Toronto Photography Meetup Group

How dare you question the 'L' religion?

I don't know. I have to admit, I was also disappointed with 24-105. But then again, I've switched to primes.

Personally, I liked the kit lens. The problem was that it was too slow.

Given the construction though, the 24-105L is more consistent with the 17-85, given the respective length of the lens.

The kit lens should be compared to the 24-70 L.

After all, usually with more flexibility and zoom, the worse your optical quality is. That's the engineering compromise.

not sure where they got those MTF charts but if you look at the official charts on canon website you can see that 24-105 is only inferior on saggital lines at 30L/mm f/8 24mm, and only near the center of the lens, beyond 10mm from center 18-55 drops like a rock. and at 105mm it's only inferior on meridonal 30L/mm lines at f/4. and considering that 18-55 doesn't even go to f/4 on tele and doesn't go to 105, that's still a win for 24-105.

i also tried both lenses, and unless there's some magic trick to make 18-55 super sharp, 24-105 is a clear winner.
granted i had to try 2 different 24-105's before i found a sharp one, but after trying 3 18-55's i still didn't see anything that came close.
i just don't see how can 18-55 possibly be sharper...


24-105:
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=149&modelid=11924

18-55IS:
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=149&modelid=15704

18-55 is awesome for its price, true, but overall it's no comparison to 24-105 or 24-70
but then again, if price is the #1, #2 and #3 priority then there's no point in even comparing anything.

I find the 24 - 105mm lens to be more then sharp enough on both cropped and full frame. It's other qualities that sold me such as colour and contrast, also how does it behave when shooting into the sun ... how is it's bokeh and so on. Using line resolution charts in the real world is a next to useless exercise. Best to rent or borrow a lens before buying.

As for the 18-55mm IS I shot with it and wasn't impressed but that maybe because it was an earlier copy I don't know.

I don't know this for a fact, but I will assume that Canon MTF charts are based on the intended mount for the lens. So, the 24-105 would be measured on a full frame body, and the 18-55 IS on a crop body. Either way, when you keep in mind that the 24-105 is ten times the price, you have to admit that it's not ten times the performance. The little cheapo zoom keeps its own.

Again, I'm not trying to compare the two lenses side by side on all aspects, I'm only going by the price / performance ration given the OP's stated budget. $600 is not enough for a 24-105, in fact it's not enough for most zooms except for the 17-85 or the 28-135, both of which aren't that great at all, the latter being rather useless on a crop body. Even my other recommendation, the Tamron 17-55 isn't all that cheap, but fits comfortably within the stated budget.

Many people like this inexpensive but slow L lens
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM Personally not a favourite of mine.

Comparing MTF's and other measurements across all the lenses is certainly a good and scientific reference point, but in many cases here we are talking about tiny or small differences that an end user may not even be able to detect in even laboratory like settings.

Case in point (from the details already brought up in this thread)

The MTF50 at 55mm/f8 is 2025.5 for the 18-55mmIS
The MTF50 at 40mm/f8 is 2033.0 and 1980.5 at 70mm/f8 for the 24-105L

For this particular statistic, the 18-55 performs better, but the difference is <0.4% difference between them! I don't know about you, but I KNOW that I would not be able to detecting even a 0.4% difference between two lenses, or just about any other pair of objects with such a small difference.

In fact, between these two lenses, I can safely say that the the additional weight of the 24-105 will have a much bigger impact in my ability to take consistently clean and well framed shots when hand-holding then any of these stats.

Yes, these types of stats are a good data point when making your decision, but they are only one of many decision points you should be looking at, and probably a fairly minor one at that.

I will still recommend that you try a few of these lenses out first, and if you can't distinguish these differences in your shots, then it should not be an important decision making point.

This further underscores the fact that the price / performance ration of the two lenses, in the context of a crop body, is much too wide to warrant paying 10 times the cost, given a constrained budget, like the OP's.



I'm not sure if that would help, or be a hindrance with the OP's XT. I know that the only way the 24-105 sits comfortably on my Xsi is with the battery grip attached, otherwise, it's way too front heavy.

The 24-105 was really designed (and is intended) for a full frame, full size body like the 5D. It really feels much more at home on a body that size.

Again, just speaking from personal experience, and I'm trying to relate exclusively to the OP's original question.

i used it on 20D which has magnesium alloy body so it was more-less balanced, but i would agree that on a plastic XT or XSI it would be a major counterweight.

Not a bad choice at all, actually. Constant F4, can be found on the used market for around $600, L quality colour, construction and build quality. Full frame upgrade path. The lack of IS may hurt this selection, but that depends on the OP's priorities.

I use XSI + 17-40L, while being an awesome lens, especially considering the price, I find it does lack 1. F2.8 and 2. range
I mostly use it for landscape stuff and occasional street, but I'd love to have it go wider, longer and faster

You should try the Canon 24-200 1.4 L IS.

Oh wait, this is reality.

Actually, Canon if you're listening. I will pay $3000 for that lens.

Canon thinks you've smoked too much dope.

And I beheld and unto the likeness of Canon beast spake unto me "Thee needest to pay thrice the price thou askest"

Reviews are only bits of information and do not constitute law by any means.

At work I have shot many thousands of images with the 18-55is and the 24-105L on a 40D (and the 24-105 alone on a 1Dmk2 and 1Dmk4). There is no comparison, the 24-105 wins hands down. Sharper focus and less CA. This is shooting commercially in a studio and comparing results at 100% magnification.

I'm all for the underdog but sometimes you do get more if you pay more. 17-40L and the Canon 50mm 1.4 are a couple of exceptions to that claim. Also, the Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 is a freak of nature too.

I would NEVER buy that lens. 24-200 1.4L.

First off, it will be heavier than the 200 F2 (which is fixed focal, so that means it would be smaller than this zoom). the 1.4 would mean a ridiculous front element.

Second, that 10x zoom = bad IQ. Even with the L, it would be worse than the kit lens.

Third, a lens that size might get me confused with a terrorist with a RPG. Who knows what would happen then? =/

That being said, I wouldn't mind a 24-70 1.4L IS. =p or even a 24-70 F2 IS. =p

but sigma 70-200 costs over $1000, add another $200 and you have a (slightly used) canon L lens with same specs but much better built quality... or am i missing something?

Not wide enough for me

All joking aside, Olympus makes the fastest currently available general purpose zoom, the 14-35 F2 (28-70 equiv). If Canon made a 24-70 F2 with IS, that would be the absolute ultimate lens.

Have you compared the cost of used to used? When I was shopping for new or used many years ago a used sigma sold for $900 or less depending on condition. The difference between a 5yo 70-200 and a new one is the minimum focussing distance and that's only important if you shoot macro. Also quality... Have you compared sigma to canon on your own camera or just read reviews? You would be VERY hard pressed to see any difference in IQ. White lens bodies are nice don't get me wrong but why pay more? For bragging rights? Unless to plan to shoot in the rain the cost isn't necessary IMO.

i haven't compared them, but i don't doubt that image quality would be about the same. what i'm concerned about is i like shooting outdoors, and i'm just wondering how durable is sigma? if i shoot on a hot humid summer day then take the lens indoors with AC on repeatedly, how long would it last? or if it's windy out (i.e. dust specs flying around, but nothing crazy, no tornados..)?

I have an older Sigma 70-200 EX, bought it in uhhh 2000. It recently was serviced by Sigma for a front focus issue ($100 cost) but other than that I really like it. I get my best images with it. It's traveled the world with me and is still in great shape. Apart from having the front focus fixed I've never had a problem. The focus is semi-fast (not L fast) and quiet. Recently there was a used one on here for just over $600 iirc. I bought mine second hand in Tokyo for about $600US and now 10 years later if I wanted to sell it I might get as much as $500 if I were patient (It is a pre-digital copy). 10 years for about $200 (depreciation and repair cost) for a pretty good lens? Sounds good. Would I like a 70-200L? Yup, especially the new one but the Sigma works much better than nothing.

I have L lenses strictly for bragging rights.

I know I may sound like an a$$ sometimes but I look at things from an ROI perspective. I shoot indoor sports professionally and I probably average 40k photos per year on the Sigma. I have used that same lens for about 4 years now and it has never let me down. It is the only non L lens in my kit and other than the lack of white paint I have nothing bad to say about it. If that lens ever gets damaged beyond repair (it has never needed a single service yet) I will probably get another one. LOL I almost wanted to say once you go black... but thats not entirely true. I can think of a few white lenses that have my full attention.

Outdoor photography usage... the canon will have an advantage. How much? Probably not a crazy amount. All of my bodies are EOS1 series and all of my L series lenses have UV filters (for complete weather sealing) and even so

you guys are forgetting who asks for the advice and what he asked for