Lens whining... Canon 24-105 f4L

Discussion in 'Canon' started by TheDave©, Mar 28, 2006.

  1. TheDave©

    TheDave© Guest

    Recently bought the Canon 24-105 f4L IS... and I'm not sure I like it.
    Now, to be fair, I haven't had a chance to do any real serious shots
    with it yet, so I can't judge it according to image quality just yet.
    It's the "feel" that has been bugging me when I do use it. First is
    the weight. It is heavier than I'd like, though I tried it in the
    store for almost an hour and it seemed fine then.

    The main thing is the locations of the zoom and focus rings. The zoom
    ring is in the rear and closer to the camera body and the focus ring is
    in the front. This is opposite from my 28-135 IS and I believe it is
    also opposite from my 28-105, though I have since sold that one so I
    can't check. I did look on my 70-200 f2.8L IS and it is the same
    configuration of the new 24-105 f4L, and I have grabbed the wrong ring
    on it a couple times, but it doesn't seem as annoying on that one.
    Also, even though the 70-200 is bigger, it feels less "bulky".

    I keep telling myself that I'll get used to it and in a couple months I
    won't even notice, and I know that's true, but right now, if I had to
    pick up one for some quick shots, I'd probably grab the 28-135 IS just
    because it's configured "better" in my mind.

    Oh, I also don't care for the flimsy pouch that came with it, but
    bought a nice padded lens case used from KEH. That's less of an issue,
    though I feel Canon could do better with the protective case at this
    level.

    And another thing... :p ... Anyone know why they didn't make this
    f2.8? It would be great to have the 16-35 f2.8L/24-105 f2.8L/70-200
    f2.8L. I'm assuming the extra stop would have added too much weight
    and/or size.
     
    TheDave©, Mar 28, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. TheDave©

    Skip M Guest

    Tell you what, take a 24-70 f2.8L out for a while, you'll appreciate the
    24-105 f4L IS that much more. I just held one that I'm renting next week
    and compared it to a 24-70 like the one I own. Not a big difference, but
    noticeable.
    If you think about it, the zoom ring on the 28-135 is pretty much the same
    distance from the lens mount as the one on the 70-200 and 24-70. The focus
    ring on the 28-135 is very, very narrow, to the point of being nearly
    useless, in my opinion, keeping the zoom ring rather rearward.
    Funny thing, I was talking to the guy at the rental dept. at Calumet about
    this very thing. The 15mm fisheye comes in a nice, leather hard case, the
    70-200 f2.8L has a padded, if slightly cheesy, padded soft case, and the
    16-35 f2.8L, 24-70 f2.8L and the 24-105 f4L IS come in Alcantara bags that
    offer little protection. My Sigma EX series 17-35 f2.8-4 came in a better
    case, for crying out loud.
    That's probably right, figure that it is the same diameter and nearly the
    same weight as the IS-less 24-70 f2.8L. Which, by the way, has the zoom
    ring to the rear of the lens... ;-)
     
    Skip M, Mar 29, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. TheDave©

    Doug Robbins Guest

    And we care about this because?
     
    Doug Robbins, Mar 29, 2006
    #3
  4. TheDave©

    Skip M Guest

    'Cause we're all friends, here, and truly care that others have to be
    supported in their time of trouble and need...
     
    Skip M, Mar 29, 2006
    #4
  5. TheDave©

    Mark² Guest

    If you don't care about photo equipment issues, why are you on this forum?
     
    Mark², Mar 29, 2006
    #5
  6. I also got one a couple of weeks ago. I have to say I liked it
    immediately; it seems much more solid then the 28-135 which it replaced.
    Haven't yet used it enough to say how much better it is than the 28-135,
    but it seems to be. The IS also seems better. The weight has not
    bothered me yet - hardly a fair assessment though as I will only be
    taking it on its first extensive outing next week.
    This is IMO one of Canon's less inspired areas. AIUI, all the L lenses
    have the zoom ring nearer the body and the focus ring beyond it (except
    the push-pull 100-400, which doesn't have a zoom ring at all, of
    course). The lower ranges seem a bit of a mess; I don't have most of
    the lenses, but from personal experience and/or Canon's pictures, the
    20-35, 24-85, 28-105, 28-135, and 100-300 have zoom ring further away
    from the body, the others have the same arrangement as the L lenses. It
    hardly makes for instinctive use if you have a mixture, and I have
    suffered from this over the years as I have gradually upgraded my kit.
    Having just replaced my last non-L zoom, I guess I should soon get the
    confusion licked.

    Canon, please get your act together!

    (It is possible there may be some mechanical design reason why it
    I have a sizeable collection of Canon lens pouches, and they vary from
    very good to absolutely pathetic. However, with one exception, I have
    never used them, so I don't really care. (The exception is the quite
    good one for the 100-400 IS, which I often use to put the lens in
    checked baggage for weight reasons).
    Seems quite odd that you should need to ask this in view of your first
    paragraph!

    David
     
    David Littlewood, Mar 29, 2006
    #6
  7. Sorry, I got distracted and forgot to finish.....

    .....why it is necessary, in a budget product, to do it that way round
    and perhaps avoid some complex and expensively engineered linkages.)

    David
     
    David Littlewood, Mar 29, 2006
    #7
  8. TheDave©

    Doug Robbins Guest

    Oh I care about photo equipment. but not about Canon.
     
    Doug Robbins, Apr 1, 2006
    #8
  9. TheDave©

    Mark² Guest

    This comment has all the substance of a "Your momma" contest.
    Those were rather fun at age 33, but now it just paints you a simpleton.
    Perhaps its time you acted your age...
    But it occurs to me that perhaps you really ARE 13.
    If so, then do carry on.
    If not...why are you still acting the chump?
     
    Mark², Apr 1, 2006
    #9
  10. TheDave©

    Mark² Guest

    LOL!
    That should have read, "13."
    With age comes wisdom...and typos.
    :)
     
    Mark², Apr 1, 2006
    #10
  11. So explain to us why you bothered to read a thread that clearly stated
    it was about a Canon lens? Just so that you could make pointless
    comments?

    David
     
    David Littlewood, Apr 1, 2006
    #11
  12. TheDave©

    Doug Robbins Guest

    I guess I'm curious to see who is foolish enough to buy an L lens without
    researching his purchase enough to insure he was getting what he intended
    and yet childish enough to come on usenet and whine about it. If he spent to
    much money and was disappointed, why should we care? The equipment opinions
    of most folks on usenet are worthless and someone who uses this groups'
    opinions to guide purchases is likely to be disappointed often.
     
    Doug Robbins, Apr 3, 2006
    #12
  13. Non-responsive.

    There is plenty of expertise on this and other NGs, you just have to get
    to know where it is, and (more importantly) where it isn't.
     
    David Littlewood, Apr 4, 2006
    #13
  14. TheDave©

    Mark² Guest

    Ah! A fine self-summary if ever I read one!
    You really do know yourself, Doug.

    Now tell us again... -Why, exactly, are you here???
    :)
    -Mark
     
    Mark², Apr 10, 2006
    #14
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.