Is there anything to rival the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4?

[jon-]

Looking at getting a general walk about lens. I don't want to spend more than £800 or so, which the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 just about fits in to.

I rented this lens last year for a trip to New York and was extremely impressed with it's performance, the only issue is it's not that fast.

I don't mind dropping IS for speed if there's another one in the Canon range I've overlooked as a decent all purpose bit of glass.

[nick_bbb]

The 24-105 L is my favorite lens, I use it 90% of the time.

Only faster comprable option from Canon is the 24-70 2.8 L not as much reach and a bit more expensive.

What body are you using it on?

[jon-]

400D. I thought you'd appear, the new york minute was the reason I rented the 24-105 it in the first place last year

I've just seen for the same price as the 24-105 you can buy Canon EOS-40D with 18-55mm & 55-250mm Lens kit!

[nick_bbb]

I think once you've used L glass there is no going back I don't know how you will cope at the 24mm end on a crop body though, I guess you already have something wider in the form of a kit lens if you need it.

I've deciided I never need to go wider that 24mm on the 5D, I bought a 17-40mm L last year but I've only used it a couple of times, I'm going to dust it off and sell it I think.

[jon-]

It is epic glass

The only problem is justifying it. My skill and body isn't really up to the glass.

I was thinking perhaps someone would recommend a stigma alternative (for some reason i feel dirty even suggesting that!)

[Famous Graham]

That was my walkabout lens for a good 2 years or so - couldn't fault it at all.

I want it back

[cirks]

I looked at the 24-105 because of the extra reach as a walkabout lens but I couldn't resist the 24-70 for £650 brand new - just means I carry the 1.4 converter or the 70-200 with me when I need it....

[SamHH]

If that's the focal length range you want then I don't think there's anything faster. Otherwise there are plenty of options in the 18-50mm and 24-70mm ranges.

[LukeBird]

It was said to me on PH that the 24-105 is a nice lens, but not necessarily much better than a decent 28-135IS (my question was about whether it was a worthy upgrade).
That's 3.5-5.6, so a touch faster at the wide, and I think at 105mm it's 4.5, so a touch slower than the F4 at it's (the 24.105) widest. I know it's not L, but it's a lovely bit of glass! Not quite as sharp as my 70-200 f4, but still very nice!

[agent006]

I'll go against the grain. I have a 24-105L and am distinctly unimpressed. It's never given me the wow i expected from L glass. Maybe it's my 1d that's not right but it steadfastly refuses to be sharp at any point thoughout the lens at any aperture with is on or off. I would suggest it's a "soft copy" but that's the kind of thing you get with cheap Sigmas not with L, surely?

[RobDickinson]

IF your happy with the 24mm , the f4 and the bokeh its a cracking lens.

Sigma 24-70f2.8 HSM is worth a look (as is the canon version) and the canon 17-55f2.8IS too, much better focal length, f2.8 and decent IS/quality.

[Scho]

agent006 said:

I'll go against the grain. I have a 24-105L and am distinctly unimpressed. It's never given me the wow i expected from L glass. Maybe it's my 1d that's not right but it steadfastly refuses to be sharp at any point thoughout the lens at any aperture with is on or off. I would suggest it's a "soft copy" but that's the kind of thing you get with cheap Sigmas not with L, surely?

I thought my 24-70L was rubbish, then i realized i had back focusing problem with my body. have you tested it against another lens of the same focal length?

I ended up selling mine and buying some primes instead. quite fancy another though to be honest.


ETA: OP what can you shoot with 105 that you can't shoot with 70? I'd be looking at the 2.8

Edited by Scho on Wednesday 13th May 08:42

[jon-]

Scho said:

ETA: OP what can you shoot with 105 that you can't shoot with 70? I'd be looking at the 2.8

By the same regard what can I shoot at 70 that I can't shoot with my nifty 50 prime

The Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 is a much more pleasing price, and the constant f2.8 very attractive. I'm sure it's no L glass, but it should beat the kit lens the camera came with! I'll look into it some more.

[Gemm]

LukeBird said:

It was said to me on PH that the 24-105 is a nice lens, but not necessarily much better than a decent 28-135IS (my question was about whether it was a worthy upgrade).
That's 3.5-5.6, so a touch faster at the wide, and I think at 105mm it's 4.5, so a touch slower than the F4 at it's (the 24.105) widest. I know it's not L, but it's a lovely bit of glass! Not quite as sharp as my 70-200 f4, but still very nice!

I used to love my 28-135 when I had it, then I upgraded to 24-105. I thought I'd miss the reach but I didn't. It's got all the advantages of L lens, in particular being pin-sharp wide open, which makes a lot of difference when it matters, and much better AF too. Definitely recommend it (if you can justify the price).

[nick_bbb]

Scho said:

ETA: OP what can you shoot with 105 that you can't shoot with 70?

I find 100mm much more flattering for headshots than 70mm (on FF anyway)

[LukeBird]

Gemm said:

LukeBird said:

It was said to me on PH that the 24-105 is a nice lens, but not necessarily much better than a decent 28-135IS (my question was about whether it was a worthy upgrade).
That's 3.5-5.6, so a touch faster at the wide, and I think at 105mm it's 4.5, so a touch slower than the F4 at it's (the 24.105) widest. I know it's not L, but it's a lovely bit of glass! Not quite as sharp as my 70-200 f4, but still very nice!

I used to love my 28-135 when I had it, then I upgraded to 24-105. I thought I'd miss the reach but I didn't. It's got all the advantages of L lens, in particular being pin-sharp wide open, which makes a lot of difference when it matters, and much better AF too. Definitely recommend it (if you can justify the price).

Interesting stuff.
To be honest there are other things i'd want sooner before I considered upgrading the 28-135 (which I'm very happy with), a 17-55 2.8 for instance!

[agent006]

Scho said:

I thought my 24-70L was rubbish, then i realized i had back focusing problem with my body. have you tested it against another lens of the same focal length?

I don't have the problem with my 70-300, and the Stigma 17-55 the L replaced didn't suffer (but was really crap so probably didn't show up). I can feel another thread coming on.