I have the 17-40, 24-105 and 70-200 f4 for eos and love them. I've never once been disappointed with the results. Also they are cheap as chips these days they are ideal to pick up.
Hi Martin, totally agree. When I have jumped into the full frame arena the choice from EF 24-70 f4 and EF 24-105 f4 was a fight. A the end the winner was the 24-70 because of the 0.7x macro option. A really nice mode, a good close-up, really useful to capture a mushroom or a flower when walking around. Sometimes I miss a longer focal, but the life is made of choices. Thank you !
Thanks for this balanced appraisal of the EF 24-105, Martin. I am an amateur on a budget who shoots almost exclusively outdoors. This is a key lens for me, alongside the 70-200 f/4 L IS. I think it tends to be underestimated as "just a kit lens" but it's actually really useful, and the overall image quality is excellent. I would recommend the lens for the reasons you mention, especially now that used copies may be purchased cheaply. It's also a fantastic travel lens. I agree with the points you make about the optics. Distortion, vignetting and chromatic aberration can be corrected in camera for JPEGs or in post for RAW, and just sharpen or not in post as appropriate.
Over the years I've used Nikon's 18-55, 18-55 VR and 18-105. By comparison it is immediately obvious that the 24-105 is in a different league, in terms of build, aperture, optics, AF and IS. It is an L lens, irrespective of whether more expensive L lenses exist. It is more than good enough to put the 'Is my gear good enough?' question out of mind and concentrate on photography.
I have both the Canon17-40mm f/4 L USM and 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM regularly connected to the 5D mark 1 and with adapter to M5. They are used for the majority of the images shot, occasionally the f1.8 Canon nifty fifty is used when a real narrow depth of field is needed. I find them sharp and although a little heavy on the 5D very happy to have purchased both for the variety of shots I take.
I have the Canon 24-105 f/4. It's just a very useful lens, and is the lens that I leave on my 6D, in case I need to grab my camera quickly, without a specific image in mind. The way the lens creeps/zooms out when it's pointed down is bloody annoying but, apart from that, it's what I'd call a very good quality "kit lens". When I compare it to my 70-200 f/4 it's not sharp ..... but nothing is compared to that lens. Basically it's plenty good enough. I've been thinking about trading it for the 24-70 f/2.8 for about 10 years ... so I probably never will.
For landscapes I'd take the extra range and weight saving over the 24-70/2.8. For a telephoto I prefer a 70-300 over a 70-200 f/4 or 100-400 for the same reason.
I have the 17-40, the 24-70is, and the 70-200 f4 is in Canon. They're all perfectly fine (for what I use them for) I have got some pretty nice fast primes for a lot of my professional work as well but these f4 zooms have served me very well.. I find all three lenses are sharp as anything around f8.
What I would say is that the 24-70f4is is better than the 24-105f4 in image quality, especially at 24 and f4 . It's as good as the first and second 24-70 f2.8 in most cases... The main exception is that the 2.8 has 2.8 AND is slightly sharper at f4 obviously as it isn't "wide" open.. but it is nitpicking..
I've got the Canon 35mm-85mm F/3.5 and it's the lens that's always on my 6D. I also have a Canon 50mm F/1.4 prime lens which I whip out when I'm out and about in the evenings. Both of these serve me very well for my needs currently. As my skills improve and I start climbing the learning curve I'm on, the next lens I want to invest in will be a wide angle prime, probably 16mm. But for now and the foreseeable future, especially during the day, my 35-85 lens covers all I need and produces excellent results. Yeah the composition may be a bit out, I may have over-exposed or under-exposed but it doesn't matter. I'm having fun and learning.
People have been sold a bill of goods by the manufacturers when it comes to huge apertures. You hit the nail on the head with this video. So much truth in this video. Thank you!
Now that I only shoot landscapes and some controlled lighting or studio portraits my go to kits are the D850 with the 24-120 f4 VR and the 20mm G prime for hiking/landscapes and general purpose, and for portraits the 24-120 does well however I am traditionally a prime lens shooter in those situations but for on location in a pinch the f4 zoom is fantastic. As long as we know our sweet spots and how to use the lens and how to light, the possibilities are vast.
Thank you. Another focal length I used occasionally with great results was EF 135mm f2 in a studio environment as well as in the field for portraits. I ended up trading it with my EF 85.mm f1.2 as they were not used enough for my style of photography today. However I did keep and use the EF 24-70mm f2.8 gen 1 more often. Once my hip replacement heals I will be back to shooting again ( can’t wait). Recently purchased Canon R8 so ready to go!!!
I have been seriously considering the 24-70 2.8 L to compliment my 70-200 2.8. I agree the 24-70 would make for a perfect travel lens! I used to think wide angle is needed for landscape shots, but most of my landscapes have been taken with my 70-200, and a good majority of them at 200mm! It is difficult to find a subject at wide angles.
What a great video. I like your calm authoritative manner. You convey your subject with ease and as an amateur photographer I don’t feel overwhelmed with complex detail nor talked down too. You have my subscription with pleasure. Thank you.
Brilliant topic Martin , definitely a lens range overlooked by too many folk. I used the Nikon 24-120 f/4 on a trip to Italy a few years ago, and it's versatility was magnificent. The 24-70mm f/2.8 is used mainly now for my wedding shoots, basically because, like you mentioned, sometimes you need that little extra light gathering capability when you cannot use a flash. I have the 24-105 f/4 on my 5DM2 and love the thing, especially for video and generally walking round and about. To me versatility is key, and I would rather have the option of multiple focal lengths instantly available to me, rather than multiple, fast prime lens, that would cause me to keep stopping and changing lens, and not forgetting, carrying the things around with everywhere. Keep up the excellent show mate 👍
I got the EF 24-105 f4 IS II and yeah its not "super" sharp but its very useful for video when you're out and about. I got a great deal on it (like new condition, literally looks brand new, could've been sold as new with the packaging) for less than $500. And I agree, inside where you can control the lights it's great. You can get some nice compression from 70-105mm on this lens as well.
🙌🏾 Great video.I love my f4's for studio cause I'm usually at f8 anyway. And For shooting groups cause it takes to long to get everyone on the focus plane at 1.8 and 2.8 and I'm always bouncing flash so im not too worried about light gathering. Lately I've been taking 17-40f4, 24-105, and tamron 85mm 1.8 (just in case i need to melt away the background)
The Canon EF 24-70/4 IS has a nice trick up it's sleeve: macro mode. Not 1:1, but it can get you uncomfortably close to things that can bite or sting ;) And it is sharp while doing that. The IS is apparently the same technology as what is in the 100mm f/2.8 L IS.
@@RiccardoPareschi For me, it was between the 24-70/4 IS and the 24-105/4 II as a replacement for my old 24-105. I could get a great deal on a 24-70, which made it a no-brainer. The size/weight and macro, make it a great travel companion. The 35mm less range, are hardly noticed, and I usually add a second lens anyway (85, 100, or 70-200/4) Or I mount the 24-70 on my M6 II, on which it is perfectly balanced)
I had both, they were good enough for most of the things I wanted to do. The Canon on a 5Dmk2 and the Nikon on a D610. I sometimes go to 50mm or 85mm primes when I was being arty but most of the times a generalist lens does.
I don’t know how the comparison is with canon, but after watching Ricci compare image quality between the Nikon 24-70 f/2:8 S lens to the 24-120 f/4 S lens, I immediately purchased the f/4 version as the image quality was virtually identical. The majority of my work is on a tripod and greater DOF is usually needed so it was a no brainer. So happy with this lens. I also did the same on the wide end with the 14-30 f/4. Both are just fabulous and so light and easy to travel with.
Right now I’m primarily using the a7Rv with the 20-70 f4 zoom. So cool to have the extra 4 mm on the wide end. And the close focus distance/magnification factor of .39 on that lens is excellent & increases versatility. The real question for me is to pair it with the 70-200 2.8 or 70-200 f4 macro. I like the small size, cheaper price and half macro function of the f4, but since I shoot some indoor sports I think I’ll have to spring for the 2.8.
i think you should go for the 2.8 you need those faster shutter speeds really. the 20-70 was a brilliant idea by sony i think they could have marketed it a bit more.
Hi Martin, great video, I've just bought the Canon 24-70mm f4 from MPB, the reason I've bought it is I have a job this weekend shooting a local 10K run. I using this with my 17-35mm f2.8 to give me some longer reach. I must say that I'm so disappointed with the 17-35, I bought it as I'm doing a lot of gig photography in some smallish revenues and was looking for that wider angle but even on the few opportunities I get to stop it down to around 5.6 the images are no way near what I would call sharp. I now have 2 Canon 6D's and always use the centre focus point, but I used it at a Ex Para's Vets social dinner evening on Saturday taking pictures in front of their standard and banners where it did help as there were only around 15-18 foot between were I could stand and were they would stand. At 35mm and f5.6 the pictures are sharp, I was using a speedlite and bouncing it off the ceiling. Am I doing something wrong or were my expectations too high of this lens? because I don't do enough events like the latter to keep this lens.
I never had that lens but the people that I knew that had it said the same as you, its just not really up to standard for whatever reason, get the 17-40 and use flash and you will be ok, especially with the 6d you can push the iso a stop more if needed. but if you dont need that focal range dont worry about it.
Thank you for your videos that I really like. My photos are boring for me when I am trying to take " good photos" ....and they are awful when I'm trying nothing, but some of them tell me something. That's frustrating
I have recently purchased the Nikon 18-200 and although it's not perfect it is plenty good enough..With the edition of the 18-200, I can carry 2 lenses and cover anything from 18mm to 500mm since I have the Nikon 200-500mm ...I shoot Wildlife and landscapes 99% of the time so this combo works great and has allowed me to leave 3 lenses at home..
Every lens is different in the way they record a scene, and every lens is good for something. When it comes down to it they are photographic tools, some are more versatile than others, you have to figure out which tool works best for your photography needs for the subject your photographing.
How is the auto focus in low light for example at weddings when people are dancing save the reception turns the lights down? I like the idea of f4 smaller light weight for the 24-70 and then the 24-105 for a little more reach then 24-70 2.8.
depends on the camera but generally its good. Of course if you use flash that auto focus assist makes it very easy but you can also use the focus assist on flash and turn the flash off so you get focus assist only. BUt then you are lugging a flash about on top.
F4s are perfect in study. You shoot at higher Apertures already. They also save on size and weight and money. I say only get f2.8 zooms if you absolutely need them.
Hi Martin. I've been thinking about my current lens kit. I recently switched to mirrorless FF from a FF DSLR. Most of my life as an amateur, I shot with a 50 mm equivalent and had an 85 mm when I wanted tighter portraits or more background compression. So, together with my new camera, I bought a 35, 50, and 85 (all f/1.8 S lenses). Don't really have a justification for the 35 apart from that it was on sale (I thought: what if I shoot indoors and want more of the environment). I should have probably just purchased the 50 and the 85 and only purchased another lens when I knew exactly what I needed and when. Anyhow, long story short, I'm thinking of selling my 35 and 85 to fund a 24-70. My reasoning is that I'd rather have a lens that can do more things for me and that I will use all the time, than just shoot with my 50 and have 2 lenses on the shelf (just in case). Granted, I could just get a 24-120 and spend less, while not needing to sell any of my lenses. TL;DR Basically, I am moderately addicted to gear and need help.
hmmm, its a difficult one because i think sometimes you will miss the primes, i think it would be better if you could have both even if you have to wait. IMO though, having owned all those lenses, the 24-70 2.8 is the better lens, its just really really nice and worth being in the nikon system for imo.
@ I do agree that I’d miss the the primes. I do think I could live without the 35. I think I was trying to cover all of my bases without taking practicality into account. I don’t do assignments, so I’m not carrying a bag with all of my lenses. I’m basically just someone looking for a creative outlet, a way to express myself. Do I love a portrait with skillful use of a very shallow DOF, yes? How often am I going to do that? Rarely. I think a 24-70 and a slightly more tele prime would be perfect for me. It would get me shooting more often and allow me to get different perspectives with one lens, while still having decent separation at 2.8. Idk. I reserve too much mental space for something that I do once or twice a week for a few hours. First world problems, as they say.
Talk about timely. I have been going back and forth for months on adding an EF 24-105 mm, mainly for events. Is the IQ good enough? Is it too dark at f/4? is it too heavy? too bulky? Original version vs. Mark ii? The Black Friday sale on refurbished gear on Canon USA's website clinched the deal. A presumably "as new" 24-105mm f/4 mark ii is on its way to me, for about 50% of full retail. I have been thinking about a lot of recent two camera - two prime lens jobs I did in the last few months. I think the 24-105mm f/4 could have handled most of them. I will always have a second camera for backup but in my bag, not over my shoulder. Nice video.
the answer to all is it depends The f4 can be dark but i dont know how dark your venues are, its good if you can supplement with a prime, if you use flash its no issue again if you are allowed to use flash. The IQ is good enough if you sharpen a bit more in your editing. generally the 24-105 can handle more than people think but if you take your two primes with you then you have options. Shooting events on a zoom can be really liberating sometimes.
My Canon RF 24-105mm F4 S- lens is sharp enough for nearly everything. If you develop the RAW- files with DxO PureRAW 3 you will never be disappointed. Yes, there are sharper primes available, but the versatility of a 24-105 zoom is more important to me, from landscape to portraits. With the exception of situations when I need a faster lens to blur the background, or in low light.
This is a little outdated advice. On Nikons side at least (which is the one i know best) the new Z-Mount F4s (24-120 or 14-30) for mirrorless are nearly prime quality. It used to be very different with F-Mount lenses: the 24-120 F4 for F-Mount for example was really much inferior when it comes to image quality but that is not the case anymore. Between the 24-70 f2.8 and the 24-120 f4 are just three factors left to decide: size, range, and shallower depth of field. For the first two the 24-120 is better and if you really want or need the shallowest dof possible you are better of with a prime anyway.
Hi Martin, I’m researching a change in my gear. I’m looking to move away from fujifilm X system back to the legendary Canon 6D. You highly recommend the 24-105 f4 as a great all purpose lens. I shoot a lot of landscapes and general travel photography. My question is, would the 70-200L IS f4 compliment the 24-105? Or for only an extra 95mm reach on the 70-200, for landscape and wildlife photography I’d be better off with complimenting it with a 24-70 f4? Or, go for more reach with a 70-300 lens? Sorry, I can’t find much information on your channel about either the 70-200 or 70-300 in terms of landscape / wildlife photography as you seem to advise more around lenses for portrait photography with these lenses. Cheers, Hamish. New Zealand.
I’m wondering if it’s worth it for me to make the effort to replace my 28-105 with a 24-105. Especially in its mid range, stopped down, and with a flash, the 28-105 is quite sharp. And it’s half the weight. And I don’t need the constant aperture. I’m almost convinced to not replace it.
I have a 24-70 f/2.8L MkI which I used for weddings photography years ago. I still use it for the amateur photos I take nowadays. As I don´t work professionally anymore I can't afford the newest version of this zoom lens. I wish to say that having a 2.8 lens isn't an advantage just taking in care taking photos in low-light and shallower depth of field. Another important thing is that if you work at f/4 with an f/2.8 lens, you are closing the diaphragm one step from the max aperture value and that means that the lens will produce generally sharper images than an f/4 lens working at max aperture. This is important in my opinion. Said that, the 24-27 f/2.8L MkI has slight disadvantages with the green halos in direct backlight situations. But this is another thing besides the subject of this video. Greetings
If you're not shooting a lot of handheld shots with difficult lighting conditions I don't think the cost difference between the f 2.8 and the F4 is worth it for most people.
One of the most real, informative, truthful and correct photography channels on TH-cam!
Thank you!!!!
I have the 17-40, 24-105 and 70-200 f4 for eos and love them. I've never once been disappointed with the results. Also they are cheap as chips these days they are ideal to pick up.
Hi Martin, totally agree. When I have jumped into the full frame arena the choice from EF 24-70 f4 and EF 24-105 f4 was a fight. A the end the winner was the 24-70 because of the 0.7x macro option. A really nice mode, a good close-up, really useful to capture a mushroom or a flower when walking around. Sometimes I miss a longer focal, but the life is made of choices. Thank you !
God, so much common sense .. wonderful, I have the Nikon Z 24-120mm S f4 as my main lens and so pleased with it.
Thanks for this balanced appraisal of the EF 24-105, Martin.
I am an amateur on a budget who shoots almost exclusively outdoors. This is a key lens for me, alongside the 70-200 f/4 L IS. I think it tends to be underestimated as "just a kit lens" but it's actually really useful, and the overall image quality is excellent. I would recommend the lens for the reasons you mention, especially now that used copies may be purchased cheaply. It's also a fantastic travel lens.
I agree with the points you make about the optics. Distortion, vignetting and chromatic aberration can be corrected in camera for JPEGs or in post for RAW, and just sharpen or not in post as appropriate.
Over the years I've used Nikon's 18-55, 18-55 VR and 18-105. By comparison it is immediately obvious that the 24-105 is in a different league, in terms of build, aperture, optics, AF and IS. It is an L lens, irrespective of whether more expensive L lenses exist.
It is more than good enough to put the 'Is my gear good enough?' question out of mind and concentrate on photography.
Absolutely!
I have both the Canon17-40mm f/4 L USM and 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM regularly connected to the 5D mark 1 and with adapter to M5. They are used for the majority of the images shot, occasionally the f1.8 Canon nifty fifty is used when a real narrow depth of field is needed. I find them sharp and although a little heavy on the 5D very happy to have purchased both for the variety of shots I take.
I have the Canon 24-105 f/4. It's just a very useful lens, and is the lens that I leave on my 6D, in case I need to grab my camera quickly, without a specific image in mind.
The way the lens creeps/zooms out when it's pointed down is bloody annoying but, apart from that, it's what I'd call a very good quality "kit lens".
When I compare it to my 70-200 f/4 it's not sharp ..... but nothing is compared to that lens. Basically it's plenty good enough.
I've been thinking about trading it for the 24-70 f/2.8 for about 10 years ... so I probably never will.
For landscapes I'd take the extra range and weight saving over the 24-70/2.8. For a telephoto I prefer a 70-300 over a 70-200 f/4 or 100-400 for the same reason.
Exactly, also nice to have a lens that has decent macro ability for a walk around in nature lens.
@@jeni719Yeah it's nice to have a macro lens too and I usually throw in a 50mm too, never knw when they might come in useful and they're light.
I have the 17-40, the 24-70is, and the 70-200 f4 is in Canon. They're all perfectly fine (for what I use them for) I have got some pretty nice fast primes for a lot of my professional work as well but these f4 zooms have served me very well.. I find all three lenses are sharp as anything around f8.
How is the 24-70 f4 auto focus in low light like maybe a wedding and when they turn down there lights when the dancing starts.
@@gamingwithstand6886 yeah it's fine. I've not tested it on something critical like that Most of my work is studio tbh.
What I would say is that the 24-70f4is is better than the 24-105f4 in image quality, especially at 24 and f4 . It's as good as the first and second 24-70 f2.8 in most cases... The main exception is that the 2.8 has 2.8 AND is slightly sharper at f4 obviously as it isn't "wide" open.. but it is nitpicking..
I've got the Canon 35mm-85mm F/3.5 and it's the lens that's always on my 6D. I also have a Canon 50mm F/1.4 prime lens which I whip out when I'm out and about in the evenings. Both of these serve me very well for my needs currently. As my skills improve and I start climbing the learning curve I'm on, the next lens I want to invest in will be a wide angle prime, probably 16mm. But for now and the foreseeable future, especially during the day, my 35-85 lens covers all I need and produces excellent results. Yeah the composition may be a bit out, I may have over-exposed or under-exposed but it doesn't matter. I'm having fun and learning.
People have been sold a bill of goods by the manufacturers when it comes to huge apertures. You hit the nail on the head with this video. So much truth in this video. Thank you!
Thanks David!!!! Hope you are well.
Doing great! Thanks for asking!@@MartinCastein
Now that I only shoot landscapes and some controlled lighting or studio portraits my go to kits are the D850 with the 24-120 f4 VR and the 20mm G prime for hiking/landscapes and general purpose, and for portraits the 24-120 does well however I am traditionally a prime lens shooter in those situations but for on location in a pinch the f4 zoom is fantastic.
As long as we know our sweet spots and how to use the lens and how to light, the possibilities are vast.
Thank you. Another focal length I used occasionally with great results was EF 135mm f2 in a studio environment as well as in the field for portraits. I ended up trading it with my EF 85.mm f1.2 as they were not used enough for my style of photography today. However I did keep and use the EF 24-70mm f2.8 gen 1 more often. Once my hip replacement heals I will be back to shooting again ( can’t wait). Recently purchased Canon R8 so ready to go!!!
I have been seriously considering the 24-70 2.8 L to compliment my 70-200 2.8. I agree the 24-70 would make for a perfect travel lens! I used to think wide angle is needed for landscape shots, but most of my landscapes have been taken with my 70-200, and a good majority of them at 200mm! It is difficult to find a subject at wide angles.
What a great video. I like your calm authoritative manner. You convey your subject with ease and as an amateur photographer I don’t feel overwhelmed with complex detail nor talked down too. You have my subscription with pleasure. Thank you.
thank you!!!
Brilliant topic Martin , definitely a lens range overlooked by too many folk. I used the Nikon 24-120 f/4 on a trip to Italy a few years ago, and it's versatility was magnificent. The 24-70mm f/2.8 is used mainly now for my wedding shoots, basically because, like you mentioned, sometimes you need that little extra light gathering capability when you cannot use a flash.
I have the 24-105 f/4 on my 5DM2 and love the thing, especially for video and generally walking round and about. To me versatility is key, and I would rather have the option of multiple focal lengths instantly available to me, rather than multiple, fast prime lens, that would cause me to keep stopping and changing lens, and not forgetting, carrying the things around with everywhere.
Keep up the excellent show mate 👍
Thanks mate! Yeah the 24-105 is just so so useful all the time and can be almost a game changer for video really.
I got the EF 24-105 f4 IS II and yeah its not "super" sharp but its very useful for video when you're out and about. I got a great deal on it (like new condition, literally looks brand new, could've been sold as new with the packaging) for less than $500. And I agree, inside where you can control the lights it's great. You can get some nice compression from 70-105mm on this lens as well.
🙌🏾 Great video.I love my f4's for studio cause I'm usually at f8 anyway. And For shooting groups cause it takes to long to get everyone on the focus plane at 1.8 and 2.8 and I'm always bouncing flash so im not too worried about light gathering. Lately I've been taking 17-40f4, 24-105, and tamron 85mm 1.8 (just in case i need to melt away the background)
The Canon EF 24-70/4 IS has a nice trick up it's sleeve: macro mode. Not 1:1, but it can get you uncomfortably close to things that can bite or sting ;) And it is sharp while doing that. The IS is apparently the same technology as what is in the 100mm f/2.8 L IS.
I agree, the "macro mode" (0.7x) pushed me to choice the 24-70 agains the 24-105. Is a great option but sometimes lacks me the longer lens.
@@RiccardoPareschi For me, it was between the 24-70/4 IS and the 24-105/4 II as a replacement for my old 24-105. I could get a great deal on a 24-70, which made it a no-brainer. The size/weight and macro, make it a great travel companion. The 35mm less range, are hardly noticed, and I usually add a second lens anyway (85, 100, or 70-200/4) Or I mount the 24-70 on my M6 II, on which it is perfectly balanced)
I had both, they were good enough for most of the things I wanted to do.
The Canon on a 5Dmk2 and the Nikon on a D610. I sometimes go to 50mm or 85mm primes when I was being arty but most of the times a generalist lens does.
Well said as always , I always use my 24-70 / 24 -105 for street photography , I have a wide range of Nikon prime lenses & I hardly ever use them .
I don’t know how the comparison is with canon, but after watching Ricci compare image quality between the Nikon 24-70 f/2:8 S lens to the 24-120 f/4 S lens, I immediately purchased the f/4 version as the image quality was virtually identical. The majority of my work is on a tripod and greater DOF is usually needed so it was a no brainer. So happy with this lens. I also did the same on the wide end with the 14-30 f/4. Both are just fabulous and so light and easy to travel with.
I do start to see a point in having a 24-70 /2,8
But my favorite lenses are the zoom with a long range and my prime lenses.
Right now I’m primarily using the a7Rv with the 20-70 f4 zoom. So cool to have the extra 4 mm on the wide end. And the close focus distance/magnification factor of .39 on that lens is excellent & increases versatility.
The real question for me is to pair it with the 70-200 2.8 or 70-200 f4 macro. I like the small size, cheaper price and half macro function of the f4, but since I shoot some indoor sports I think I’ll have to spring for the 2.8.
i think you should go for the 2.8 you need those faster shutter speeds really. the 20-70 was a brilliant idea by sony i think they could have marketed it a bit more.
@@MartinCastein thanks Martin. I always appreciate your advice. That extra stop will help freeze the action when needed.
Not a working pro but I still pick up stuff that helps me along the way
Great informative video as always Martin!
Hi Martin, great video, I've just bought the Canon 24-70mm f4 from MPB, the reason I've bought it is I have a job this weekend shooting a local 10K run. I using this with my 17-35mm f2.8 to give me some longer reach. I must say that I'm so disappointed with the 17-35, I bought it as I'm doing a lot of gig photography in some smallish revenues and was looking for that wider angle but even on the few opportunities I get to stop it down to around 5.6 the images are no way near what I would call sharp. I now have 2 Canon 6D's and always use the centre focus point, but I used it at a Ex Para's Vets social dinner evening on Saturday taking pictures in front of their standard and banners where it did help as there were only around 15-18 foot between were I could stand and were they would stand. At 35mm and f5.6 the pictures are sharp, I was using a speedlite and bouncing it off the ceiling. Am I doing something wrong or were my expectations too high of this lens? because I don't do enough events like the latter to keep this lens.
I never had that lens but the people that I knew that had it said the same as you, its just not really up to standard for whatever reason, get the 17-40 and use flash and you will be ok, especially with the 6d you can push the iso a stop more if needed. but if you dont need that focal range dont worry about it.
@@MartinCastein Cheers Martin
Great video
Thank you for your videos that I really like. My photos are boring for me when I am trying to take " good photos" ....and they are awful when I'm trying nothing, but some of them tell me something. That's frustrating
I have recently purchased the Nikon 18-200 and although it's not perfect it is plenty good enough..With the edition of the 18-200, I can carry 2 lenses and cover anything from 18mm to 500mm since I have the Nikon 200-500mm ...I shoot Wildlife and landscapes 99% of the time so this combo works great and has allowed me to leave 3 lenses at home..
Every lens is different in the way they record a scene, and every lens is good for something. When it comes down to it they are photographic tools, some are more versatile than others, you have to figure out which tool works best for your photography needs for the subject your photographing.
How is the auto focus in low light for example at weddings when people are dancing save the reception turns the lights down?
I like the idea of f4 smaller light weight for the 24-70 and then the 24-105 for a little more reach then 24-70 2.8.
depends on the camera but generally its good. Of course if you use flash that auto focus assist makes it very easy but you can also use the focus assist on flash and turn the flash off so you get focus assist only. BUt then you are lugging a flash about on top.
24-105mm F4 L give me great results on my old APS-C Canon 40D: a bit less impressive on my Canon 5D MKII.
as always, helpful and informative. i am an appreciative subscriber. care to share your thoughts on the longer zooms: 70-200mm f2.8 or f4? thumbs up.
F4s are perfect in study. You shoot at higher Apertures already. They also save on size and weight and money. I say only get f2.8 zooms if you absolutely need them.
Meant to say Studio*
Hi Martin. I've been thinking about my current lens kit. I recently switched to mirrorless FF from a FF DSLR. Most of my life as an amateur, I shot with a 50 mm equivalent and had an 85 mm when I wanted tighter portraits or more background compression. So, together with my new camera, I bought a 35, 50, and 85 (all f/1.8 S lenses). Don't really have a justification for the 35 apart from that it was on sale (I thought: what if I shoot indoors and want more of the environment). I should have probably just purchased the 50 and the 85 and only purchased another lens when I knew exactly what I needed and when. Anyhow, long story short, I'm thinking of selling my 35 and 85 to fund a 24-70. My reasoning is that I'd rather have a lens that can do more things for me and that I will use all the time, than just shoot with my 50 and have 2 lenses on the shelf (just in case). Granted, I could just get a 24-120 and spend less, while not needing to sell any of my lenses. TL;DR Basically, I am moderately addicted to gear and need help.
hmmm, its a difficult one because i think sometimes you will miss the primes, i think it would be better if you could have both even if you have to wait. IMO though, having owned all those lenses, the 24-70 2.8 is the better lens, its just really really nice and worth being in the nikon system for imo.
@ I do agree that I’d miss the the primes. I do think I could live without the 35. I think I was trying to cover all of my bases without taking practicality into account. I don’t do assignments, so I’m not carrying a bag with all of my lenses. I’m basically just someone looking for a creative outlet, a way to express myself. Do I love a portrait with skillful use of a very shallow DOF, yes? How often am I going to do that? Rarely. I think a 24-70 and a slightly more tele prime would be perfect for me. It would get me shooting more often and allow me to get different perspectives with one lens, while still having decent separation at 2.8. Idk. I reserve too much mental space for something that I do once or twice a week for a few hours. First world problems, as they say.
Talk about timely. I have been going back and forth for months on adding an EF 24-105 mm, mainly for events. Is the IQ good enough? Is it too dark at f/4? is it too heavy? too bulky? Original version vs. Mark ii? The Black Friday sale on refurbished gear on Canon USA's website clinched the deal. A presumably "as new" 24-105mm f/4 mark ii is on its way to me, for about 50% of full retail. I have been thinking about a lot of recent two camera - two prime lens jobs I did in the last few months. I think the 24-105mm f/4 could have handled most of them. I will always have a second camera for backup but in my bag, not over my shoulder. Nice video.
the answer to all is it depends The f4 can be dark but i dont know how dark your venues are, its good if you can supplement with a prime, if you use flash its no issue again if you are allowed to use flash. The IQ is good enough if you sharpen a bit more in your editing. generally the 24-105 can handle more than people think but if you take your two primes with you then you have options. Shooting events on a zoom can be really liberating sometimes.
My Canon RF 24-105mm F4 S- lens is sharp enough for nearly everything. If you develop the RAW- files with DxO PureRAW 3 you will never be disappointed. Yes, there are sharper primes available, but the versatility of a 24-105 zoom is more important to me, from landscape to portraits. With the exception of situations when I need a faster lens to blur the background, or in low light.
This is a little outdated advice. On Nikons side at least (which is the one i know best) the new Z-Mount F4s (24-120 or 14-30) for mirrorless are nearly prime quality. It used to be very different with F-Mount lenses: the 24-120 F4 for F-Mount for example was really much inferior when it comes to image quality but that is not the case anymore. Between the 24-70 f2.8 and the 24-120 f4 are just three factors left to decide: size, range, and shallower depth of field. For the first two the 24-120 is better and if you really want or need the shallowest dof possible you are better of with a prime anyway.
yeah this was meant more for the dslr lenses really rather than the mirrorless.
I only have a fixed 35mm f1.4 for my Canon 5D DSLR Mk 2. I wish I could trade it for a zoom lens with 24 to 105 mm to make variation in my photos.
i think wait till you can add a zoom not trade it, as soon as you have the zoom youll also think you want the prime too.
Hi Martin, I’m researching a change in my gear. I’m looking to move away from fujifilm X system back to the legendary Canon 6D. You highly recommend the 24-105 f4 as a great all purpose lens. I shoot a lot of landscapes and general travel photography.
My question is, would the 70-200L IS f4 compliment the 24-105? Or for only an extra 95mm reach on the 70-200, for landscape and wildlife photography I’d be better off with complimenting it with a 24-70 f4? Or, go for more reach with a 70-300 lens?
Sorry, I can’t find much information on your channel about either the 70-200 or 70-300 in terms of landscape / wildlife photography as you seem to advise more around lenses for portrait photography with these lenses. Cheers, Hamish. New Zealand.
Aloha Martin, do you have any thoughts on the old cannon 24-85 3.5-4.5 lens?
I’m wondering if it’s worth it for me to make the effort to replace my 28-105 with a 24-105. Especially in its mid range, stopped down, and with a flash, the 28-105 is quite sharp. And it’s half the weight. And I don’t need the constant aperture. I’m almost convinced to not replace it.
In my experience, if a composition looks good at 24mm it will probably look even better at 35-40mm as a 2-3 shot panorama.
Yeah id agree with that
Fun fact that canon also has an ef 24-70 f4 but i still dont know if buying it or getting the 24-105f4 refurbished lol
What do you think of the Sigma 24-70mm F2.8
not used it but people seem to really like it
I have a 24-70 f/2.8L MkI which I used for weddings photography years ago. I still use it for the amateur photos I take nowadays. As I don´t work professionally anymore I can't afford the newest version of this zoom lens. I wish to say that having a 2.8 lens isn't an advantage just taking in care taking photos in low-light and shallower depth of field. Another important thing is that if you work at f/4 with an f/2.8 lens, you are closing the diaphragm one step from the max aperture value and that means that the lens will produce generally sharper images than an f/4 lens working at max aperture. This is important in my opinion. Said that, the 24-27 f/2.8L MkI has slight disadvantages with the green halos in direct backlight situations. But this is another thing besides the subject of this video. Greetings
If you're not shooting a lot of handheld shots with difficult lighting conditions I don't think the cost difference between the f 2.8 and the F4 is worth it for most people.
By the way I'm still calling the police
🤣🤣🤣🤣
i agree i think the f4 zooms are best for most people really.
If one is obsessed about sharpness and ultra-shallow depth of field, it probably means their composition and lighting skills are bad.