. 24 is not wide enough if you ever truly need the angle view of, say, a 16mm lens. But it's wide enough to get great shots in a great variety of situations. Certain EF-S lenses may be capable of the same, but once you shoot in a foggy, dusty, snowy, drizzling, and/or other (so to speak) unpleasant environment, you will feel the reasons why Canon never engraves a red ring on an EF-S lens.

Realistically, being a f4 lens instead of f2.8 is about its only major real weakness.
 
BitMaestro said:
The only alternative I can think of is the 24-70mm f2.8, but your $800 max budget rules it out (unless you can get one heck of a deal on a used copy).

Full disclosure: when I needed something longer than my 17-55mm f2.8 I also went with a 24-105mm f4 also because of the 24-70mm f2.8's high price. But I'm more comfortable bumping up the ISO on my 70D.
Click to expand...

The Canon EF 24-105 is a much maligned lens. However, it has acted as a lifesaver in many filming situations for me. I always carry both the 24-70 f2.8 as well as the 24-105. The 24-105 wins because of its IS and zoom range. On tripod the 24-70 is used. Unfortunately, directors more often these days ask for handheld, so the 24-105 gets used more. You can find my impressions in the following link:
http://www.indiawilds.com/diary/canon-ef-24-105-f4-l-is-usm-lens-review/

All the best.
 
For anything other than home movie stuff (or event/wedding shooting) is IS even necessary? That's the deal breaker that takes some great (and affordable) glass out of the running.

For doing - for lack of a better word - "professional" quality narrative or corporate work, would you ever even turn it on? I guess the idea of the camera deciding framing and motion is what bugs me. When a scene calls for handheld, the look you're usually going for - handheld as it's been done on films for decades - has never used stabilization. You rely on a shoulder rig, a fig-rig type setup, a steadicam, or "handholding" a small crane for smoother stuff without a lot of distance covered (setting up a well balanced crane, and working it from the camera end).

I have a client that does a lot of events and I'm glad for the billing - but I use a real "video" cam with built-in ND, great OIS, wide range zoom, etc. and it's hard to miss a shot in unplanned situations. For music videos, interviews, corporate stuff - I like the DSLR/BMC look with wide control over DOF and a big-sensor feel - but I've never, ever wished I had IS for any of those projects.

All of the glass I use that has a lot of beauty - mainly Nikkors from the 60's to 2000 or so - don't have it, but man, they're luscious, affordable, and I can shoot them on all kinds of bodies. And no wishing I could go fatter than F4...
 
I agree with Erik. Given your situation I'd probably pop for the 24-105 also. I use mine on my C100 and on my 5D all the time. It's the lens on the camera 80% of the time when the shoot starts. Very happy with the sharpness and look.

The problem with the F4 for you is that your ISO on that 60D is likely not going to be as good a quality image when the light is low with that f4. When I had a 7D I found that it muddied up a lot in low light and higher ISOs. Not saying the 60 will, but you might want to run some real world tests with the lens.

So I've set myself up with the following. A 16-35 for parties, meetings, that kind of group thing. The 24-105 for normal run and gun, quick portraits in meetings or conferences. And a 70-200mm for stage shows where I can't get close enough. I have recently added a 300mm for wildlife, and stage shows where the 200 is not long enough. Someday I'll pop for the 14mm rectilinear. I like shooting wide. A teacher of mine once said, "get close, then closer."
 
It's optically very mediocre (the 17-55mm f2.8 IS is better and the 18-35mm f1.8 is better at f1.8 than the 24-105 at f5.6), but if you don't shoot inside much or if you bring lights it's a great videography lens. It seems to darken little as you zoom, so don't think of it as a true constant aperture but if that matters, sure.

Don't think in terms of "equivalent" FOV unless comparing it against FF for STILLS... it is what it is... we're thinking in APS-C/super35mm terms here.

It's pretty great if you don't need the speed, but the 60D is not that clean past ISO 800 if I remember....

The problem with this guy on FF is it basically turns your 5D into an expensive, huge point and shoot because it's a normal range without such great speed, feels like a massive RX100. I find the 50mm f1.8 AWESOME on the 5D, except my copy isn't the sharpest.
 
Michael Carter said:
For anything other than home movie stuff (or event/wedding shooting) is IS even necessary?
Click to expand...

I'd say that for anything other than hollywood movie level filmmaking with hollywood movie level of support crew, gear, and time, that IS is absolutely necessary. <--That's obviously a blowhard statement and loaded with hyperbole, but let's be serious here for a minute... You won't use IS all the time, but try getting a good shot on that lens zoomed in at 105 without jitters. Shoulder rig? Yeah...but that's a whole other hassle and has it's limitations. Fig rig? Try getting a shot longer than a minute without shaking. You can bring steadicams, monopods, rigs, more rigs, Movi rigs, and all that or you can whip out the camera with an IS lens and get a good shot. For a lot of production work you just don't have that luxury to rig everything up. Sometimes you only have a minute, or just seconds, and there is no second take. That's becoming more of a way of doing things on the reality shows where you're not going to be shooting primes and have a big crew to set it all up. Sure, you can sneer at anyone shooting reality shows, but that's bread and butter for a lot of people these days. Beyond just reality shows, why insist on a big bloated setup if you can get the same shot with the same quality and control without the extra parts? To look cool? To look "professional"? I don't always have the luxury of taking the time to set up a shot so I often have to go for the simpler setup to get the job done. We're all shooting different stuff with different demands on how we can do it. What might look unnecessary to you is the difference between getting or not getting the shot for a lot of other people. To simply dismiss it out of hand because it doesn't fit in your workflow is a little presumptuous, no?
I understand the desire to keep control of the image on a tripod pan or other move, but that's when you'd turn IS off anyway, so what's the harm in having it as an option for the next shot where you're crowded in the passenger seat of a car or doing fly on the wall out in public?
I wish every lens I have had an IS option. Might not use it all the time, but it sure is nice to have.
 
IS is incredible, i've been in professional shoots where we are just leaving or just unpacking and suddenly I see a shot I need.. being able to handheld with the 24-105 has let me take the shot, where if I didn't have IS i'd have missed it.
 
Andrius Simutis said:
I'd say that for anything other than hollywood movie level filmmaking with hollywood movie level of support crew, gear, and time, that IS is absolutely necessary. <--That's obviously a blowhard statement and loaded with hyperbole, but let's be serious here for a minute... You won't use IS all the time, but try getting a good shot on that lens zoomed in at 105 without jitters. Shoulder rig? Yeah...but that's a whole other hassle and has it's limitations. Fig rig? Try getting a shot longer than a minute without shaking. You can bring steadicams, monopods, rigs, more rigs, Movi rigs, and all that or you can whip out the camera with an IS lens and get a good shot. For a lot of production work you just don't have that luxury to rig everything up. Sometimes you only have a minute, or just seconds, and there is no second take. That's becoming more of a way of doing things on the reality shows where you're not going to be shooting primes and have a big crew to set it all up. Sure, you can sneer at anyone shooting reality shows, but that's bread and butter for a lot of people these days. Beyond just reality shows, why insist on a big bloated setup if you can get the same shot with the same quality and control without the extra parts? To look cool? To look "professional"? I don't always have the luxury of taking the time to set up a shot so I often have to go for the simpler setup to get the job done. We're all shooting different stuff with different demands on how we can do it. What might look unnecessary to you is the difference between getting or not getting the shot for a lot of other people. To simply dismiss it out of hand because it doesn't fit in your workflow is a little presumptuous, no?
I understand the desire to keep control of the image on a tripod pan or other move, but that's when you'd turn IS off anyway, so what's the harm in having it as an option for the next shot where you're crowded in the passenger seat of a car or doing fly on the wall out in public?
I wish every lens I have had an IS option. Might not use it all the time, but it sure is nice to have.
Click to expand...

Really not "knocking" IS in a larger sense... though I'd consider reality shooting more along event/run & gun (Ok, they're scripted to a far greater extent than admitted, but still...). And I get you on a 105, though I've never had a handheld 100+ in a shot plan - but that comes back to "planned".

I wouldn't turn down IS were it a given on every lens, but my main point is the great glass out there without IS being overlooked in threads like this, and a suspicion that many people starting out (a) feel it's a must-have and (b) may never learn to shoot without it. For "beauty" work, music vids, etc... I've got an old 28-70 2.8 Nikkor on 70% of the time. Mojo up the wazz, no IS but snared one for $500 and can't imagine parting with it.

And I don't sneer at paying work. Hell, I shot a 12-year old's fashion-show bday party for a producer thinking it could be her sideline for the very wealthy... yeeks. What a day.

In closing - that's why my post was a question, not a statement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top