Tag Archives: 24-105

Equipment, Reviews

In Praise of the Canon 24-105mm f/4 L IS

11 Comments

(Note: Though Canon no longer sells this lens, it is still around and may be a useful lens for photographers using DSLRs.)

Sometimes it seems like the Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS lens doesn’t get the respect it deserves. It probably doesn’t help that it is often described as a “kit lens” because Canon bundles it with some of their full frame DSLRs. Having a maximum aperture of only f/4, it lacks the f/2.8 aperture found on some of  the other Canon L zooms. It uses a “telescoping” zoom design that extends the front element when the focal length changes, and some mistakenly associate this design with lower quality lenses. It certainly doesn’t have the panache of the high-end, large-aperture primes, with their big  f/1.4 or f/1.2 maximum apertures, nor of the big and impressive f/2.8 L zooms, nor the exotic and equally expensive tilt/shift lenses——nor does it have their correspondingly large selling price. Continue reading In Praise of the Canon 24-105mm f/4 L IS →

Equipment, Ideas, Photographic Myths and Platitudes, Technique

Photographic Myths and Platitudes – ‘Landscape Photography Lenses’ (Part I)

33 Comments

(NOTES: This article has been updated periodically since its original publication, including a more significant update in 2019. And, yes, there is a Part II.)

A recent discussion got me thinking once again about another “myth” of landscape photography, namely that [i]some lenses are appropriate for landscape photography and other lenses are not[/i]. There are several such myths, including but not limited to the following aspects: focal lengths, zooms versus primes, maximum apertures, expense, etc. While I could have a lot of fun (or not!) starting with the zoom/prime question, I have saved that for Part II. (Short preview: I think that “zooms or primes?” may be the wrong question, the image quality implications are not as simple as you might think, and I use both… but tend more and more to rely on zooms.)

Instead, I’ll start with…

Focal Length

The trigger for this was a discussion of the suitability of a certain type of lens for landscape photography. I had made a point concerning a 85mm prime that I sometimes used, and the other party disagreed with my perspective. Several rebuttals to my thinking were offered, but the one offered as a sort of trump card was that using a 85mm lens for landscape is an inappropriate choice, and one should use a wide-angle zoom like a 16-35mm lens.

While many landscape photographers know better, especially those who have done this for a while, it is surprising how many folks assume it to be accepted wisdom that proper landscape photography is done with ultra-wide to perhaps normal focal length lenses, and that the first and perhaps only lens that a landscape photographer would want would be such a lens. (Again, I’m not getting into the prime v. zoom question here – I’ll save that fun topic for a later post. :-)

In my view, the best answer to the “what focal length is best for landscape?” question is the focal length that works best for the photograph I am making right now. My current kit, based on full frame DSLR bodies, covers focal lengths from 16mm to 400mm — technically 560mm if I add a 1.4x TC. While I frequently work with less than the full kit (when backpacking, for example), when I’m not constrained by weight or other limitations I carry lenses to cover this full range and typically use most or all of them. What follows is an overview of some of the lenses I use, accompanied by some photographic examples and a bit of explanation. Continue reading Photographic Myths and Platitudes – ‘Landscape Photography Lenses’ (Part I) →

Commentary

Resisting Temptation: Canon 5D2

9 Comments

I shoot with a Canon 5D. It is a really fine camera for my purposes, and after a couple of years of fairly substantial usage it is still working quite well.

Canon recently introduced the 5D2, which appears to be a very fine upgrade to the 5D line in pretty much every important way that we could expect in a camera sold at this price point: 21 MP sensor, a high quality video mode, dust reduction features, bigger and better monitor, and so on.

I’ll almost certainly get one… in due time. I resolved to not be an early adopter of the new camera, for several reasons. Early adopters typically pay list price of more for their cameras. To the extent that some glitches are not always discovered in pre-release testing, it is not uncommon for the first production run to have a few “issues.” And, most important, my current camera works really, really well. The 5D2 could, indeed, be “better” in some ways, but not so much better that I must rush out and replace it immediately.

But now that the 5D2 seems to be reaching the retailers in larger numbers, I’m starting to see interesting deals. For example I saw a couple for $2700 that included immediate availability and free shipping. I saw another legitimate price that was even lower. There have been a couple of deals on the 5D2 bundled with the EF 24-105mm f/4 L. (Those won’t appeal to me since I already own that lens.)

Note to self: Be strong, Dan. :-)

If  you are ready to buy your 5D2, you can purchase this product from B&H Photo via this link and help support this web site – thanks!

Equipment, Ideas, Technique

Wide Angle Lenses and Image Stabilization

Leave a comment

I often hear people claim that image-stabilization is only of value on normal to long focal length lenses, and is not useful on wide angle and ultra wide angle lenses.

The photograph posted earlier today was shot handheld on a full frame DSLR at 1/25 second at ISO 800 and 32mm. (32mm on full frame is equivalent to using a 20mm focal length on a 1.6x cropped sensor body.)

I had just finished a session of tripod-based landscape shooting on the summit of this dome, had packed up, and was heading down when the lone hiker crossed the ridgeline below me just as some lovely post-sunset light gently illuminated the landscape. Having no time to set up a tripod – hiker and light would have been gone by then – I dropped everything, pulled the camera with image-stabilized 24-105mm lens from the pack, made some quick seat-of-the-pants exposure calculations, and got of three quick frames before the scene was gone. Without IS I simply would not have gotten a usable version of this photograph – a photograph that has since been licensed for use in a print journal.

Even as one who often shoots from a tripod – and almost always carries one – I have found the notion that IS has no value at shorter focal lengths to be a myth not born out in actual practice.