Night photographer Lance Keimig takes you on a journey to the Aurora Borealis and helps you from start to finish, beginning with preparation for cold, Icelandic weather and finishing up with exposure...
If you aren't sure what to get your photographer dad, we've got you covered with ideas ranging from equipment and photo storage to a formal critique or cool shades, in a price range from $25 to over...
When photographing a wedding, don't forget the details: the scene setters. Celebrity wedding photographer, Donna Newman, shares key tips to shooting these key non-portrait wedding shots.
Though its image circle will cover a 35mm negative, this is the lens Canon
introduced with its
EOS IX APS SLR. When used with the
smaller APS format, it yields angles of view equivalent to that of 30-106mm lens
on a 35mm camera. Aperture ranges from a reasonable f/3.5 at 24mm to a
still-reasonable f/4.5 at 85mm.
Admirably small and compact for a 35mm format zoom, the lens is huge and heavy
compared to the (slower)
22-80 Minolta
introduced with the Vectis S-1. Like the Minolta lens, the Canon zoom takes a
bayonet plastic lens hood; unlike Minolta, Canon does not include the hood with
the lens. That's a shame because a lot of amateurs won't know how to order the
accessory part EW-73 and will never know how much contrast they are losing by not
hooding this 12 group, 15 element lens.
On the plus side, the lens has a ring USM motor so you get full-time
simultaneous AF/MF.
Oh yes, the image quality... I've only exposed a couple rolls film with it and
they look reasonably good. The word from Canon is that it is performs about as
well as the 28-105. It won't deliver the punch of the 28-70/2.8 or the prime
lenses, but it won't leave a $1500 hole in your wallet or carve a notch in your
shoulder either. I'd rather have the 24-85 than the 28-105 because I think the
extra 4mm on the wide end are more useful than the extra 20mm on the long
end.
Nit: The 24-85 uses a filter size of 67mm. All other Canon EOS lenses use 52,
58, 72, or 77mm filters. So this lens really doesn't fit that well in an existing
EOS system.
Bottom Line: I've owned this lens for more than six months. It sits in my
cabinet. For some reason, it simply isn't useful if you already have a full
complement of higher-grade EOS lenses.
A little trip
I had to go to San Francisco to meet
with my publisher (see
my book behind the book
story for what that is typically like) and the Environmental Defense Fund
(some planning for
www.scorecard.org). I
started packing at 6 am for an 8 am flight. I knew that I'd only have a few spare
hours in which to take pictures. I didn't want to take a P&S camera because
I'm growing less fond of them. The camera that I could easily grab was
the Rebel G plus the 24-85 lens. I walked around the city for an
afternoon and exposed 85 pictures on Kodak Royal Gold 400, with the intention of
adding them to
my California exhibit. I mostly used
aperture priority autoexposure and left the camera to autofocus (and pick its AF
sensor) all of the time.
Maybe it is the B+W UV filter that I keep on the lens, but I had a little
flare problem taking pictures of the Transamerica Tower:
The bottom line? I found the combination very practical for this
photojournalism-type assignment.
Bavaria
Siemens is an ArsDigita client so I find myself in Bavaria from time to time.
In order to save weight, I end up taking just the Rebel G and this lens. Here are
some results:
The painted town of Oberammergau
Mad King Ludwig's castles
Munich
Where to Buy the Canon EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Zoom Lens
Regarding the odd filter size, I've taken to buy filters for the lens with the largest filter thread that I own(72mm in my case), and step-up rings for the other lenses. So far, I haven't noticed any vignetting problems.
This has been the most used lens I've ever bought.
I went into a dilemma of either choosing the Canon
28-105 or the 24-85. Gladly, I bought the 24-85.
I noticed that the 24mm is more useful than the
105mm as other people have stated on this page. I
think the filter thread is not a problem for me at
all.
You'll see more pictures from this lens at: http:/
/www.geocities.com/Yosemite/Rapids/3867/index.html
After a great amount of deliberation, I
purchased the Cannon EOS 24-84 lens in November
1997 instead of the more typically offered 28-105
lens. I have an old Cannon 24mm manual focus
lens that I have found very useful in a number a
situations, and this probably swayed my
decision. I concur with the recommendation in
this review for this lens over the 28-105. The
extra width on the wide angle has allowed me to
capture all of many more scenes than I could have
otherwise.
I use this lens with my Cannon Elan IIe,
not with the Cannon EOS IX APS SLR that it was
introduced with. Overall, I have obtained very
satisfying results with this lens and have used
it on trips to Spain, Illinois, Indiana,
Tennessee, and Nassau. At the wide angle setting
there is occasionally a slight barreling effect
usually with the lower f-stops, although it would
likely not be noticed by the average person.
Zoomed to 85 it is sharp enough to capture the
individual blond hair strands on a child's head
from across the room. I have enlarged several
frames to 11x14, and the resulting picture
remains reasonable sharp. Overall, I would rate
this lens on the high end for a consumer grade
lens.
John Leemon
I have had the 24 to 85 for about 4 months, and I love it. I purchased a 28-80mm USM IV with a EOS 50 (Elan II), and I was missing out on some great landscape shots, so I traded up. The 24-85 photos looks sharper than the 28-80, but still doesn't compete with my 50mm f1.8 Mk2 lens- cheap enough to have both.
I was running a cheap wind angle rubber lens hood- that cost all of $12 (New Zealand). My advice is don't bother with imitations, after I went out an got the real cannon product ($45) my photos improved.
You can't run more than one filter on the front (I need a UV filter because of very high uv levels), Coken P filter system works fine, although it gets away from having a take anywhere lens.
Over all if you want a lens to take a wide range of photos this is a good choice (with lens hood).
I own this lens for a year or so and I really
love it; it's much better than a 28-80 zoom lens
and the image quality is ok for me. BUT I had the
same flare experience with a brandnew B+W UV-
Filter PhilG had in San Francisco - so I will
only use the filter if I really need it.
I'm a new user of the Cannon EF24-85mm Lens, I
just took about 15 rolls of frlms with this Lens.
By the way, I founded the performance of this
lens is satisfactory, the color retention is good,
the perspective of this lens is also good.
However, flare appear in the photos while there is
sunlight, and the lens hood block the flesh when
it zoom to 85mm.
Well there was a lot of evaluating being done
before purchasing a 28-105 or the 24-85,the latter
ending up the winner simply on having more
punch.The 28-105 gave nice images but just didn't
have the contrast or maybe even the sharpness of
the 24-85.Is it sharper?This is a great lens ,the
images jump out at you.What more can you say.My
only gripe - slight light falloff at the corners,
even without a filter.
I just want to say that this lens and my EOS 50 are now my travel combo, together with ISO 200 slide film. Yes, there is visible distorsion at 24 and 85 focal lenghts, but that is meaningless for me when I need to travel light and have only one day in Paris, for instance. Really, the difference compared to the 28-70L, which I also have, is a mere 1 stop push to E200, if needed.
Also, I bought this lens mail order from Germany (I live in Portugal), a lot chepaer than at home, so for the price it is unbeatable. Do use the hood, it makes a difference.
I don't use filters, except Canon's Protect, or UVs, so for me different filter sizes are not an issue at all.
I've not had big enlargements
made from my 24-85 shots, but I've examined many slides with 4x & 8x loupes
and I'm satisfied with the sharpness. But I'm impressed
with how very contrasty the pictures are, esp. with hood. Also, the
24-85 set to 24mm has less linear distortion than the 28-105 at 28mm.
The 67mm filter size is a pain; you can't use 72mm filter +step-up
ring if you use the lens hood at the same time.
I just purchased the 24-85 lens in its silver version and it looks quite nice with the silver body of my EOS 50. I now know I've made the right decision for this lens over the 28-105 as I seem to be using the 24mm end for a majority of my shots (I wasn't sure as I'd never been at 24mm before)
I like the USM and focusing a lot and I'll come to know of the quality soon when my first prints come out today.
But I've had problems finding the UV 67mm filter I wanted to protect the lens form the dust. I just using the lens cap after every shot now. But it seems I won't be able to fit the cap after putting the filter, so I'm still in a dilemma. Can anyone recommend the best UV filters for this lens ? (not too expensive I hope)
Overall I found the range excellent for candid photography, landscapes and travel.
I just bought a Canon 50e with this 24-85 lens and i found the kenko 67 uv a good protective filter (Arjun Bhuyan).It doesn't change the good quality of these lens and slightly protects your pics from the blue light.I 'll add later , after more shoots , my personal comments about this 24-85.
I can't understand why so may people are praising this lens. I find its performanse below average. Yes the 24-85 is very convinient and easy to travel but its quality .... Maybe I am spoiled by my EF 28-70L USM and my EF 20mm USM. In quest for amature exchellense ( without the profesional know-how) I would stick to prime lenses and yes because the zoom feature is convenient maybe the EF 28-70L for travels and the EF 70-200L to capture your childrens precious activities.
I purchased the 24-85 new when I got back into the Canon system a few years back. It has been the sole lens on my EOS50. I find the image quality generally good but always want more sharpness, contrast or whatever, so I'll be supplementing this optic with some primes. The lens has never faulted but I tend to be careful with my gear. My dealer sold me a Leica UV filter at the time I bought the lens and I find no change in image quality with or with out the filter so the filter stays. All in all a more useful zoom range than the 28-100 I think.
I bought this lens to replace my 35-80 USM (the ultra-cheap one) for my EOS 5 body. I love the lens and have had many good results from it. The only competition that it faced was from the Canon 28-105, but since my father had one, I thought that I should get the other. This has its advantages in that I can steal his when required, but I have never found that necessary. The best thing about this lens though is, since I use a 70-300, I only need to carry two zooms and my fast telephoto, rather than have to carry a short zoom as well, like the 20-35 which my father has. Great lens, although I do now hanker after the 28-70 f2.8L.
I bought the 24-85 along with my EOS 33 (Elan 7 in USA). I found it really useful and versatile. I took a couple of dozen of roll an rarely found the need for another lens but sometimes a telephoto (I have a 100-300 USM for that). It suited well for building pictures in Boston, MA (even if I got some flares with a really sunny lighning) as well as for french castles...
In short this is the lens I would recommend for anyone willing to have a good ratio of weight/versatility. I only wished it would have a constant f3.5 or f2.8 aperture...
Be very careful when you select a uv/skylight filter for this lens. I have had the front element damaged by pressing onto the filter. There is little clearance, as the first element come out a long way.
To the person looking for an UV filter for the 24-85. Look for the Hoya brand. They make a 67mm which replicates the lens' screw-mount in front of the filter. This way you don't lose the ability to clip on your original lens cap over the filter or you can even add another filter onto the UV one (if for some reason you need to).
This lens has a nice focal range, since the extra 4 mm at the wide end compared to the 28-105 really makes a big difference. The ring-USM focusing is also a nice extra, although the FTM is wasted on cheap bodies like my Rebel.
The build is actually not that good. There is considerable play between barrel sections and the focusing ring also feels a bit wobbly. People often praise the build quality of this lens, but as it is worse in this respect than cheaper Sigma lenses I don't quite agree. There is also some zoom creep around 35-50 mm. But the build quality is however superior to Canon's kit lenses.
There is however one major drawback with this lens and that is its optical quality or - to be more precise - a certain aspect of it. The lens is quite sharp and contrasty for a zoom, especially when stopped down to f8. It does however suffer from excessive vignetting at all focal lengths when shooting at larger apertures. You could check out my posting on photo.net for more on the subject. I sent my lens back to Canon, but according to them there was nothing wrong with it. There are also reports on the 28-105/3.5-4.5 suffering from these same vignetting problems. The lens also dispays some distortion at the wide end, but unless shooting architechture or similar I don't think it's that annoying.
All in all, I'm disappointed with this lens. At this price I think one shouldn't have to be concerned about vignetting.
"The lens is quite sharp and contrasty for a zoom, especially when stopped down to f8. It does however suffer from excessive vignetting at all focal lengths when shooting at larger apertures."
Well, yours does maybe, but I haven't seen one other person owning the lens say they are seeing the problem. I have the lens and have seen no vignetting, period.
Regardless of what Canon told you, something is either wrong with your lens, or there is something wrong with your camera's lens mount (have you shot another wide angle lens to test this?).
I shot two rolls with my lens at our Halloween party, many wide open at the 24mm setting, no vignetting, period.
Look at all the test images posted as part of this review, not one image has any vignetting, yet all of yours do to some extent. I say again, you either have a bad example of the lens or your camera's mount is out of alignment (based on another posters comments about your shots being out of focus, this might be a place to start).
The first thing I'd do if I were you is try the lens on another body, even if I had to shoot a roll in a camera shop. At least that would prove if it's the lens or the body. If that works without vignetting, I'd have the body serviced. If the vignetting still shows, I'd demand (showing proof of course) a new lens from Canon.
Since I am planning to buy a new lens soon I have been following the discussion closely and have done some research on vignetting.
Here is a link to a very scientific study on the subject.
http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/vignetting.html
The author also discusses the physics behind the phenomena.
Firstly, vignetting is a phenomena that will happen even on prime lenses like the 50mm f1.4. If people are not talking about, they are simply using smaller apertures. So I guess we have to live with a certain amount of it. It's great that some Markus and Minh have shown some definitive proof of the phenomena.
For the lucky ones like Roger who have never seen vignetting could you please post some pictures to show this?
I will spend a few day rummaging through my old photographs (shot with an Canon EOS IX body, 22-55mm lens, since stolen in Greece).
In the end I am still confused about what lens to buy for my new Canon EOS 30 body. 24-85mm or 28-105mm?? Any pointers?
I had to chuckle at the author's Bottom Line: "I've owned this lens for more than six months. It sits in my cabinet. For some reason, it simply isn't useful if you already have a full complement of higher-grade EOS lenses."
Why would anyone use any lesser lens, if he has access to a higher-grade lens covering the same focal length range? (For that matter, why doesn't he sell it?)
I just picked up a brand new 24-85 from B&H and am so far very happy with the purchase (it's been a little more than three weeks and I've shot 3 rolls -- 2 Sensia, 1 Tri-X -- with is so far).
First off, be warned that I have seen obvious vignetting on some of my photos -- it seems worst at 24mm/f3.5 and falls off rapidly as you stop down, or more slowly as you zoom out to 85mm. Clearly,I find this slightly irritating but since I a) knew what I was getting in to, and b) have recently purchased a tripod, I think that I can get around this without too much trouble.
On the lighter side, my girlfriend was looking over my shoulder at some photos of Hyde Park and when I pulled up the one with the worst vignetting she said: "Oh, I like that, how did you get that effect?" Since she's knowledgeable about art in general (but not photography in particular) this only goes to show that sometimes all of our preoccupations with perfect photographs are entirely beside the point.
In terms of the rest of the lens, I'm finding a tiny bit of looseness in the barrel but no more than I'd expect from a lens of this quality (if I wanted 'L'... ok, I do want 'L', but I can't afford it) and it certainly doesn't lead me to think that the build quality is bad or that the front is about to fall off. The ring USM is, as always, quick and the zoom seems to hold position well even when the camera is held lens-down.
I'm really liking the way that the Sensia is coming out using this lens -- colour is very good (IMHO) and the photos seem nice and crisp. I've only just scanned the positives in so I may find some issues as I dig in a little bit more over the next few weeks, but so far nothing has led me to believe that my $300 was mis-spent.
I also find the zoom range to be quite versatile -- good for architecture and landscapes, good for people, and even a usable as a short zoom for the fairly tame wildlife that loiters in Hyde Park (which is where my morning commute/walk takes me).
So, while I have caveats, the fact is that this lens ran me $300 while the comparable 'L' lens would apparently run me $1,150. My next purchase is going to be the 70-200/f4 with a TC, so I'll still have spent less than for the comparable 'L' and will have a good range of focal lengths with quality that far exceeds my demands. I don't suppose that this is really a professional's lens, but then I'm not a professional so I'm quite happy with my purchase.
Having used this lens for a little over a year on a 300D (APS-C sensor), all I have is praise for this lens. It is just a good lens, period. Maybe my sample is exceptional, I don't know. Flare is extremely well controled for a consumer zoom(the lens hood is still a must have). It is sharp, contrasty, and usable wide open. I own a 24-70 F2.8L as well. Is the 24-70 better in every way? Yes, but not 900 dollars better in every way. It also weighs three times as much as this lens. This lens is most surely staying in my collection.
BTW Thats the sun at noon that I am shooting directly into in the picture posted.
Decent lens for it's price. Soft from f/3.5 to f/5.6, sharpness increases considerably when stopped down to f/6.3. From f/7.1 -> no real increase in sharpness. This with 1,6x crop body. Color & contrast ok.
Sorry to bring back this old thread, but I wanted to comment on the vignetting of this lens. This lens was clearly designed for an APS camera, as the image circle is not really large enough for full frame. It does cover a full frame 135 format sensor/film, but suffers vignetting at all focal lengths, and at wider and longer focal lengths at all apertures. It isn't terrible, but could be field relevant to some people. This vignetting is actually bad enough to be visible in the viewfinder. There is also softness at the extreme edges. It still makes a good full frame kit lens, but don't expect it to be a 24-105mm f/4 L.
I owned this lens for a while and had some back-focus issues with it. While doing some testing for my lens review website I found that changing the focus point(s) affected focus accuracy. On both of my digital bodies, selecting all focus points instead of only the center point improved focus performance substantially. Just my 2 cents.
, August 15, 1997; 01:17 A.M. 
