Arrggh! Why Wasn't The Canon 24-105 a 2.8?!?
Simon
24-105 with a 2.8 aperture? It would have made my life easy. Now, after
many months of turmoil, I still can't decide on a lens! Whatever I chose, I
will want a feature of another lens.
BTW, lens choices are 17-55 2.8IS, 24-70 2.8 and 24-105 4IS.
![[BnH]'s profile photo](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a/default-user=s40-c)
[BnH]
"Simon" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:g5GdnTkG9LP...@pipex.net...
Paul Saunders
> Why don't you ask for a EF-S 18-200 f/2.8 L IS USM ? :)
Nah, 16-500, to save the hassle of changing lenses and getting dust on the
sensor...
Paul
tomm42
You might have to think prime, I'm sure Canon has a 85 f1.8, 100 f2,
100 f2.8, 135 f2.8 and maybe a 135 f2. Zooms don't solve everything
they have a price.
Tom
Simon
"tomm42" <tmo...@wildblue.net> wrote in message
news:1150230980....@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
David Littlewood
writes
excellent noise performance of the 5D I use it on means I am happy to
use 400ISO whenever the situation demands it, even higher speeds are
tolerable. I would say I am content to use speeds 2 stops higher than I
used to with film.
If the 24-105 has a fault, it is a little more vignetting wide open than
I expected. In most real life situations it is not obtrusive, though if
you take a picture of a plain wall it is very obvious. I suspect that if
the lens had been designed with an f/2.8 maximum aperture it would have
been excessive. The size, weight and price would also have approximately
doubled; a lens quite comfortable for carrying round all day would have
become a weighty burden.
Your money, your choice. I always felt the 24-70 range was too
restricted, and have been happy with my choice of the 24-105.
David
--
David Littlewood
J. Clarke
Have you considered the 28-105 f/2.8 Tamron?
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
John McWilliams
what the same would be, now in a 1.4...... monopod mandatory?
--
John McWilliams
Jim
Jim
Mark˛
Have you seen how much larger the 24-70 is...even without IS and the extra
31mm??
The 24-105 would have to be HUGE to be 2.8.
I would love for it to magically be the same size with the larger
aperture...but alas, even Canon has no magic wand... :)
If you decide you really want 2.8, I have a basically new 24-70 for sale.
It is mint, and comes with all baxes, cards, case, hood, etc., and is still
under Canon warranty.
Let me know--
If not, that's fine since I'm not opposed to keeping it either.
Mark
--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson
Dmac
of this aperture is in the area of viewfinder brightness.
--
From Douglas...
My photographic site: http://www.douglasjames.com.au
Canvas Archival and Metallic Prints: http://www.canvasphotos.com.au
Mark˛
> Simon wrote:
>> I really don't know what lens to go for. Why couldn't Canon have
>> made the 24-105 with a 2.8 aperture? It would have made my life
>> easy. Now, after many months of turmoil, I still can't decide on a
>> lens! Whatever I chose, I will want a feature of another lens.
>>
>> BTW, lens choices are 17-55 2.8IS, 24-70 2.8 and 24-105 4IS.
>>
>>
> With a depth of field measured in millimeters at F/2.8, the only value
> of this aperture is in the area of viewfinder brightness.
Surely you don't really believe that.
There are significant advantages for those who wish to limit depth of field,
and your "millimeter" statement only applies to close-ups.
Dmac
How close do you get to take a portrait, Mark? At 105mm FL the depth of
field at F/2.8 is so shallow, people standing arm in arm but one a few
inches back from the other will be noticeably out of focus with your
10D. This is not creative DOF, it's inadequate DOF.
Even at 50mm FL, the same problem occurs. I don't know of too many
people who think they can take a portrait at 24mm FL and actually get
away with it on a regular basis. In the region past 50mm - the closest
you'd get with a 1.6 crop factor camera and expect to produce a correct
looking portrait, the depth of field at F2.8 is too shallow for anything
usable in a portrait of more than one person. My statement does not just
apply to close ups. It applies to any photograph where a DOF of 150mm
(half a foot to you) or more is needed.
Mark˛
> Mark˛ wrote:
>> Dmac wrote:
>>
>>> Simon wrote:
>>>
>>>> I really don't know what lens to go for. Why couldn't Canon have
>>>> made the 24-105 with a 2.8 aperture? It would have made my life
>>>> easy. Now, after many months of turmoil, I still can't decide on a
>>>> lens! Whatever I chose, I will want a feature of another lens.
>>>>
>>>> BTW, lens choices are 17-55 2.8IS, 24-70 2.8 and 24-105 4IS.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> With a depth of field measured in millimeters at F/2.8, the only
>>> value of this aperture is in the area of viewfinder brightness.
>>
>>
>> Surely you don't really believe that.
>> There are significant advantages for those who wish to limit depth
>> of field, and your "millimeter" statement only applies to close-ups.
>>
>
> How close do you get to take a portrait, Mark? At 105mm FL the depth
> of field at F/2.8 is so shallow, people standing arm in arm but one a
> few inches back from the other will be noticeably out of focus with
> your 10D. This is not creative DOF, it's inadequate DOF.
That all depends on what you're after.
-Can one only use a lens for portraits?
:)
> Even at 50mm FL, the same problem occurs. I don't know of too many
> people who think they can take a portrait at 24mm FL and actually get
> away with it on a regular basis. In the region past 50mm - the closest
> you'd get with a 1.6 crop factor camera and expect to produce a
> correct looking portrait, the depth of field at F2.8 is too shallow
> for anything usable in a portrait of more than one person. My
> statement does not just apply to close ups. It applies to any
> photograph where a DOF of 150mm (half a foot to you) or more is
> needed.
Who was talking only of portraits in this thread?
I will certainly agree that 2.8 and larger has limited usefulness for a lot
of subjects in terms of DOF, but I would hardly say it is only useful as a
bright viewfinder device.
Dmac
Bart van der Wolf
"Dmac" <Dm...@this.group> wrote in message
news:kmOjg.9087$ap3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
SNIP
> At 105mm FL the depth of field at F/2.8 is so shallow, people
> standing arm in arm but one a few inches back from the other will be
> noticeably out of focus with your 10D. This is not creative DOF,
> it's inadequate DOF.
True, with a 105mm focal length at say 3 metres (almost 10 feet)
distance, you still only get about an inch DOF that'll stand Large
Format output magnification without compromise. As always, smaller
output will allow to get away with a bit more, depending on one's
quality standards.
A benefit in addition to a brighter viewfinder, that f/2.8 lenses do
have, is improved focus accuracy.
Bart
tomm42
> With a depth of field measured in millimeters at F/2.8, the only value
> of this aperture is in the area of viewfinder brightness.
By definition f2.8 lets in twice as much light as f4. You don't get a
2x effect in the viewfinder , but it is noticable. Lower DOF/brighter
view gives better focusing precision too.
Tom
David J. Littleboy
The Canon 5D center AF sensor (at least, maybe the others too) is three
times more accurate with lenses f/2.8 and faster than with slower lenses, so
you are much better off shooting an f/2.8 lens stopped down to f/4.0 than an
f/4.0 lens at f/4.0.
FWIW, for portraits of individuals, f/2.8 is considered way to slow; people
with deeper pockets (and stronger arms) than I think the 85/1.2 (used wide
open) is the ultimate portrait lens. I make do with the 100/2.0.
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Paul J Gans
Anyone take a guess at what a 24-105mm f/2.8 IS lens would weigh?
And would you want to walk around with that all day?
----- Paul J. Gans
King Sardon
With a 1.6 crop factor camera, and using 50 mm as focal length (very
suitable for portraits), the DOF at 2 m (about 6 ft) is around 160 mm
(half a foot) at an aperture of 2.8.
That is a bit tight for groups, though. Going to 40 mm FL and backing
up to 2.5 m from the subject, we get about 400 mm (16") of DOF at
f2.8. The field (assuming horizontal format) is about 1360 mm (4.5')
wide at the subject plane. That's suitable for 2-4 people.
The numbers get better as we back up and use wider angles for bigger
groups.
KS
David J. Littleboy
>
>>The Canon 5D center AF sensor (at least, maybe the others too) is three
>>times more accurate with lenses f/2.8 and faster than with slower lenses,
>>so
>>you are much better off shooting an f/2.8 lens stopped down to f/4.0 than
>>an
>>f/4.0 lens at f/4.0.
>
>
> And would you want to walk around with that all day?
Exactly. The need to go wide seems to mean that these things need enormous
front elements. A 105/4.0 prime would have a 27mm front element instead of
the 77mm front element on the 24-105/4.0.
My dream lens, a 55-110/2.0, should only require a 67mm filter and weigh
less than the 24-105. (This would be used in conjunction with something
wide, of course.)
Richard Kettlewell
> FWIW, for portraits of individuals, f/2.8 is considered way to slow;
> people with deeper pockets (and stronger arms) than I think the
> 85/1.2 (used wide open) is the ultimate portrait lens. I make do
> with the 100/2.0.
Doesn't that depend on the portrait at least somewhat? The shot below
was taken at f/1.8 and to my mind would be improved by having both
eyes in focus, demanding a narrower aperture.
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/photos/2005-11-20/IMG_4615.JPG
David J. Littleboy
"Richard Kettlewell" <r...@greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
news:wwvslm7...@rjk.greenend.org.uk...
> "David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> writes:
>> FWIW, for portraits of individuals, f/2.8 is considered way to slow;
>> people with deeper pockets (and stronger arms) than I think the
>> 85/1.2 (used wide open) is the ultimate portrait lens. I make do
>> with the 100/2.0.
>
> Doesn't that depend on the portrait at least somewhat? The shot below
> was taken at f/1.8 and to my mind would be improved by having both
> eyes in focus, demanding a narrower aperture.
Agreed; the ultra-narrow DOF look isn't the right thing all the time. But
it's a classic, and a lot of people like it. And you can always stop a fast
lens down; you can't open up a slow lens.
Alfred Molon
Dm...@this.group says...
> > I will certainly agree that 2.8 and larger has limited usefulness for a lot
> > of subjects in terms of DOF, but I would hardly say it is only useful as a
> > bright viewfinder device.
> >
> Each to their own
Better using a camera with a smaller sensor then...
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 7070, 8080, E300, E330 and E500 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus E330 resource - http://myolympus.org/E330/
Dmac
F/4.0 and still not small enough.
http://www.photosbydouglas.com/mandy.htm
I turned this picture into a quasi oil painting with Corel Painter and
printed the portrait on canvas. This conceals the fact the bride was out
of focus.
This photo is a classic example of a 2 person portrait where depth of
field from a 2.8 lens was never going to be good enough. The only way
you will get even a single person portrait, side on with a f/2.8 or
wider lens is to go past the established focal length for correct
appearance (the right perspective) into wide angle and then need to cope
with distortion that can't be corrected. MF portrait lenses of the past
never had very large apertures. Why do we need it now?
Mark˛
Perhaps because the world doesn't begin and end with portraits.
:)
I actually think that photo would have been nice if the bride was the focus,
and the guy looking at her was much heavily blurred, but not enough to cover
the fact that his gaxe is fixed on her. After all--wouldn't that befit a
wedding day shot...seeing as everyone's attention is overwhelmingly on the
bride at these things? I think that could be a very nice shot. I don't
ever remember anyone commenting years later about what a lovely tuxedo the
groom wore...but I STILL hear talk of my wife's dress, 10 years later...(you
know...the one she can't fit into any more?). :)
Paul J Gans
>With a 1.6 crop factor camera, and using 50 mm as focal length (very
>suitable for portraits), the DOF at 2 m (about 6 ft) is around 160 mm
>(half a foot) at an aperture of 2.8.
Which is great for a tight partial face shot in some cases.
There's hardly a setting that can't be used to good effect
for some scenes.
----- Paul J. Gans
Dmac
Bracketing, bracketing, bracketing. I have the shot you suggest. Trouble
is, I also have another 50 or 60 shots concentrating on the bride too
...so my call was to use this one which portrays the adoration this
Highly intelligent, well educated and successful Doctor has for one of
Brisbane's most accomplished business women, rather than focus on the
features of the bride herself which were all well documented and
published when she was crowned "Miss Chinese International" in 2005.
The centre of interest for this wedding was definitely, who managed to
win the heart of the lady from Taiwan who became a self made millionaire
and darling of the socialites of Brisbane?
A mystery man from Wisconsin who came here for a surfing holiday, fell
in love with the country, it's people and his wife. He's one of us now
and you ain't getting him back!
Like I said before... Each to their own.