I will buy the Sigma 10-20 lens, and was thinking about also taking the Canon 17-40 lens. But, I fear to be short some times for landscape (details in a river for example).
I would like to know if the 24-105 lens fits well for landscape photography?
Thanks for information you could bring to me.
David
Posted by John Mumaw on November 12, 2009 at 6:03 PM
Absolutely!
A much better choice than the 17-40 lens. The 24-105 lens is also a perfect 'walkaround' lens, IMO.
In fact, I used this exact same combination of lenses until I migrated to a full frame camera.
Posted by Buck Ward on November 12, 2009 at 10:29 PM
I have the Sigma 12-24 and the Canon 17-40. The 17-40 is my most used lens. The 17-40 isn't quite wide enough sometimes, so that's where the 12-24 comes in. The Sigma just doesn't give the image quality of the Canon 17-40, especially around the edges. On the other end you're right, sometimes 40mm isn't long enough.
The 24-105 is on my want list and I surely would have bought it already if I didn't have the 28-135, which covers the range the 17-40 can't reach. Still, I use the 17-40 much more often than the 28-135. So, whether you would use the 17-40 more or the 24-105 more depends on your own shooting style. And the 10-20 plus the 24-105 would give you only a small gap in the focal length range.
If you are considering the Sigma 10-20, you must have an APS-C body. Perhaps you should add the Canon EF-S 17-55 f2.8 lens to the list of lenses you are considering.
Posted by Scott Bean on November 13, 2009 at 12:09 AM
I use the canon 24-105 for the majority of my landscape shots, absolutely love that lens. As mentioned above, it is a great "walk around" lens.
Posted by Scott Fricke on November 13, 2009 at 2:21 AM
If you are going to buy a 10-20 it would make more sense to buy the 24-105 IMO. I have the 24-105 and it is a great lens with a nice zoom range. If I want to go shooting without a lot of equipment this lens is the one on the camera.
To answer:
Yes I will have an APS-C body (50D I think). What's why I am thinking about the Sigma 10-20. I looked at Canon lens on this range, but the difference of quality is not that large, but price is.
I was thinking about 17-40 because, as you said, it's the most landscape lens used, and it made proof of its quality. But with 10-20 lens, complementary range is not that large and in my mind the 24-105 lens would fit better to complete 10-20.
Thank you really much for all your comments and thoughts. More is of course welcome.
Posted by Austin Booth on November 13, 2009 at 1:12 PM
The 17-40mm is "the landscape lens" (except for the 16-35mm for people who can afford it) because it is usually used with a full frame sensor. It is the cheapest ultra-wide L lens from canon which will work on a full frame sensor so a lot of people will get it to go along with their 5D's and 5D Mk II's. While still a great lens it is not as useful on a crop body because it isn't ultra-wide on on aps-c and the zoom range is relatively limited. You will be getting an aps-c ultra-wide and the 24-105 will pick up where your ultrawide leaves off (except for a 3mm range). The 24-105mm is a great lens and every bit as sharp as the 17-40mm and I think it is more versatile and makes more sense on a crop sensor as well as having IS. If you got the 17-40mm first you would have a lot of overlap from your other lens and then it would end inconveniently at 40mm. There are not a lot of zoom lenses that start in this range so depending on which telephoto lens you have (if you have one or plan on getting one) you are likely going to have a gap of at least between 40mm-70mm if not bigger. You will definitely miss out on some shots in that focal range as it is great for more up close and intimate landscape and nature shots. You could always get another lens to cover that range but then you will have another lens to carry and it most likely won't be the same quality of the 24-105mm. So my advice would be to get the 24-105mm as the 17-40mm just isn't as useful on a crop sensor.
I'm also planning on buying a 300 f/4 lens (with a x1.4).
Thank you Austin for your comments.
Posted by Larry Puckett on November 13, 2009 at 3:12 PM
I have a 50D and use Canon 10-22 and 24-105 lenses with it. Most of the time the 24-105 is on the camera and the 10-22 only comes out for those close-in shots where you really need the wider angle. The 24-105 really has better glass and is more solid built than the 10-22 also. I plan to add a 100-400 zoom to fill out the range--Larry
The 24-105 is a great lens. It is not the sharpest lens (but really good) but it is so versatile I happen to find myself shooting with it a lot. I use it on the 5D, and the wide end is wide enough for me and the long end is just right for many situations. It also has a very good macro capability. Not sure how it works with a crop sensor regarding the effective focal length, could be that it's not wide enough for your purposes but if you couple it with a 10-20 lens then that is not an issue.
The IS and the 4.0 apperture make the 24-105 also pretty strong for handheld and low light shots. If I would have to sell all my lenses, keeping just one, it would be the 24-105, but regarding sharpness, 70-200 IS 4.0 is my reference.
I just recently sold my 24-105. And I also have a 16-35. I got great use out of it and made some wonderful images with it and I concur with what Dietrich said about it not being the sharpest "L" lens. Personally, I didn't think the image stabalization worked all that well and my version of the lens was quite clunky and sometimes a bit frustrating. Meaning the shutter was very loud and there was lots of vibration. In fact, I had a hard time bracketing shots because of movement. (I do use a very light tripod and head) I replaced that lens with the 28-70 and while it doesn't have the same versatility as the 24-105 - the image quality and ease of use blows it away. (It also blows away my 16-35 as well) What I am saying is you might consider other options, but it is a solid lens and you'll get great use out of it. BTW - I found it sharpest at f/10 if your scene isn't too deep or near....
Posted by David Taylor on November 23, 2009 at 1:42 AM
Just as a clarification, Michael made a comment regarding the shutter being loud on his copy of the 24-105. The lens has no shutter in it, the thwack you hear is the mirror slap in the camera itself. Personally, I recommend turning off IS when shooting from a tripod when shooting landscapes. The only IS you need is the tripod itself - use proper technique such as mirror lockup and a remote release. The mirror lockup will remove 99% of the vibration transferred from the mirror slap. If you don't have a remote release, use the camera's built in timer (2 second if you don't want to wait for the 10 second option, if available). By turning off the IS, there also won't be any drift of the lens between shots for bracketing/blending/stitching. I have found that many IS lenses do try to stabilize when on a tripod and tend to drift because they can't detect motion to stabilize.
I've used the 24-105 hand held hanging out of a helicopter, and the IS appeared to work fine for me, but I also was shooting at a higher ISO & shutter speed to cover that factor. Most lenses are sharpest when stopped down slightly as well. Hope this helps.
Posted by Larry Puckett on November 23, 2009 at 1:06 PM
As Dave said you need a stable tripod and head. I use 24-105 with a 50D and the weight of the 2 can lead to vibration if you don't compensate. For backpacking I use a Manfrotto 725B which is a pretty lightweight tripod for this camera/lens combo. To compensate I never extend the center column more than about an inch and that is only to allow the ballhead lever to clear the legs. I also carry a small pouch that I fill with rocks and hang from the center column. The added weight of the rocks helps stabilize the tripod and eliminates vibration. I also use mirror lockup and a shutter release. Finally, I have tested the lens and use the microadjustment setting in the camera to get the sharpest autofocus when using AF. However, most of the time I use live view at 10X for critical focusing.
Discussion
13 repliesI will buy the Sigma 10-20 lens, and was thinking about also taking the Canon 17-40 lens. But, I fear to be short some times for landscape (details in a river for example).
I would like to know if the 24-105 lens fits well for landscape photography?
Thanks for information you could bring to me.
David
A much better choice than the 17-40 lens. The 24-105 lens is also a perfect 'walkaround' lens, IMO.
In fact, I used this exact same combination of lenses until I migrated to a full frame camera.
The 24-105 is on my want list and I surely would have bought it already if I didn't have the 28-135, which covers the range the 17-40 can't reach. Still, I use the 17-40 much more often than the 28-135. So, whether you would use the 17-40 more or the 24-105 more depends on your own shooting style. And the 10-20 plus the 24-105 would give you only a small gap in the focal length range.
If you are considering the Sigma 10-20, you must have an APS-C body. Perhaps you should add the Canon EF-S 17-55 f2.8 lens to the list of lenses you are considering.
Yes I will have an APS-C body (50D I think). What's why I am thinking about the Sigma 10-20. I looked at Canon lens on this range, but the difference of quality is not that large, but price is.
I was thinking about 17-40 because, as you said, it's the most landscape lens used, and it made proof of its quality. But with 10-20 lens, complementary range is not that large and in my mind the 24-105 lens would fit better to complete 10-20.
Thank you really much for all your comments and thoughts. More is of course welcome.
Thank you Austin for your comments.
The IS and the 4.0 apperture make the 24-105 also pretty strong for handheld and low light shots. If I would have to sell all my lenses, keeping just one, it would be the 24-105, but regarding sharpness, 70-200 IS 4.0 is my reference.
I just recently sold my 24-105. And I also have a 16-35. I got great use out of it and made some wonderful images with it and I concur with what Dietrich said about it not being the sharpest "L" lens. Personally, I didn't think the image stabalization worked all that well and my version of the lens was quite clunky and sometimes a bit frustrating. Meaning the shutter was very loud and there was lots of vibration. In fact, I had a hard time bracketing shots because of movement. (I do use a very light tripod and head) I replaced that lens with the 28-70 and while it doesn't have the same versatility as the 24-105 - the image quality and ease of use blows it away. (It also blows away my 16-35 as well) What I am saying is you might consider other options, but it is a solid lens and you'll get great use out of it. BTW - I found it sharpest at f/10 if your scene isn't too deep or near....
I've used the 24-105 hand held hanging out of a helicopter, and the IS appeared to work fine for me, but I also was shooting at a higher ISO & shutter speed to cover that factor. Most lenses are sharpest when stopped down slightly as well. Hope this helps.