Good L series wide angle?

[IPT]

Well, that depends on your shooting style. You might use the 24-105mm a lot more than you think. Personally I probably stay at the mid to telphoto range for a lot of my landscape stuff (click red house to see some stuff). That's not say I don't go wide, I do, but not as often as I do the others ranges. It's not uncommon for me to take landscape images at 200mm to isolate a part of the scene that I feel is the most powerful. That's just my style though. I'm sure Doug will chime in with his thoughts once he's online again. He may shoot differently than me. Like he said before though "it depends".

Here is a good example, my g/f and I on a ridge looking out at the Alaska Range with our tent in the foreground. This was shot at 50mm.

 

[t5Nitro]

Ok, nice. Just was curious between the two because you always here raving reviews about the 24-70, and never about the 24-105. At least not as many, on this site anyway all I've read about is the 24-70 and how good it is. Thanks for the info.

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

I knew I was going to get a 24-70 or a 24-150. I researched each every night for about 6 months weighing out every minute pro and con of each I could think of before making an expensive decision I knew would follow me for decades. I chose the 24-70 for many many many reasons, but the most powerful 2 were as follows:

1) The 24-105 has IS, which is nice but especially at the wide half of the lens I couldn't decern any real world need for it. IS will help with the blur associated with your hands, but it won't increase your shutter speed. f/2.8 also offers more creative options with DOF. I decided an extra stop of light beat the IS any day and extensive use of the lens has only proved my hypothesis to myself.

2) I knew I was getting one of the coveted 70-200mm lenses, eventually I ended up with the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. So the extra 105mm was a moot point in my case as I have every focal length between 24-200 covered with the two lenses...and they both achieve a magical f/2.8 aperture which I have found shot-saving uses for over and over and over and over again.

 

[IPT]

The 24-70 is an amazing lens, no doubt.

I have too many lenses...a borrowed 300 f2.8 (a beast of a lens), a 300 F4 IS, 70-200 F4 IS and 70-200 F2.8 IS, 24-105 F4 IS, 24 F1.4, you get the point. There is a time and a place for everything. I do a lot of my shooting while out hiking, snowshoeing or MTN biking. I'll take lighter (weight) more often than not because I can make up one stop of speed bumping ISO. I'll often just take the 24-105. If I think I'll find wildlife I'll take a 1.4 tele and the 300F4. Northern lights? I'll take the fast primes.

As you can see from the last post and mine, priorities differ. I rarely shoot wide open if I can help it, but I don't do portrait or sports type stuff (where you want shallow DOF or need a super fast shutter speed). I like the IS since it usually allows me to leave the tripod at home. I usually like to stop down for increased depth of field (plus almost every lens made performs it's best somewhere in the middle of it's F stop range anyway). That kills my shutter speed so I like IS.

As for quality, the 24-105 is a good lens. Good enough? Yes, I think so. I've had images published that were taken with lenses not even that good. Still concerned? Here is a direct comparison for you: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/28-105.shtml

LOL, decisions, decisons...you can't go wrong with either lens. There is a tool for every job. You just need to figure out how and for what you plan on using this tool for. Then you'll know which is better to get the job done.

 

[t5Nitro]

That's a good article. I'll probably go with the 24-105, maybe just because that author liked it more. :lol: I would really like the 2.8 lens for shooting people or any action shots, but the IS might be nice. He states he's a nature photographer, which is what I wanted a better lens for, but that's why I was looking into the wide angle also. The IS you said you rarely bring a tripod along, so that might be a winner right there. Also, like he says, the lenses are almost identical when you get to 35mm or higher.

 

[dendronepthya]

For a 30D you may want to consider the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM. It would get you closer to the wide angle and although it is not technically an "L" lens, many reviewers say it is on par or better. It is an EF-S though, so if you ever decided on a full-frame body rather than a crop body you wouldn't be able to use it. Still, it is about a $1100 lens with both great image quality and image stabilization.

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13844173#post13844173 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by t5Nitro
He states he's a nature photographer, which is what I wanted a better lens for, but that's why I was looking into the wide angle also. The IS you said you rarely bring a tripod along, so that might be a winner right there.

I think Nature photography is one of the most tripod demanding genres there is. You should be buying one of the best tripods you can afford and using it IMO.

 

[BlueCorn]

It all depends on your style of shooting.

I never take a shot without a tripod. Also many of the ones that I do take would be impossible without one. That makes IS something that I really couldn't care less about. If you're going to be hand-holding the camera at least part of the time it might be important to you. That's one reason why I recommended the 24-105 over the 24-70.

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

Yeah I wouldn't think IS would be a very big deal to a nature guy. Tripods are everything in nature photography. Tripods are everything in reef photography. I think you should buy a very nice tripod and plan on using it!

 

[t5Nitro]

Oh, man, I'm still torn between the two now. :lol: What I wanted to get into was nature photography, however, places around here aren't really worth anything to take a picture of. :lol: That was what I wanted the wide angle lens for, and Doug recommended the 12-24mm tonika. If anyone has any example shots of it on a crop body camera it'd be much appreciated. I think the wide angle I will go with the tonika, but maybe if I wasn't exactly clear, I am probably willing to go with both a wide angle lens and replace my 28-135mm lens for an L lens. A lens that would be mounted 80-90% of the time as a carry-around. So if anyone could convince me with example pics the 12-24 tonika would be an awesome choice, I'll definitely go that route. As for replacing the 28-135 for a main usage lens, now I guess I'm back and forth between the two again.

I do want to do some nature shots I guess, and I thought the tonika was all I really would need for that, and crop if needed. But possibly not. I have some sunpaq or whichever company tripod I got as a gift. $70 tripod. I really don't want to buy anything better. Before spending hundreds on a tripod, I would rather invest that into an L lens such as the 24-70 or 24-105.

So just so I get this straight, since I really don't know what I'm talking about yet, the 24-70mm is obviously less zoom. According to the article, it is almost identical to the 24-105mm as far as quality goes.
If I take pictures of people, wildlife, and I guess what you would call your "every day" shots.
People could be either portraits if I ever get into that more or action shots. Maybe someone on a bike riding along or snowboarding etc. Just taking a lens on vacation shooting pictures like a point and shoot, with more artistic value put into framing it up. Even as far as tripods go, I do want to do more of the scenery shots, and I could use my tripod. We have very little areas around here I would even use a lens to shoot scenery. But for those, I figured the wide angle lens would be nice.

So based on the above, I hold the camera or use a tripod, but mostly I would carry it around with me. I guess main reason is, I'm probably more of a grab and snap instead of setting a tripod up all the time. I guess I want a lens that will do what I've seen in the 24-70mm. It appears according to that article and your picture, it is capable of it.

Based on the above, just the fact that I carry my camera around majority of the time without a tripod, the 24-105mm is auto a winner?

Oh, and one more thing, that polar bear picture on the previous page wouldn't look like that coming off of the camera, would it? It isn't even that in focus after the crop, or is it just that way because it may be a smaller file now like jpeg for the internet and then cropped again?

As long as the quality itself looks like the original picture before the crop, I'm set, I think.

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

the quality is crappy directly because it was resized to what it should be...and then croped. No other factors there.

 

[IPT]

No doubt, using a tripod is a critical factor for getting tack sharp images. A tripod is probably the single most important tool there is for getting razor sharp images, or serious DOF.

That being said, I don't always use one. Sometimes I like to just go light and unencumbered (even my tiny 2lb gitzo is sometimes a hassle), or I just plain don’t have time to setup the tripod (like for this moose shot. She was gone long before I’d of had time to set up a tripod. I barely got the camera out). That is where IS shines for me. It gets me more (sharper) images than I would have gotten if I didn’t have it. Sometimes it is just impossible to use one, like that Polar Bear shot when I was leaning out of the vehicle. I will admit though, 90% of the shots I took on that trip were with the camera mounted on a good, large tripod. It took me a long time to spend 1K on a good tripod and ballhead, but I did ultimately do it.

Here is a crop and the original Polar Bear shots. Web viewing is very different than printing in terms of quality though. I am no master at sharpening either

You are gonna be happy either way. Both of these lenses will hold most of their value should you decide to sell and change. You could also rent them and experiment. I have a lot of lenses but the one that is on the camera the most (except if I am looking for wildlife) is the 24-105. For me, having that extra 35mm of zoom is nice (and the IS). Your mileage may vary. Flip a coin and just take the plunge

 

[IPT]

Oh yeah, I'd still get the wide angle Doug recommended. It is fun to play really wide, and there may be times you "need" it. If for nothing else to get the distortion and odd perspective it can create! For just a large panoramic, or vista type scene you can always stitch frames together in PS.

 

[t5Nitro]

Ya, I think I'll go the Tokina and 24-105mm then.

Tripods are still not "good" for me. I hate using them. Annoying almost setting them up.

Thanks for all the info.

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

Respect the tripod...Use the tripod...Love the tripod...

 

[t5Nitro]

I refuse!

I'll only use it for macro shots of my tank and possibly next summer I'll take it down to some rapids. Otherwise I hate the thing. Maybe 800$ ones are nicer and easier to use, but I'll buy another lens before that.

 

[BlueCorn]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13853460#post13853460 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by t5Nitro
I refuse!

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13841119#post13841119 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by t5Nitro
beerguy, what you shoot is what I would like to do

Something to keep in mind. Much of what I shoot isn't possible without solid camera support; i.e. a tripod. I routinely shoot at 10, 15 or even 30 seconds (sometimes even longer) if necessary to get the depth of field or effect that I'm after.

Trying to hand-hold in those situations, if even possible, forces you to make changes to the exposure that comprise your artistic input. Tripods aren't practical for all kinds of photography but they're darn near essential for nature/landscape work.

Cheers

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13853460#post13853460 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by t5Nitro
I refuse!

I'll only use it for macro shots of my tank and possibly next summer I'll take it down to some rapids. Otherwise I hate the thing. Maybe 800$ ones are nicer and easier to use, but I'll buy another lens before that.

You can buy all the lenses you want but they will never replace a tripod. This makes as much sense as saying you want to build a race car. You think tires are overrated and only want to upgrade the engine. Well that is grand, but my 2.2 I-4 98hp S-10 would easily beat your 8.0 V-12 900hp BMW if you don't have tires. Heck I wouldn't even have to shift out of 2nd gear.

 

[t5Nitro]

:lol: I knew that was going to pop up. Not saying that I won't use it. The one I have I hate it though. Just time consuming I guess. When I'm going somewhere where I know I would need a tripod, I probably wouldn't care and have fun with it. Indoors for cat or dog pictures isn't as fun. I want to head out to these rapids next summer and try something I've never done. That would be taking the tripod with me and setting either Av to a high number or trying a really slow shutter speed.

This would be cool with the tokina lens I figured.

 

[IPT]

Sadly Tripods are a PITA no matter how good they may be or not. Some setup faster than others, and some are lighter than others. Still, like those guys said, they are a big part of photography if you want to get high quality professional quality images. As you get more serious and realize the limitations of not using one your feelings toward them will change.

Sure, people have publishable work from handheld shots - still if you talk in circles of people who are "really" into it, you're gonna find out Tripods are a staple in serious photography (no matter what type - even photojouranlists will use at least use a monpod to gain some stability and improve the number of sharp images they get). Like Doug said, some shots are just plain impossible without it. If you want silky flowing water pics you better bring that tripod .

IS is great, but it will only get you so far (and sometimes that may be far enough ). All this stuff got me thinking about this and I am going to start a poll thread for the heck of it.