24-70 L for sale, mint condition (and questions)
Discussion
Im still chewing it over (would love to have some feedback) but I cant live without IS - My stock work means that noise is an absolute no no, and I just cant crank the ISO up each time I need to, and not get technically perfect and flawless results I seek.
Especially not in low light conditions, when noise is at its worst and most visible anyway
So Im considering the 24-105L F4 IS
Does anyone want a mint condition 24-70
and what are you thoughts on the 105 L, compared directly with the 24-70?
Especially not in low light conditions, when noise is at its worst and most visible anyway
So Im considering the 24-105L F4 IS
Does anyone want a mint condition 24-70
and what are you thoughts on the 105 L, compared directly with the 24-70? Edited by UKBob on Wednesday 1st November 16:42
matthew_h said:
Matt is correct.
A tripod would be a far better idea than getting rid of a top lens and replacing it with a less useful one.
In fact, I'm actually very surprised that you aren't already shooting all your stuff with a tripod anyway.
Only on PH A tripod would be a far better idea than getting rid of a top lens and replacing it with a less useful one.
In fact, I'm actually very surprised that you aren't already shooting all your stuff with a tripod anyway.
Ive got a tripod. I take up to 100 shots with my tripod every week.
I spent the entire day yesterday, taking countless photos in woods, fields and swamps whilst lying flat on the ground (in the mud and the wet
) camera 1/2 inch above the grass. I cant get that low down with a tripod. I need more light, not another tripod. There is no question of whether I want to carry my tripod out the door every single time I go out to shoot, I dont.
As well as the IS, which from what Ive read is amazing, there is the focal length. Im constantly wishing I had just a little bit more reach.
personally I think you need to make a choice
1) If you are going to be shooting stock, then take a tripod, and you can always mount it under the platform rather than over it, so you can get as low to the ground as you want. That way you can keep a good lens and get sharp pictures all the time.
2) Taking a tripod is a pain, so don't, and don't worry about going above ISO 6.35434, and accept a bit of noise for the sake of getting a nice picture without back ache
1) If you are going to be shooting stock, then take a tripod, and you can always mount it under the platform rather than over it, so you can get as low to the ground as you want. That way you can keep a good lens and get sharp pictures all the time.
2) Taking a tripod is a pain, so don't, and don't worry about going above ISO 6.35434, and accept a bit of noise for the sake of getting a nice picture without back ache
dcw@pr said:
1) If you are going to be shooting stock, then take a tripod, and you can always mount it under the platform rather than over it, so you can get as low to the ground as you want. That way you can keep a good lens and get sharp pictures all the time.
From what I read, the 24-104 is (very nearly) every bit as sharp as the 24-70. With photoshop, could anyone here be certain they could tell the difference between the two lenses, after processing? I got the impression the 24-105 was a bloody good L lens, and posted hoping to receive the feedback of more experienced photographers. As far as Im concerned, my tripod is my most important bit of kit. Couldnt live without one! But there are times when Id rather be using a lens which was better suited to the job than always lugging a tripod about. I feel as if im dropping a bombshell in saying this, but that is what IS is for, isnt it? Those times when you cant use a tripod? Or dont have one to hand. Or couldnt bring one. Or dare I say it, didnt want to bring one.
dcw@pr said:
don't worry about going above ISO 6.35434, and accept a bit of noise for the sake of getting a nice picture without back ache
You missed the point mate. Ive said it before: I personally dont mind a bit of noise in photos. I really dont. But when shooting stock, noise is the difference between getting the shot, or not. No stock site will accept photos with excess noise, and a great deal of my 'photography hobby time' is spent shooting stock.The 24-105 is a splendid lens, which is easier to hand hold in low light than the 24-70 and is a also a smidgen sharper below f8.
Yes, distortion is very evident between lenses, Photoshop having next to no impact thereon.
It is. I'm not sure I'm more experienced, but I can unreservedly recommend the 24-105. Whether it's the ideal solution to your problem, I am not convinced. Calumet will, iirc, lease you a 24-105 - might be worth trying out first ?
Do you use noise reduction software ?
UKBob said:
With photoshop, could anyone here be certain they could tell the difference between the two lenses, after processing?
Yes, distortion is very evident between lenses, Photoshop having next to no impact thereon.
UKBob said:
I got the impression the 24-105 was a bloody good L lens, and posted hoping to receive the feedback of more experienced photographers.
It is. I'm not sure I'm more experienced, but I can unreservedly recommend the 24-105. Whether it's the ideal solution to your problem, I am not convinced. Calumet will, iirc, lease you a 24-105 - might be worth trying out first ?
Do you use noise reduction software ?
Edited by J111 on Wednesday 1st November 18:56
Edited by J111 on Wednesday 1st November 18:56
J111 said:
The 24-105 is a splendid lens, which is easier to hand hold in low light than the 24-70 and is a also a smidgen sharper below f8.
Yes, distortion is very evident between lenses, Photoshop having next to no impact thereon.
It is. I'm not sure I'm more experienced, but I can unreservedly recommend the 24-105. Whether it's the ideal solution to your problem, I am not sure. Calumet will, iirc, lease you a 24-105 - might be worth trying out first ?
I find I dont really use f2.8, the dof is just too shallow. I didnt realise the 105 was sharper below f8 either, sounds good UKBob said:
With photoshop, could anyone here be certain they could tell the difference between the two lenses, after processing?
Yes, distortion is very evident between lenses, Photoshop having next to no impact thereon.
UKBob said:
I got the impression the 24-105 was a bloody good L lens, and posted hoping to receive the feedback of more experienced photographers.
It is. I'm not sure I'm more experienced, but I can unreservedly recommend the 24-105. Whether it's the ideal solution to your problem, I am not sure. Calumet will, iirc, lease you a 24-105 - might be worth trying out first ?
Can you elaborate on the distortion issue. Do you have an example to share, and any more helpful info regarding the two lenses compared?
If the 24-105 isnt the answer to my problem, then
me, I dont know what is. It seems to be. Hence, before I go ahead, I am merely seeking feedback on the two lenses compared head to head. I appreciate the tripod suggestions, and I WILL buy a tripod one day which lets me put the camera under it (I like tripods, this sounds like a great idea) but for now Im thinking about the 105. I want:
1) more light, for slower hand held shutter speeds
2) A slightly longer focal length
3) more light, for slower hand held shutter speeds
4) did I mention the light, and the slower shutter speeds?
If I get a fair price for my 24-70, it'll only cost me a couple of quid to make the swap to a brand new third generation IS 105 lens. If anyone has any more helpful comments or feedback on distortion or any other potential issues, Id be glad to hear em.
Thanks for the info J111, I'll give Calumet a shout.
J111 said:
Do you use noise reduction software?
With every single shot I take, yes. Even studio shots taken at ISO 100 need plenty of work, depending on how much they were enhanced in PS. The trick is to find the balance between:
1) removing as much noise as possible
2) removing noise without anyone being able to tell you have done so. I run up to 20 test sweeps over all areas of my photos, examining each area seperately to make sure the amount of noise im removing doesnt adversely affect the different areas and textures within the frame.
UKBob said:
I take up to 100 shots with my tripod every week.
There's your first mistake. Try a camera, I suspect the results will be infinately better.
Your second mistake is to think that image stabilisation is going to solve your problems. What you need to do is accept that taking good photographs has a dimension beyond the equipment that you use; possibly a bit of time and dedication to your craft?
I want to take photos that sell but I can't be assed to take my tripod, hmm...
maybe a different lens is the answer?
maybe noise reduction software is the answer?
maybe image stabilisation is the answer?
maybe photoshop will solve all my problems?
maybe taking a
!ng tripod is the answer? bingo. 
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff