top of page

Stadium Judo Club

Public·8 members
Luke Edwards
Luke Edwards

First L Lens To Buy ##VERIFIED##

The 24-105L is a great lens. I had one a few years ago and some of my bright pictures was shot with it. The IS works fine, you can get 3 stops while handheld. Contrast is absolutely good and sharpness is very good.

first l lens to buy


The images I get with my 24-70 II, on the other hand, never fail to impress; they're sharp across the frame, with superb contrast and rich colour rendition. I realize that the 24-70 costs much more than the 24-105, and lacks its IS and reach, but in my opinion it's a vastly superior lens optically.

I have both lenses with a 5D and 5dii. Whilst one can talk for days about which lens is "better" the reality is that I use the 24-105 ten times as much as I use the 17-40. And a great deal of what I shoot with the 24-105 is shot at more than 40mm. But of course that's talking about my photography, not yours. But the 24-105 if the one that's on the camera by default, and will be a lot more versatile in the city and with people than a wide angle. And you can go for hours without needing to change lenses.

Quality wise I don't see a huge difference between them. They're both competent lenses, they both suffer a bit from distortion, and I don't think either of them are as good IQ wise as the 70-200 f4 I use as well, but they're both good lenses for me.

I never miss an opportunity to trash the Canon 24-105 F4L. In my honest opinion it is the worst of all the L-series lenses made. I owned this lens for about two weeks and returned it to the store. This is the first and only lens I have ever returned. I already had the Canon 17-40 F4L which again in my opinion is the best L-series lenses you can get at it's price level. it was the last time I checked the lowest priced L-series lens and Does not have nearly the distortion of the 24-105 at 24mm.

However, For my Canon 5D2 the Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VC is one of the best lenses I have ever used only surpassed the Canon 85 1.2L. The Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VC is not as good as the new Canon 24-70 F2.8 II but I put it equal to the Canon 24-70 F2.8 I and considerably better than the Canon 24-105 F4L.

There are several third party lenses like Tamron and Carl Zeiss which in my opinion in some ways exceed or match the IQ and build quality of Canon L-series lenses. Just have to do your research and don't assume ALL L-series lenses are great.

I never miss an opportunity to trash the Canon 24-105 F4L. In my honest opinion it is the worst of all the L-series lenses made. I owned this lens for about two weeks and returned it to the store. This is the first and only lens I have ever returned. I already had the Canon 17-40 F4L which again in my opinion is the best L-series lenses you can get at it's price level. it was the last time I checked the lowest priced L-series lens and Does not have nearly the distortion of the 24-105 at 24mm.

I agree with you: You never miss an opportunity to trash this perfectly useful lens. However, I note that you feel the 17-40 is a better lens. I have both lenses and my experience has been the opposite. Sure, it's slightly better at 24mm, and I use it in preference to the 24-105 at that focal length if I don't need the IS. However, it's not my experience that it's better overall, although I do really like the lens. So I am wondering whether you got hold of a bad copy of the lens. It does happen.

I agree the 24-105 is distorted at its wide extent. It also vignettes. However, both issues can be corrected very easily, practically with the click of a mouse, and without any noticeable loss in image quality. Distortion is the least of my concerns with any lens.

All in all, this lens takes more beatings than a rented mule, but I don't think it deserves them. Like many "kit" lenses, there was a lot of careful engineering that went into it, there's a lot of economy of scale in its manufacture, it is sold at a conspicuously low price point in kit form, it gets no respect, it is ubiquitous on the used market, and it's a screaming bargain.

It is my most regularly used lens on my 5D Series for general walk around shooting and is used at least 10 times more than my 16 to 35. If I had a 20 to 35 (which I have used) although an old lens and also old design, it could do probably about 60% of what my 16 to 35 does do, whereas the newer 24 to 105 L lens could do A LOT more than the 35 to 70 that you presently have (I have not used the 35 to 70).

Use ONLY the 20 to 35 for one month, on you newly acquired 5D: and then for the next month use ONLY the 35 to 70: and then after those eight weeks of agony keeping your excitement at bay, you will KNOW which one of the two lenses FL range that YOU want. Whilst you are making that FL choice you can think about Image Stabilization, which is very useful for most photographers. And also think about Lens Speed (maximum aperture) which might be very to you also; in which case another zoom lens might enter the equation, for example the 24 to 70/2.8L MkII.

In my experience with the lens, the 24-105mm was really the definition of a "jack of all trades, master of none". Exceptional versatility, decent optics, and handles as good as any L lens should behave in term of autofocus speed and accuracy and the IS function.

However, as I evolved into an architecture and family portraiture photographer, I found the lens lacking. It was too soft and had heavy purple fringing on the wide end on bigger prints. On the longer end, it was good, but I couldn't use the wider end to my satisfaction. I ended up selling the lens and getting a 17mm TS-e and 135mm F2 L. Both are absolutely stunning for architecture and portraiture.

Canon's series of L lenses (Luxury lenses) are a professional line of photography lenses made by Canon. Canon has sold zoom and prime L-series lenses for the discontinued FD lens mount, for the current EF lens mount used on all Canon EOS SLR cameras and for the RF mount used on full-frame mirrorless interchangeable-lens cameras.

Wide angle L-lenses typically have a gelatin filter holder on the mounting collar of the lens, which allows a gelatin to be installed behind the lens. Some telephoto L-lenses, such as the EF 70-200mm zoom lenses, or the EF 300mm f/4L IS USM do not have rear gelatin filter holders. Super-telephoto lenses such as the EF 500mm f/4L IS USM, or the EF 200mm f/2L IS USM have a rear 52mm drop-in filter holder which can be used to hold gelatin type filters.

When I began in photography, I was shooting weddings. Like many of us, this seemed like the easiest way to make money with a camera. I worked with a long-standing and well-equipped photographer in the area who, among other lenses, owned the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM Lens. The possibilities that this lens opened up at 17mm when taking photographs in the bride's or groom's house and in the evenings during the party were amazing. It was a great lens for storytelling and adding drama to images. At the time, I owned 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm lenses. This was the next lens that I added to my bag; shortly after, I also purchased a 70-200mm lens to cover the other end of the spectrum.

The lens is very light and plastic-feeling; however, after 10 years of use in the rain, sand, being bashed into walls at weddings, and generally mistreated, it looks pretty much the same as the day I purchased it. The focus ring has occasionally become a bit gritty when I have shot in the rain for four or more hours unprotected, but after a 24-hour dry-out it is usually fine.

I had a project in 2006 and purchased this lens for it. The project was documenting 550 sites, and I was done in six months. The lens paid for itself several times over, and I didn't have much use for it after that project. I tried using it as my daily walkabout lens, but decided to get the 40mm f/2.8 pancake lens instead.

Had it for a while and I love it. Best bang for the buck wide angle L-lens, though the newer 16-35 f/4 kills it in sharpness (at a lot higher price). I had the 16-35 f/2.8L (the original) for a while but that wasn't worth the price premium over this lens and didn't end up staying in my bag.

AThis was my first L lens, it is spectacularly versital in the wide zoom category. The extra 5mm on the long end vs a 16-35 may not seem like much - but for someone who loves to shoot at 40mm the ability to snap right to that is a godsend.

I've had every Canon UWA zoom since the 17-35 f/2.8 back in 1996 up to my current 16-35 f/4 IS, which is the best price to IQ ratio I've found. The corners on the 17-40 were soft. The center was acceptable. My current lens is quite unbeatable and I see little reason to get the f/2.8 Mark III, except for spending another $1000 for the 1 stop privilege that I'd never shoot at. But I can see where it would benefit the AF system in low light, but that's rarely an issue with static subjects like landscapes and architecture.

This lens and Canon's 70-200 f4L were a revelation at the time - good IQ, excellent build, and a very reasonable price. The 17-40 f4L offered sharpness equal to its much more expensive sibling, the 16-35 f2.8L. One of the things that convinced me to switch to Micro Four Thirds, though, was a comparison I did between the 17-40 f4L on my 1Ds MkII and a similarly priced Panasonic 7-14 f4 on my Panasonic GX1. The 7-14 was noticeably sharper at the edges.

I strongly disagree with your conclusion on image quality. It is definitely not below average. I have upgraded this lens 4 years ago to 24 and 17 tilt-shift lenses (that is my comparison set) - This is a good lens, especially at f8. Excellent color and contrast rendition, very good against the sun. Distortion is quite manageable. I used it on 5D mk II and 6D. I have switched to Fujifilm GFX 50r and I tried it on a couple of times, no pixel peeping but it's fairly decent as I remember.

"There is also no real feel to the rendering of the images, although I find this to be true of all zoom lenses from Canon"You must be kidding, Canon produces some of the best zoom lenses ever made.

Absolutely disagree regarding sharpness. I am a specialist fire investigator and the 17-40 f4L is my mainstay lens of the eight lens that make up my kit. I marry it up with either a 5D Mk III or a 5D Mk IV. For my area of specialisation, vehicles, I could not want for a better lens. 041b061a72


Welcome to the group! You can connect with other members, ge...


bottom of page