Old 07-11-2008, 11:49 PM   #1
Railfan1588
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 28
Default Looking into a New Lens

Hi, I have recently been thinking about purchasing a new lens for my Canon Rebel EOS 300D. I'm basically wanting something that will produce better quality shots from what Im getting with my standard 18-55mm lens I have on the camera right now. I'm wanting to stay in the wide-angle range, so I have though about Canon's 24-105 mm EF f/4L IS USM lens. What are the reviews like on this lens, is it a good lens to go with? Also, what is the conversion factor for lenses when going from film to digital?
Thanks,
Nicholas
Railfan1588 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2008, 11:55 PM   #2
Joe the Photog
Senior Member
 
Joe the Photog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 7,885
Default

The conversion ratio is different for every digital camera. Canon is typically 1.6, I believe, so that 24 mm wide end won't really be that wide on your camera. It'd be basically 35 mm at it's widest.

Now about the lens itself, I want it bad. I've read a lot of good things about it. I don't think you could go wrong with it, but you'd probably end up keeping the kit lens handy for those few instances here and there where that little wider angle is needed.


Joe
__________________
Joe the Photog Dot Com
Joe the Photog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2008, 12:24 AM   #3
trainboysd40
Senior Member
 
trainboysd40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Calgary, Alberta on the CP Laggan Subdivision
Posts: 2,048
Send a message via MSN to trainboysd40
Default

If you'd like a telephoto, I've heard good things about the EF-S 55-250 IS. It's not an L, but that doesn't come with the EF-S lenses. If you don't need telephoto, the 24-105L IS is one heckuva lens.
__________________
got a D5 IIi and now he doesnt afread fo 12800 iSO
Youtube (Model Railway, Vlogs, Tutorials, and prototype)
My Website
Obligatory link to shots on RP, HERE
trainboysd40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2008, 02:05 AM   #4
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trainboysd40
If you'd like a telephoto, I've heard good things about the EF-S 55-250 IS. It's not an L, but that doesn't come with the EF-S lenses. If you don't need telephoto, the 24-105L IS is one heckuva lens.
tbd40, he did say

Quote:
I'm wanting to stay in the wide-angle range



A lot of people on this forum, me included, have recommended the sigma 17-70 as a great step up from the kit lens, and it covers much more of the wide end than a 24-105 lens. And it's much less expensive, if that matters (as it always does!).
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots

Last edited by JRMDC; 07-12-2008 at 02:07 AM.
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2008, 02:17 AM   #5
gbrozny
Senior Member
 
gbrozny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 169
Send a message via ICQ to gbrozny
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC
tbd40, he did say





A lot of people on this forum, me included, have recommended the sigma 17-70 as a great step up from the kit lens, and it covers much more of the wide end than a 24-105 lens. And it's much less expensive, if that matters (as it always does!).
It is a great lens, I take just about everything with it these days..
gbrozny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2008, 02:59 AM   #6
TAMR159
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 367
Default

I'd go for the 24-105 F/4L IS. In all honesty, you get what you pay for. I've tried various Sigma and Tamron lenses, and I haven't seen any cases where they're even on par with L glass in the grand scheme of things (not only I.Q., but also performance [USM, for instance], build quality, etc.). If you're on a budget, then by all means, go for the third party stuff - but if quality IS your number one motive, then stick to the manufacturer stuff - in this case, L glass. Believe me, you won't be disappointed...
TAMR159 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2008, 03:10 AM   #7
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Well, TAMR, in one sense true enough, but in another sense "you get what you pay for" varies. Some people will get a lot out of the increase in image quality from 17-70 to 24-105, some just won't; the increase in quality will be too modest to justify the hundreds of dollars. Or, the extra quality will not be worth losing the 17-23 range (while at the same time gaining the tele, of course). The 24 is only 38.4mm in film equivalent terms. That is hardly wide angle at all, and wide angle is a) what the OP wants, and b) pretty darn useful for shooting objects that tend to be very, very long. The 24-105 is not a bad choice, it just isn't an obvious best choice.

Which brings me to another thought. If the OP is seriously looking at spending 24-105L type $$$, they really ought to look at the 17-55 f/2.8 IS. A great lens - I upgraded to this from the sigma, although that was primarily for family indoor shooting. I'm not complaining about having to use it also for trains also! Really excellent, and by all accounts, L or near-L in image quality (the build quality is not quite that).
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2008, 03:21 AM   #8
Save The Wave
trainchaser.us
 
Save The Wave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Evansville IN
Posts: 357
Send a message via MSN to Save The Wave
Default

If you get a good copy, it's a great lens. Much has been written about the spotty quality of the L series lately.
Personally, I think the photos I get with this lens are soft, but they print as sharp as can be.
Here are two cropped images from last week. No sharpening or any corrections, cropped with Irfanview and saved at 100%

1. 1/320 @ f7.1 ISO 200 24mm
2. 1/250 @ f9.0 ISO 200 73 mm
The train was moving 10 MPH on #1 and maybe 25 mph on #2. The full frame can be seen here:
1. http://www.pbase.com/savethewave/image/99843272
2. http://www.pbase.com/savethewave/image/99843274

Overall I am not impressed with on screen image quality. Should have sent it back for tuning. The printed 8x10's are a different story. I will say the IS is fantastic and works far better than I ever expected.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	canon01.jpg
Views:	89
Size:	261.4 KB
ID:	3050   Click image for larger version

Name:	canon03.jpg
Views:	70
Size:	410.0 KB
ID:	3051  
__________________
You give me a golf cart, a 12 pack and a lake, I'll show you how to have fun all day - Comedian Greg Hahn

The good, the bad and the ugly. My railpics
Save The Wave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2008, 03:30 AM   #9
Save The Wave
trainchaser.us
 
Save The Wave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Evansville IN
Posts: 357
Send a message via MSN to Save The Wave
Default

JRMDC has it right. The 24-105 is better suited for film or a full frame digital. The 17-55 2.8 would be a better choice for digital, and one I wish I'd made.
From what I have read, it is an L quality lens but cannot be labeled as such because of the EF-S designation.
Save The Wave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2008, 05:22 AM   #10
TAMR159
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 367
Default

There's always the 17-40 F/4L...I own this lens and the 24-70 F/2.8L, both of which are fantastic lenses. The 17-55 F/2.8 IS wasn't too shabby either when I tried it, though as you said, the build quality is lacking...that and should you ever decide to go with a full-frame body like I intend to, EF-S lenses become useless. The 24-105 is a good all-around lens, but I will say that I have *had* to use the 17-40 on some occasions in cramped quarters (shops and whatnot) and really wide shots - I will admit that I use my 24-70 far more, mainly because I like the images it produces more.

Another thing I forgot to mention in regards to L glass, besides the metal construction (versus the plastic construction of most non-L lenses) is that most of these lenses are also weather-sealed - meaning shooting in the rain won't hurt it as long as you let it dry off before changing lenses and whatnot (as I can attest to...unfortunately, my Rebel XT isn't weather-proof, as I found out the hard way...).

How much time do you spend at 18mm on your current lens? I'd say that's the biggest factor...

Last edited by TAMR159; 07-12-2008 at 05:33 AM.
TAMR159 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2008, 05:23 AM   #11
Switched out
Senior Member
 
Switched out's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 395
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC
Which brings me to another thought. If the OP is seriously looking at spending 24-105L type $$$, they really ought to look at the 17-55 f/2.8 IS. A great lens - I upgraded to this from the sigma, although that was primarily for family indoor shooting. I'm not complaining about having to use it also for trains also! Really excellent, and by all accounts, L or near-L in image quality (the build quality is not quite that).
Another vote for the 17-55 F2.8 IS here, just upgraded to this lens myself.

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 USM IS - Test Report / Review

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 USM L IS - Lab Test Report / Review

Sigma AF 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC macro - Test Report / Review

Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 SP XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF] (Canon) - Test Report / Review

If on a limited budget I would look at the Sigma 17-70mm I have seen some very impressive work from this lens.

Cheers,

Christine.
Switched out is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2008, 05:56 AM   #12
Trendyh
Member
 
Trendyh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 51
Send a message via Yahoo to Trendyh Send a message via Skype™ to Trendyh
Default

I use the Canon EF-S17-85mm F/4-5.6 IS USM lense as one of my lenses and find it to be a very sharp lense and has that slightly wider angle. I also have a Canon EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS, which I find not to be as sharp from about 125mm to 135mm, other then that it is quite sharp at all other range,
I don't use it any more, many because it overlaps with my other lenses, but still a good lense for the price.
Trendyh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2008, 05:15 PM   #13
Ween
Senior Member
 
Ween's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,861
Default

As a telemash guy, I am surprised at how much I'm around 17mm with the Sigma 17-70. When I was originally looking for a new lens, I wanted the ability to go wider than 70mm, but I had no idea how much more flexibility shooting <20mm would give me...
__________________
Ween is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2008, 03:31 AM   #14
Paulinbna
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 14
Default

If you are really close to the action the 10-22 MM Canon is a great lens.
Paulinbna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2008, 09:54 PM   #15
ottergoose
American Gunzel
 
ottergoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Eagan, MN
Posts: 1,626
Send a message via AIM to ottergoose Send a message via Yahoo to ottergoose
Default

On Ween's recommendation, I got myself a Sigma 17-70 - couldn't afford the L alternatives. I've had reasonably good results with it, although if I had a big pile of money land in my lap I'd upgrade it pretty quickly.
__________________
Nick Benson | Pictures | Website | Flickr | Profile | JetPhotos | Twitter
ottergoose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2008, 11:07 PM   #16
troy12n
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 5,333
Default

I would get a EF 70-200/f4L USM + a EF-S 17-85 IS USM

These 2 lenses would cover a pretty broad focal range and cost less than the 24-105L.

I own these 2 lenses (as well as a 100-400L and several primes) and they are great for shooting trains.

Someone else posted about the EF-S 17-55 IS USM. While it has good IQ, for the cost, it has MANY negatives in my opinion. Its too slow, not well built, not weather sealed (is VERY prone to getting DUST INSIDE it) and is EF-S. For the money, those factors make it very undersirable.

And the 28-135 IS USM, I have owned 2 of these, and image quality leaves alot to be desired, I sold both of mine.

Another idea may be the 28-300L, but its pretty pricy

Last edited by troy12n; 07-13-2008 at 11:12 PM.
troy12n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2008, 04:31 PM   #17
ken45
LA&SL Fanatic
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 700
Default

I just bought this lens about 2 months ago, and have nothing bad to say about it. It was the upgrade for my 28-135, and it is a very noticeable upgrade as far as color reproduction and sharpness. I was trying to decide between this and the 24-70L and the choice was obvious once I analyzed my shooting habits. The extra reach and IS of this lens made it far more useful than having the ability for f2.8 which I rarely would use anyway.
__________________
My Railpictures Shots http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=2561
ken45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2008, 11:36 PM   #18
J Douglas Moore
Senior Member
 
J Douglas Moore's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: "It's a dry heat" Arizona
Posts: 716
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ken45
I just bought this lens about 2 months ago, and have nothing bad to say about it. It was the upgrade for my 28-135, and it is a very noticeable upgrade as far as color reproduction and sharpness. I was trying to decide between this and the 24-70L and the choice was obvious once I analyzed my shooting habits. The extra reach and IS of this lens made it far more useful than having the ability for f2.8 which I rarely would use anyway.
ken.. I am a lil slow here...... Just whcih lens did you get??
__________________

"Thanks for looking"

It is a proven fact that birthdays are good for you. The people with the most always live longer!
J Douglas Moore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2008, 01:40 AM   #19
milwman
I shoot what I like
 
milwman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Cedar Fall's, Iowa
Posts: 2,474
Send a message via Yahoo to milwman
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by J Douglas Moore
ken.. I am a lil slow here...... Just whcih lens did you get??
24 - 105 F 4 IS ? if he not back on

I had the 28- 135 IS I liked mine
I have the 24 - 85 3.5- 4.5 its cheep and sharp as hell on a 1.6 and if you don't need IS is about as nice as the 24 -70 2.8 L at F8 and cheeper a lot $ 300 something
I have the 17 - 85 4 - 5.6 IS and 17 sucks if you like barrel distortion and bent lines and not all that sharp at 17 ok the rest the way out to 85 and IS works great makes a good 24 -85 IS
I have a Tamron 17 - 35 2.8 - 4 maybe the sharpest one i seen at 17 other than the 17 - 40 F4 L that i shot with last weekend
I have glass that i will get rid of just have to make up my mind but think 24 105 F4L maybe what i will get tried it out and like it.
__________________
Richard Scott Marsh I go by Scott long story

http://www.flickr.com/photos/22299476@N05/
milwman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2008, 03:01 AM   #20
J Douglas Moore
Senior Member
 
J Douglas Moore's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: "It's a dry heat" Arizona
Posts: 716
Default

I am planning to buy a 40D to repalce my EOS ELan SLR....... I have an old (1993 or so) tamron 28-200 AF Aspherical...... I understand that I will have a 1.6 conversion leaving me with not much wide angle, if I understand correctly. I like that glass as a good all purpose lens and it has taken massive abuse and keeps on ticking.................. I am gonna need some new glass soon..............

Comments??
__________________

"Thanks for looking"

It is a proven fact that birthdays are good for you. The people with the most always live longer!
J Douglas Moore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2008, 03:20 AM   #21
milwman
I shoot what I like
 
milwman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Cedar Fall's, Iowa
Posts: 2,474
Send a message via Yahoo to milwman
Default

[quote=J Douglas Moore] tamron 28-200 AF Aspherical...... I understand that I will have a 1.6 conversion leaving me with not much wide angle.

28 - 200 X 1.6 = 44.8 - 320
So you gain a lot at the long end but will need a wide if you shoot a lot under 50 MM. Think you may not be as happy with it, 28 - 200 as the 40 D will out resolve it and may end up wanting a new lens if your picky. As it wasn't made to be a fine lens but a do it all ok lens, made for the the small print guys that go to wallmart for prints.
__________________
Richard Scott Marsh I go by Scott long story

http://www.flickr.com/photos/22299476@N05/

Last edited by milwman; 07-15-2008 at 04:44 AM.
milwman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2008, 03:56 AM   #22
J Douglas Moore
Senior Member
 
J Douglas Moore's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: "It's a dry heat" Arizona
Posts: 716
Default

[quote=milwman]
Quote:
Originally Posted by J Douglas Moore
tamron 28-200 AF Aspherical...... I understand that I will have a 1.6 conversion leaving me with not much wide angle.

28 - 200 = 44.8 - 320
So you gain a lot at the long end but will need a wide if you shoot a lot under 50 MM. Think you may not be as happy with it, 28 - 200 as the 40 D will out resolve it and may end up wanting a new lens if your picky. As it wasn't made to be a fine lens but a do it all ok lens, made for the the small print guys that go to wallmart for prints.
The lens does well in the 50 range, but at high end leaves alot to be desired. So at 320 it likely will be awful
__________________

"Thanks for looking"

It is a proven fact that birthdays are good for you. The people with the most always live longer!
J Douglas Moore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2008, 04:43 AM   #23
milwman
I shoot what I like
 
milwman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Cedar Fall's, Iowa
Posts: 2,474
Send a message via Yahoo to milwman
Default

[quote=J Douglas Moore]
Quote:
Originally Posted by milwman

The lens does well in the 50 range, but at high end leaves alot to be desired. So at 320 it likely will be awful
My EX had one, so know all about it. You can get by with it i think, some are sharper than others are.
__________________
Richard Scott Marsh I go by Scott long story

http://www.flickr.com/photos/22299476@N05/

Last edited by milwman; 07-15-2008 at 04:48 AM.
milwman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2008, 05:18 AM   #24
J Douglas Moore
Senior Member
 
J Douglas Moore's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: "It's a dry heat" Arizona
Posts: 716
Default

[quote=milwman]
Quote:
Originally Posted by J Douglas Moore
My EX had one, so know all about it. You can get by with it i think, some are sharper than others are.
If all goes as planned , I will know in a week or so..

Thanks
__________________

"Thanks for looking"

It is a proven fact that birthdays are good for you. The people with the most always live longer!
J Douglas Moore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2008, 10:44 AM   #25
Switched out
Senior Member
 
Switched out's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 395
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by [left
milwman[/left]
]
I have the 17 - 85 4 - 5.6 IS and 17 sucks if you like barrel distortion and bent lines and not all that sharp at 17
ok
the rest the way out to 85 and IS works great makes a good 24 -85 IS
That's exactly what I found with mine, 17 - 24 sucks big time and you have to stop it down a couple of stops to get any thing decent out of it. On the plus side it did make a great walk around lens.

Christine.
Switched out is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.