New lens: 24-105 f4L IS

Thank you for all the good advice. On twitter and here in this blog. This weekend I did the final shoot-out between the 24-70 f2.8L and the 24-105 f4L IS. Because I do quite a bit of video recording with my 5D MkII I settled with the IS-lens.

Canon 24-70 and 24-105 L-lenses

So now I’m covered with image stabilized L-sharpness from 24 to 200 mm. With the 24-105 and my 70-200. But it’s all at f4 and up. For really low-light work I have my trusted 50 mm f1.4 and when deciding on the not-so-fast 24-105 part of my plan is to add some more primes. Canon have some tempting primes as well. 24mm f1.4 L II and 85mm f1.2L…

But right now I’ll play around with my current range of glass for a while:
50 mm f1.4 USM
15 mm f2.8 fisheye
24-105 f4L IS
70-200 f4L IS

My current Canon lenses

New lens: 24-105 f4L IS

17 thoughts on “New lens: 24-105 f4L IS

  1. So 24mm isn’t wide enough?

    The 15mm is very wide, but more for special use and pure fun. If I end up missing something wider than 24mm I guess I’ll have to buy the very nice 16-35 f2.8L II… :-)

  2. And remember: I’m using these lenses on my full frame 5D MarkII. Compared to a 400D, 40D or another 1.6 crop camera the 24mm is equal to a 15mm.

    So, the 24-105 would equal a 15-65mm on a crop camera.

  3. ecarr says:

    Nice choice. I have the same f4 IS range with the 24-105 and 70-200. Both are great lens and really handy in good light.

    Side note on the video front. If you don’t have an off-camera mic, I would turn off IS. It is really loud with the internal mic and very annoying for playback. iMovie 09 has the ability to remove some of the motion jitters which is handy if IS is not used. I also find myself using primes for video more so than the above 2 IS off zoom lens due to low light use.

    The primes I have gone with are the 35/1.4, 85/1.8 and 135/2.0. I got the 35/1.4 initially for an old 1.6x body and it works great on the 5d mk2. I think the 85/1.8 is a great deal and great quality lens. The price difference and AF speed difference between the 2 85mm lens drove my choice vs. any small optical differences. Have recently added the 135/2.0 and have been very happy to have it for low light and outdoor portraits.

    With these zooms and primes, I can’t justify picking up the 50/1.4 and it is unlikely I would use it much. Also don’t think I would use the heavy 70-200/2.8 much vs. lighter 70-200 f4 and 135/2.0 lens. If the TS-E lens were cheaper, those would be fun to play around with maybe. The only other thing I have been contemplating is the 1.4x extender for the 70-200 and 135 to get a little more reach out of both.

    Your initial question was for 3 lens. This is the +2 lens answer of where I have ended up :)

  4. @ecarr
    I’ve seen other people promoting the 85 mm 1.8 over the 85 mm 1.2… And to be honest I really don’t like the size and weight of the 1.2.

    @Andreas Bjerknes
    You won’t regret it. :-)

  5. I got the EF 24-105mm IS myself on I like it alot. But I wish it was a bitt larger aperture so the backround softness was better without software fixup afterwards… Use my 50mm f/1:1.4 in those cases but with the crop factor (40D) its tricky to use indors in small studios…

  6. smashes says:

    whats up everyone. while doing some lens research, i caught this blog on a google search and i’m lucky i did. it looks like a few here have the kind of set up im working towards and wanted to get some opinions.

    i bought a 5D Mark II a couple weeks back and just yesterday bought a 70-200 F4 IS L lens (first and only L). I upgraded from an XTi and I’m really enjoying the upgrade.

    Here’s my kit right now:

    Tamron 17-35 2.8
    Tamron 28-75mm 2.8
    Canon 70-200 4 IS
    Canon 85mm 1.8
    Canon 50mm 1.8

    I’m trying to figure out what my next move should be. If I should upgrade either of the two Tamrons to L lenses or buy another high quality prime or two within the focal lengths I’m trying to upgrade?

    Some of my thoughts:

    Canon 28-70 2.8 L or 24-105 IS (torn between those two like a lot of other people)
    Canon 17-40mm F4 L
    Canon 50 mm 1.4

    Given my set up, would anyone able to give a good opinion for what my next purchase, if any, should be? Thanks again. Great post and great responses.

  7. So far I am very satisfied with the 24-105. The combination of size, reach and the IS makes this very useful. Especially for video work.

    For your suggestion:
    I would have gone for the 16-35 f2.8 L II instead of the 17-40

    And I don’t think you need the 50mm f1.4 when you have the 1.8. I would have considered the 80mm f1.8 instead.

    And, I’m currently considering the 35 mm f1.4L, the 85 mm f1.2L, the 100mm f2.8 Macro and the 135 mm f2L… Can’t decide… But I need at least one more very fast prime for those low light situations.

  8. Hei. Storkoser meg med min 24-105 sammen med mitt 50D som er alle tiders. Er ikke noen video mann, men sikler likevel etter 5DMKII, særlig pga egenskapene i lite lys/høy iso.

  9. Vesentlig? Skjønner ikke helt…24mmm med crop faktor på 1,6; gir ikke det 15mm omregnet til 35mm? Og hvis du har et fullformat kamera som 5D….er ikke 24mm 24mm? Tenker jeg helt feil her?

  10. 24mm blir til 38mm på et kamera med crop faktor 1.6.

    Så, tenker man i fullframe-format blir 24-105 til 38 – 168 på et kamera med 1.6 crop factor.

    Og 38 mm er vesentlig mindre vidt enn 24mm…

  11. Roar Stavelin says:

    Nå føler jeg meg litt dum og uerfaren. Tror det var sent i går….jeg har fotografert lenge nok, eksperimentert med objektivers samt undervist i emnet flere ganger. Tenkte helt motsatt.

    Har forresten storkost meg med foredragene som ligger ute på nrkbeta. Kjørte de 4 fra UIB i ett strekk. Veldig bra!
    Litt synd med lyden fra salen, men det var jo ikke fleste spm, så det gikk greit.

  12. Hehe. Generelt syntes jeg bransjen kunne ha taklet angivelsene for brennvidde bedre enn de har gjort i overgangen til forskjellige brikkestørrelser.

    Vi har behov for angivelser som forteller oss noe enhetlig om hvor vid eller smal en linse er. Det er komplett uinteressant med korrekte mm-mål i forhold til hundrevis av forskjellige brikker… Jada, matematisk korrekt, men helt ubrukelig for oss.

    Så jeg har full forståelse for at man kan bli forvirret.

  13. Yeah. I’ve tried the 85mm several times and just about the only downside would be the speed of the autofocus. Even on the version II. But the bokeh… and sharpness… Yummy. :-)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s