Newbie question: This lens will give me a wider degree of view than the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM.. Right? If not, which would you recommed?
1173522
It will not. Because they are both 24mm wide. If you want a wider degree of view then you need to buy a lens with a widest degree of less than 24mm.
1173523
No, they are both 24mm. For a wider lens try the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L. I own the Canon EF 24mm f/2.8 IS and use it for video and like it very much. If I need it to be 'wider' I just step back away from the subject.
1173524
I've owned both, heres my opinion: the 24-105mm is best for a travel lens when you dont wanna be annoyed by changing lenses. The 24mm f/2.8 is more if you want the best sharpness and contrast with less destortion. It is in the pro league of prime lenses. The zoom lens is just a good but not great all arounder that does a lot though.
1173525
On the same camera, both lenses have the same field of view at 24 mm. The zoom is a little more useful for traveling. You have more focal lengths. The fixed 24 is more compact.
2068756
Hi K. Johnson-I have been mulling over this very same thing.....I have decided on the 24-105 for a 50d. You may find this website helpful: www.the-digital-picture.com Has a nice review of canon lens recommendations which helped me to decide. Good luck!
1674522
I bought the 24-105 lens recently because I thought the IS would make up for my lack of a higher aperture in low-light situations. It does to an extent, but I have decided that I want the f/2.8 for other reasons. So I'm trying to sell my 24-105 so I can buy the 24-70. I do wish the 24-70 had IS, but it's really not necessary because it's just a faster lens. It really depends on your use. If you are using it for weddings, you may want to consider the 24-70 because of the faster focusing and better handling in low-light situations. If you are using it for a general walk-around lens, the 24-105 will do just fine. I love mine and I almost want to keep it and buy the 24-70, but I can't afford both right now and I need the 24-70 for my business. You can see some sample photos from the 24-105 at my website: www.sarakelley.net. Email me there if you want more input or have any questions.
2240582
I've been using the 17-85mm IS USM with my cameras for several years - love it. I have not used this lens, but you can find the 17-85 used for several hundred dollars cheaper than the 17-40L and it is a more versatile lens.
1346885
Yes, I have to agree with Henry. The 50mm f1.4 is more versatile in the long run. The single most useful point being that, depending on your camera model, you have in effect anything from a 65mm f1.4 to an 80mm f1.4. This falls ideally into the portrait lens range. It's a lens that I still use frequently, especially when using a film body. Both are first rate lenses with excellent sharpness & contrast, but I think that you'd find that the 50mm f1.4 would be used more often..
1960708
While Doug James answered this correctly, I did look up this lens on Canon Lenses. Normally, this is an f4 to 5.6 lens and is an EFS lens for C size cameras. For extenders the widest f-stop that is acceptable is f 5.6. So when you are at f 4.0 you might be able to use this but it would be very limited. You might want to try Canon extension tubes for magnification. The 25mm seems to do best with this lens. Remember though that infinity focusing is generally lost with extension tubes.
523659
The 24-105mm isn't very wide for a walk-around lens. I'm more inclined to recommend the 15-85mm IS USM for its very nice optics, extra wide angle view and overall versatility.The EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 is an excellent zoom that is particularly useful in low light. It doesn't offer the range of the 24-105 or 15-85 but you won't find a better standard zoom for a Canon crop camera.
1687599
Michael - Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! I just educated myself on the 10-22 mm and decided that is the lens for me! Now to save up... :)
1749216
If you want sharper images and faster focusing, you might instead consider getting one of the Canon 70-200mm f/4L USM models. The difference in image quality can be quite a startling. Back (WAY back) when I was looking to upgrade my old telephoto lens, someone gave me excellent advice that the difference between the newer telephotos I was considering was relatively small - too small to agonize over - and that if I really wanted to upgrade, I should just bite the bullet and get the L. One of the best pieces of advice on equipment I ever got. Once I tried the L, I never looked back. The one drawback is that the lens will spoil you forever. If you want sharper images and faster focusing, you might instead consider getting one of the Canon 70-200mm f/4L USM models. The difference in image quality can be quite a startling. Back (WAY back) when I was looking to upgrade my old telephoto lens, someone gave me excellent advice that the difference between the newer telephotos I was considering was relatively small - too small to agonize over - and that if I really wanted to upgrade, I should just bite the bullet and get the L. One of the best pieces of advice on equipment I ever got. Once I tried the L, I never looked... » Read More If you want sharper images and faster focusing, you might instead consider getting one of the Canon 70-200mm f/4L USM models. The difference in image quality can be quite a startling. Back (WAY back) when I was looking to upgrade my old telephoto lens, someone gave me excellent advice that the difference between the newer telephotos I was considering was relatively small - too small to agonize over - and that if I really wanted to upgrade, I should just bite the bullet and get the L. One of the best pieces of advice on equipment I ever got. Once I tried the L, I never looked back. The one drawback is that the lens will spoil you forever. « Show Less
1337629
Image quality between the 24-70 and 28-75 is leaps and bounds. The 24-70 is just as sharp as Canons 24-70 version. Not to mention having VC. Definitely worth it if you have the money. I owned the 28-75 and it was a great lens for what is was but the 24-70 is such a step up in my opinion. Cheers
1716981
This Lens is phenomenal! I also have the 6d and together they are great. Don't waste your money on the 24-70. At first, I was not too sure about the 28-70L , but after Using it at a few events, it is proven to be an awesome lens. My copy is tack sharp and the only difference is 4mm.
354391
Hi Richard Yes it is a wider lens and very sharp minimal distortion. I use it a lot for landscapes etc. it's very small and light and for the price I think it's worth it
134990
Hello. I purchased tis lens and I can not be happier with it. The image quality comapred to the sigma to em is superior. LEss Chromatic Averration and way less distrotions on the edge of the frame on full frame cameras.Build is oustanding and I do used it for my paid jobs. Lokk at this link so you cna see some of the images of this magnificent and very good quality lens:http://fmta.com.mx/index.php/galerias-de-fotos/galeriasolimpiadas2014/64-olimpiadasclasificatorias2
1716984
Hello Amy, I really haven't used this product since I bought it; I initially thought it was the 24-70mm f 2.8L. As a matter of fact, I will be returning it. I am, therefore, not the best person to give a critique. However, I'm sure you'll find these links useful: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-28-70mm-f-2.8-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspxhttp://www.fredmiranda.com/24-70/
2228567
Thanks Branden, I didn't think it was a "macro" lens, but wanted to ask. I'm planning on buying this lens when ever I decide I can afford a $1,000 lens. I've since purchased the Canon 60mm EF-S Macro lens and like it very much.
2270806
Why on earth would you put this on an EF 24-105mm, it's a superb lens on its own. The DC is a heap of rubbish compared to the EF. Its like putting cheap unleaded petrol in a Ferrari !I use it on a canon HV20 just for a wide angle advantage, which is all it is really any good for, although it wouldn't fit the EF.regardsTP
910057
Go for it. This is an awesome lens. I use this lens along with my EF 70-200 L Series f/2.8 for all my wedding and other event shoots (including portraits, sports etc). But if money is not an object why not get the 50MM lens (along with this) as others have suggested. I am happy with the two lenses (ie EF 24-70 mm and EF 70-200 mm). I've taken thousands of pictures with these two lenses (almost 80% with the 24-70 Lens). Hope this helps.