this lens does NOT have image stabilization, and its older that a lot of fatwalleters. get the 24 - 105 L. portrait lenses have to be at least 90.
onlycom
Senior Member - 5K
posted: Oct. 18, 2009 @ 1:36a
disposable said: this lens does NOT have image stabilization, and its older that a lot of fatwalleters. get the 24 - 105 L. portrait lenses have to be at least 90.
Too bad 24-105L isn't known for great bokeh. 24-70L definitely has more smooth, silky bokeh.
really depends on how important f2.8 is to u. if u generally shoot out doors and not too much low light, 24-105 is pretty good with f4. but with in doors and low light f2.8 will make life much easier.
king0fSpades said: It is usually cheaper than 1200 when we have Canon summer rebates.
The Canon summer rebate is nice but I can't wait until next summer to get it. This lens was $1200 a year ago but average price has went up to $1350 since then.
Wow, really? I have both the 24-70 and 24-105 and have found the 24-105 to be at least as good in terms of final product (whether print, web, or other output). And as mentioned, the 24-105 is also much smaller, has IS, and a bit more range. Another thing that bugs me is that the 24-70's physical length and focal length is exactly reversed, plus the hood doesn't telescope with the front element, so it is made extremely large in order to effectively cover the entire focal range. 24-70 is just an awkward lens. I also have both the f/2.8L 70-200 IS and the f/4 70-200 IS. There too, I prefer the smaller, lighter, and superior performing f/4.
Of course, some just can't live without 2.8 and creamy bokeh. For those, there is a really easy decision.
Here is a close one that I had that had IS on it. The only problem I ever had is that it is not weather sealed (not L and dust tends to get inside the lens if you use it outside of the studio) but it is high quality and the pictures are amazingly sharp.
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.6 IS USM $1,046.44 http://www.Amazon.com/Canon-EF-S-17-55mm-Lens-Cameras/dp/B000EW8074
Here is a close one that I had that had IS on it. The only problem I ever had is that it is not weather sealed (not L and dust tends to get inside the lens if you use it outside of the studio) but it is high quality and the pictures are amazingly sharp.
I rented one of these to shoot a friend's wedding (thanks lensrentals.com!), and it is a SPECTACULAR lens. Slowly saving my pennies so I can get one of my own. it's a bit heavy to carry around all the time, but it's most definitely worth every penny. this is an L quality lens imho.
phoebusvh
Senior Member
posted: Oct. 18, 2009 @ 4:22p
you guys think this is a deal? My friend just got this lense off from eBay Brand new with 1 yr warranty just like the one fro Amazon for less than 1k. This lense is normally cheaper than this.
phoebusvh said: you guys think this is a deal? My friend just got this lense off from eBay Brand new with 1 yr warranty just like the one fro Amazon for less than 1k. This lense is normally cheaper than this.
USA lens?
lurking4deals
Senior Member
posted: Oct. 18, 2009 @ 6:04p
Darith said: I wish that would come out soon!
Here is a close one that I had that had IS on it. The only problem I ever had is that it is not weather sealed (not L and dust tends to get inside the lens if you use it outside of the studio) but it is high quality and the pictures are amazingly sharp.
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.6 IS USM $1,046.44 http://www.Amazon.com/Canon-EF-S-17-55mm-Lens-Cameras/dp/B000EW8074
I have a 17-55 and love it, but keep in mind, that EFS-EF, 2 totally different beasts here. I'm missing a lot of range between my 17-55 EFS and 70-200 2.8 EF. Thinking about getting a 24-70 or 24-105 to cover that range. Would love a 24-70 w/ IS though, if it ever gets released.
have the lens - worth every penny @ any price! (well!? !)
Raak
Member
posted: Oct. 18, 2009 @ 6:45p
It is now $1221. Still cheaper than other sellers. I was comparing 24-70L and 24-105L too, but "to me" f2.8 is more important than extra zoom length and IS. The weight of 24-70L is too much though.
I would rather buy a Tamron 28-75mm + Canon 50mm f1.4. The Tamron is about half the price of the Canon, but you miss out on the superior build quality, super-quiet USM AF, and great resale value.
I would rather buy a Tamron 28-75mm + Canon 50mm f1.4. The Tamron is about half the price of the Canon, but you miss out on the superior build quality, super-quiet USM AF, and great resale value.
...and IQ...really IQ of "L" glass can rarely be beaten.
Raak said: It is now $1221. Still cheaper than other sellers. I was comparing 24-70L and 24-105L too, but "to me" f2.8 is more important than extra zoom length and IS. The weight of 24-70L is too much though.
sales go up - so is the price !!! welcome to Amazom!
24-70 is heavy and it becomes 38-110 on APSC DSLR so you lost wide angle. I don't want to touch it before I got my 5D2. But on 5D2 it gets new life, and it is truely the lens I prefer to use unless I got really low light.
24-105 sounds better but bokeh is terrible to me. Also F4 is not fast enough. It also misses the wide angle on APS-C cameras.
So if you plan to move to 5D2 or other FF lens, get this lens.
Holy Macaroni! This lens by itself is twice the price of my newly acquired T1i (and that included a lens). Did I just get into the wrong hobby?
phoebusvh
Senior Member
posted: Oct. 19, 2009 @ 3:31p
chicoedge said: phoebusvh said: you guys think this is a deal? My friend just got this lense off from eBay Brand new with 1 yr warranty just like the one fro Amazon for less than 1k. This lense is normally cheaper than this.
phoebusvh said: chicoedge said: phoebusvh said: you guys think this is a deal? My friend just got this lense off from eBay Brand new with 1 yr warranty just like the one fro Amazon for less than 1k. This lense is normally cheaper than this.
USA lens? yes, it is hence the warranty.
Well, even import lenses can come with warranties. Please ask your friend which eBay seller is offering these lenses for under $1,000. It doesn't make a difference to me as I'm a Nikon guy but a lot of people in this thread would love to know where to go to get that deal.
inthemood
Member
posted: Oct. 19, 2009 @ 3:50p
brahmachari99 said: Holy Macaroni! This lens by itself is twice the price of my newly acquired T1i (and that included a lens). Did I just get into the wrong hobby?
Yes, indeed! Wait until you want to get a 5D2 and the L lenses.
brahmachari99 said: Holy Macaroni! This lens by itself is twice the price of my newly acquired T1i (and that included a lens). Did I just get into the wrong hobby?
Photography can be expensive. There are lenses out there that make this one look cheap.
I have following: Canon EOS 70-200mm F/2.8L IS USM Canon EF 24-105mm F/4 L IS USM Canon EF 70-200mm F/4 L Canon EF 17-40mm F/4 L Canon EF 100mm Macro F/2.8 Canon EF 50mm F/1.4
However I think my 17-40F/4 and 70-200 F/4 are sharper than 24-105. I think any lens with 4X zoom is not as sharp as the one with 3X.
Awesome lens at a good price...this lens lives on my camera 90% of the time
siliconhybrid
New Member
posted: Oct. 20, 2009 @ 1:58p
Price is now back to $1221, I am seriously thinking to buy this. The price at Amazon fluctuates, what is the lowest price at Amazon of this lens for the past 4 months? Should I get it now, or should I wait?
siliconhybrid said: Price is now back to $1221, I am seriously thinking to buy this. The price at Amazon fluctuates, what is the lowest price at Amazon of this lens for the past 4 months? Should I get it now, or should I wait?
Rumors are that Thursday is the day the fall rebates will begin. Should bring the price down about $150, BUT they may very well jack up the price of this lens when the rebate starts. It has happened before.
As for this lens...
Don't blindly praise it due to it being an L. A good copy of this lens is truly great, but this lens especially has been known to have a lot of bad copies floating out there. It is also a little soft on the low end and a little soft wide open.
In terms of low-light, 2.8 still isn't a low light lens. Sure it is lower light than an f/4, but for true low light buy yourself a prime in your favorite focal length.
This lens is part of every wedding photographers kit along with the 70-200/2.8 IS.
For a non-pro, the Tamron 28-75 easily rivals the image quality of this lens at 1/3 the price. Who cares about resale value on a sub $400 lens? You can sell it for $300. So what if you lose $100.
I would rather have the Tamron and a couple of primes and a flash.
For me, with no real budget, I chose the Tamron over the Canon, and not for cost reasons. I have a 5d and a 40d, a 17-40L, 70-200 f/4 L IS (Canon sharpest zoom ever) and a bunch of primes for my low light needs.
If you don't already know you need this lens, you likely don't need this lens.
siliconhybrid
New Member
posted: Oct. 20, 2009 @ 2:24p
verklempt said: Rumors are that Thursday is the day the fall rebates will begin. Should bring the price down about $150, BUT they may very well jack up the price of this lens when the rebate starts. It has happened before.
Thanks for the heads-up I can wait till Thursday
My eyes is fixed on this lens f/2.8 is ideal, I can't live with F4 and above. Hate to bring/switch lenses, so I need zoom lens. This hopefully will be used 90% of the time.
Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.
Members of our community may attach files to a post in accordance with the User Agreement. FatWallet is not responsible for the content, accuracy, completeness or validity of any information contained in any attached file. Files have *not* been scanned for viruses. Be especially wary of Excel files which may contain malicious content.
