A Site for Photographers by Photographers

Community > Forums > Canon EOS > Canon 24-105 mm L vs. Non-L...

Featured Equipment Deals

Nikon Announces the Df Camera Read More

Nikon Announces the Df Camera

The Nikon Df: Nikon announces a vintage/retro looking camera, reminiscent of the F, F3, FM, and FE that carries on some of the best digital features while also allowing you to use your old...

Latest Equipment Articles

Nikon D810 versus D750: Which to Choose? Read More

Nikon D810 versus D750: Which to Choose?

Both the Nikon D810 and D750 are excellent FX-format DSLRs. Shun Cheung compares the two models to help you choose which one is the right choice for you.

Latest Learning Articles

State of the ART: The Little Lens That Could Read More

State of the ART: The Little Lens That Could

Fine art photographer Pete Myers talks about his love for the Cosina Voigtländer CV ULTRON 40mm SLii, a lens he considers to be "The Little Lens That Could."


Canon 24-105 mm L vs. Non-L series

Indra Mawira , Jun 27, 2006; 11:16 a.m.

I am a fashion photographer and I am planning to buy a 24-105mm lens from Canon (I am using EOS 20D).

My question is, since the price between the L and Non-L series (24-105mm) is so much different (approx 1000Eur vs. 350EUR), is it worth to buy the L series for my type of photography? (you can view my portfolio at imawira.deviantart.com)

Thanks in advance and hope to hear some feedback.

Indra

Responses


    1   |   2     Next    Last

James Symington , Jun 27, 2006; 11:40 a.m.

I'm a big fan of the 24-105mm L as a lot of people on the forum know. But I've got to ask you if you are sure you will get on with a lens that has quite deep depth of field relative to buying yourself two or three of the more economical primes (35mm f2, 50mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.8)? If I was doing the kind of photography you do I imagine I would use that kind of lens instead should I want shallow DOF. I can't speak of the 28-105 myself having never even handled one but you do tend to get what you pay for. Also it depends how big you will print/display your shots. If it's not too big you can get away with more deficiencies in the lens - usually. You need to tell us more about what you do really.

Paul Turton , Jun 27, 2006; 11:58 a.m.

An 'L' lens will give better colour, contrast and bokeh than the consumer line of lenses. Most 'L' lenses can be used wide open and still give a crisp image that is better than a consumer zoom lens stopped down a stop or two. My 'L' lenses seem to have a clarity that I cannot duplicate when using a consumer zoom. For your type of work I would prefer the 24-70 f/2.8 L paired with a 70-200 f/2.8 L IS on a second body.

If you are earning a living from your work or you are a serious amateur, certainly the 'L' is worth the extra expense.

Tim Corridan - Queen Creek, Arizona , Jun 27, 2006; 12:20 p.m.

the 24=105 is an "L" series, and i read its quite good. but a fashion photographer needs 2.8 i agree w/ a few primes plus the 70-200 2.8

Puppy Face , Jun 27, 2006; 01:53 p.m.

I have both the EF 24-105 4L and 24-85 USM. Both are nice lenses in there own right, but the L zoom is sharp and contrasty wide open. The 24-85 needs to be stopped down to F8 or higher to be be critically sharp. Both have terrible barrel distortion at the wide end. So if you shoot at F8-F16 the diff is small, otherwise it is huge.

Of course the L zoom is sealed, built like a brick (feels like one too) and has amazingly effective IS. It's the ultimate walkaround for doctors, lawyers and yuppie puppies. The 24-85 is petite, light and may be carried all day without whining.

I agree with the others, neither one is the best choice for fashion. I'd suggest the EF 85 1.8 USM, EF 135 2L USM or EF 70-200 2.8L USM.

My Review of the EF 24-105 4L IS USM

My Review of the EF 24-85 USM

caleb condit , Jun 27, 2006; 02:11 p.m.

forget them both. Go for the 24-70 2.8L . It's one of the sharpest zooms Canon makes, and totally outperforms them both. It's only improved my work. Check out Calebcondit.com for examples of my recent stuff, flickr.com/photos/condit for old stuff

James Symington , Jun 27, 2006; 03:58 p.m.

I'd say forget the 24-70mm too and do the job properly with some faster primes. Indra, you need to tell us a bit more about what you're trying to do before you get really meaningful advice from any of us.

Iori Suzuki , Jun 27, 2006; 03:59 p.m.

I have both the 24-105IS f/4 lens as well as the 28-105 f/3.5~4.5 lens. In addition to the L lens being wider by 4mm (very significant on the wide end), it has image stabilization, which can be very useful in low-light situations, although it will not stop movement. Everything that others have said about the L lens having better resolution, color, contrast and bokeh are true.

If your livelihood depends on having the best images, I would think that it's a no-brainer to spend the additional money on an L. Depending on your working distance, I agree with the other poster that you would want one of the faster, fixed aperture f/2.8 lenses; i.e., either the 24-70 or the 70-200. An alternative may be the 85 f/1.8 or 100 f/2 prime lenses, although the zoom will give you better flexibility, especially if you are shooting models on the catwalk.

Indra Mawira , Jun 28, 2006; 04:39 a.m.

First of all THANK YOU all for the answers.

I shoot fashion photography but not fashion shows or catwalk. I mostly work in a studio(or other indoor spots) with flash so most of the time working between F8 to F11. I would like to have a sharp image and better contrast since I feel that my 28-105 USM does not produce them. I would consider myself as a rather dynamic photographer in a way that I dislike working with tripod therefore I like to move around and therefore I feel that I need a zoom lense ( I also like to capture waist and above, so not full body). I've worked with 17-85 and its fine with me so as long as I have a zoom lense around 24-70 (doesnt have to be 28-105).

So my main priority is to have a sharper image, better quality, better colour and off course some zoom. I hope this information helps.

Jim Larson , Jun 28, 2006; 05:57 a.m.

If you are working with flash. . .an image stabilized lens is not needed. You would use F2.8 more often than IS. In a studio setting, where you have time to switch lenses, primes are a very viable option. A 50/1.8 and 85/1.8 should produce superior results to either of the 24-xx "L" lenses.


    1   |   2     Next    Last

Back to top

Notify me of Responses