28-105non-L or 24-105L?

[nathanbarlow]

hi all

I'm looking to get a 28-105mm lens (canon mount). My Question is whether to get the 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 IS USM (I or II - same difference optically) or 'jump up' to the 24-105mm f/4 L IS.

The 4mm difference won't make alot of difference, particularly since I'm on a 1.6 crop body. So really its going to be a 38-168mm which is good (for me). But my main query is whether I will benefit from losing half a stop wide open and gaining a fixed aperture for the whole focal length. Also I have heard good things about the non-L 28-105mm in terms of image quality, and was wondering how much better the L can be in that respect.

I'm going to be buying second hand, and from the looks of things the non-L is around 100-150 pounds whereas the L is around the 200 pound mark for a beat-up one, and up to 4 or 5 hundred for a pristine example.

Im a student, so cost is a big factor, but also dont want to be disappointed with IQ and apertures....

Cheers

[inkista]

From the Fred Miranda reviews, the 28-105 just looks like a good consumer zoom. Ok quality, but not insanely great, better if stopped down to f/8. And not particularly wide on a crop body. The 24-105 is a completely different class of lens, but if you find one for £200-£500, I'd be really worried that it actually works, or wasn't stolen or wasn't being offered by a bait'n'switch scam, given that the lens goes for £900+, new. It's only because it's kitted with the 5D and 5DMkII that it goes for less used, but not that much less.

If you want to compare the lenses head-to-head, try this test result side-by-side on the-digital-picture.com. Mousing over the arrow will switch between the lenses.

[nathanbarlow]

thanks for the reply. There is alot of difference from that link you gave me, even at the f8 point there is still a difference. of course this is pixel peeping, but still . . .

the 200-500 pounds is for a used lens, with 200 being a bashed up "as-is" lens, which I wouldnt want unless seeing n handling it first, wbich I cant do in NZ. I have seen it for 800 new from about 2mins searching on google. minusing 25% for used means lookin around 600 pound mark... minus a bit more for well used one.... maybe Im being too optimistic there?

The non-L is probably going to suit my wallet better, but Im drooling over the L haha....

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by nathanbarlow

minusing 25% for used means lookin around 600 pound mark... minus a bit more for well used one.... maybe Im being too optimistic there?

Youre being too optimistic. Where did you get the 25% figure? No lens will lose it's value that quickly.

I had a NIkon 18-200. Bought for 800, sold a year later for 700. And that's market price. 25% would be if the thing had been SERIOUSLY beat up and, at that point, I wouldn't be interested.

[Vdigital]

If you could find a L series lens that meets your budget then go for it. You won't regret it.
I've been using a 24-105 f/4 L for several years and I must say I keep it on my Canon all the time.

[inkista]

Originally Posted by nathanbarlow

... the 200-500 pounds is for a used lens...

Sorry to tell you this, but I was talking about used prices. If you do a search on eBay for finished auctions on the 24-105, the average price for user copies are around £700. The only under-£400 one you'll find is one that doesn't work you can salvage for parts. Which is what I'm willing to bet is that "as is" lens you mention.

Lenses don't depreciate nearly as quickly as camera bodies. And typically the more expensive the lens is initially, the less it depreciates. As I said, the lower price on the used copies of the 24-105 are mostly only because the lens is a kit lens that some people want to trade in. If the 24-105 weren't kitted with the 5D, it would probably retain something closer to 90% of its original value, like the 24-70L or 16-35LII do.

You might do better to look for a used EF 17-40 f/4L USM, if you really want L glass at a lower price.

Some folks, with the recent price increases, are even making money off selling their lenses used. Unlike digital equipment that rapidly gets superseded, a lens can remain current in the lineup for over 20 years, and be just as usable after it's passed through someone's hands as it was the day it was purchased.

[nathanbarlow]

hmmmm
Can someone give some opinion on how 'annoying' or not that variable max aperture is on the non-L, as so far that is my main worry - that if you go for a wide shot then zoom in, you have to reconfigure the speed to get right exposure....

It seems that I could get the nonL without blinking - 100-150 pounds isnt too obscene for me . . but now that Ive seen the fredmiranda comparison .. . im hankering for the L.... so prepared to accept lower IQ (to a degree - the nonL still gets an 8/10 for IQ on most reviews ive seen) but the Aperture is more of a worry....

[OsmosisStudios]

Having a variable aperture isnt that bad: you just have to remember that it's variable. All my zoom are variable, so I've gotten used to it: the bigger problem is going from one to another when one is non-variable and one is variable.

I usually end up just shooting at the smaller of the two apertures or at an even smaller aperture, depending on what Im doing. If I shoot with my 70-300, it's a 4.5-5.6, so I'll either shoot at f/5.6 or f/8 (for multiple reasons, but also because its convenient). Conversely, my 10-24 pretty much stays at 10mm, and I use it for landscape, so it usually sits at the f/8 range regardless.

[jeff5897]

I think first you can review the original size photo by the 2 lens, observe their photo details, then you will know which is better to buy.

28-105non-L
Flickr Search Engine : Flickr original size search engine.

24-105L
Flickr Search Engine : Flickr original size search engine.

[nathanbarlow]

osmosis thanks for your informative post I'm used to variable aperture, but was wondering if I was missing out on anything. Agree that having the one lens which is fixed and the others as variable would be confusing.

Jeff - thanks for the links. However, there are many more factors at play when comparing the way you have illustrated - namely that different images have different camera bodies used, as well as the lens. Also subject is different, and shooter is different. etc. All of which contribute to the image. Howeer, thanks for the site links, as they might come in handy anyways.

I've pretty much decided that a) i cant afford the L lens, b) I probably can get alot out of the nonL, as I'm nowhere near good enough to be outclassing it and c) i probably wont be able to tell the difference in real life anyways, and for sure no-one who sees my images (apart from online) will either (non-photographers)

Plus this way, I get to upgrade at a later date, when ready to take advantage of what the L series offers.