ART Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS Price?

kamiraa

OT Supporter
Jul 6, 2003
11,369
Texas
Is $750 a good price for this lens?

Used, UW code (I know its 2008, but is there anything wrong with this year?)

Or a better buy the Tamron 17-50mm?
 

Marix

OT Supporter
May 23, 2006
27,969
What camera is it going on?

17-50 is a crop sensor lens. Quite a bit wider and a stop faster.

24-105 is full frame lens. Not as wide (on crop camera) and a stop slower.
 

Marix

OT Supporter
May 23, 2006
27,969
Ok, well 17-50 then imo

17 is quite a bit wider than 24 which IMO is more useful than having 105 vs 50

Though if your style of shooting uses longer focal lengths, maybe the 24-105 is better. Nobody else can really decide for you.
 
TS
TS
kamiraa

kamiraa

OT Supporter
Jul 6, 2003
11,369
Texas
Ok, well 17-50 then imo

17 is quite a bit wider than 24 which IMO is more useful than having 105 vs 50

Though if your style of shooting uses longer focal lengths, maybe the 24-105 is better. Nobody else can really decide for you.

I like taking a lot of shots in 18 to get as much landscape as possible (travel walk around lens), but was worried about the non-is on the 17-50.

When I went to the digital picture website to compare, the 17-50 looks pretty bad at 2.8, at f4 it looked great and comparable to the 24-105mm at f4. So at that level and above they seemed like good contenders, except the 24-105 had the IS.

I'm worried about shooting without IS since I do mostly handheld shots.

Is 24 on a crop sensor really shitty?

Does the IS not really matter handheld?

I'm between buying this used lens at $750 for the 24-105mm L , or spend 450 on Amazon for the 17-50mm.
 
Last edited:
TS
TS
kamiraa

kamiraa

OT Supporter
Jul 6, 2003
11,369
Texas
Maybe i'm confused about lens (still a newbie), but is 24mm on the 17-55mm EF-S lens the same 24mm on the EF lens or are they correcting for it being on a full frame?
 

Marix

OT Supporter
May 23, 2006
27,969
24 isn't "shitty" - it just isn't as wide as 17mm. You'll notice the difference in focal lengths way more at wider ends of the spectrum. i.e 15mm to 10mm is WAY wider. Whereas 100mm to 105mm wouldn't feel much longer.

And IS only matters really for stationary objects, and if you are using slower shutter speeds (usually less than 1/focal length, i.e 1/15 for a 17mm lens). For landscapes, I imagine that won't be a problem. And you won't be shooting wide open at 2.8 either I'd guess.

IS is great for shots indoors and stationary subjects where you can handhold for longer. But it's not going to matter for landscapes and travel in the day time.

For travel, I'd say a 17-50 is better, especially if you like the wider end more :dunno:
 

Marix

OT Supporter
May 23, 2006
27,969
No. The focal length of a lens is fixed. It's 24mm always, regardless of what camera it is on. So when lenses are made, bought and sold, the mm focal length is the same.

HOWEVER, the different sensor size will use a smaller or larger part of the image made by the lens. The lens projects an image onto the sensor, and a smaller sensor is simply using the middle piece of the image. In that respect it "feels" like a longer focal length, but it isn't.

The difference is that the 17-50 won't work on full frame because that image it makes won't cover the area of the larger sensor, and you can dark edges to the image. The 24-105 will work on the smaller sensor cameras fine, but will have a "longer" field of view compared to if it was on a full frame camera.

Imagine looking at your TV and putting a few inches of black tape around all the edges of the screen. You just made your TV a cropped sensor instead of full frame. The newsreader is now filling more of the screen, so he might *look* closer, but he isn't. And to get the same field of view that you had before, you would have to zoom out (i.e. use a shorter focal length) to shrink everything to back inside the black borders. I.e to get the same view as 50mm on full frame, you need 35 on a crop. And the opposite applies if you remove the tape - you now need a longer focal length to get the same framing.. ie 50mm rather than 35.

When people talk about the conversion, they are saying what the EQUIVALENT focal length would be on crop vs full frame. I.e a 35mm lens on full frame is quite wide, but on a cropped sensor it is more standard length like 50mm. The standard multiplier is 1.5 or 1.6x.

Don't worry too much though. Suffice to say that if you like wider lenses, 17mm is quite a bit wider than 24 and therefore probably more useful to you.
 
TS
TS
kamiraa

kamiraa

OT Supporter
Jul 6, 2003
11,369
Texas
oh god that was long

Thanks, it was good info.

I just wasn't sure if they normalized the kit lens to the exact amounts since they could assume EF-S is on a 1.6 factor, and the EF's are at less of a magnification.

Like the 18-55mm that ships with the T2i.

But the 24-105mm ships with the 5D mkII.

So since they have different magnification if you took a picture on the t2i with the lens kit 18-55mm at 24mm , and then swapped to the 24-105mm at 24mm would they both look exactly the same on the computer, same field of view or would the 24-105mm look more zoomed in.

Am I making sense or going around in circles. Thanks for taking the time to explain :h5:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

About Us

  • Please do not post anything that violates any Local, State, Federal or International Laws. Your privacy is protected. You have the right to be forgotten. Site funded by advertising, link monetization and member support.
OT v15.8.1 Copyright © 2000-2022 Offtopic.com
Served by fu.offtopic.com

Online statistics

Members online
493
Guests online
82
Total visitors
575

Forum statistics

Threads
369,476
Messages
16,887,752
Members
86,873
Latest member
vitalesan