Herp Lens
Moderator: Scott Waters
Herp Lens
Has/does anyone use a Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Lens for herp photography. I currently use a Canon 600D (Canon kiss?) with the two kit lenses (18-55 and the 55-250). I am happy using these kit lenses but would like some better quality glass. I dont really want a macro due to the cost, buy a new macro and i will still be wanting a lens for landscape and some zoom work. Which would be double the cost of just buying this lens. I also want a 100-400L lens so looking to save money by only having one other main lens.
Re: Herp Lens
The 24-105 is a great lens. Also, I love my Canon 100mm macro. The Tamron 90mm macro is a great lens also. I hear the 100-400 is very nice. The 24-105 is a nice walk around lens that takes great quality photos.
-
- Posts: 341
- Joined: September 8th, 2011, 6:12 pm
- Location: Oxford, MS
Re: Herp Lens
I don't have that lens, but I do have the 100mm macro lens and love it. There is some to be said about having the fixed focal length lens. You'll generally have a better picture with a fixed focal length lens as compared to a zoom lens (since the elements are precisely calibrated to that focal length rather than needing to adjust to variable focal lengths). That said, there are some very good zoom lenses out there (like the 100-400L).
Personally, I would look into a macro lens. You have 18-55mm covered and then 55-250mm. A 24-105mm is going to overlap what those two lenses can already do. While I really like my Canon 100mm, third party lens makers can make some quality lenses (I had a Sigma 105mm for my Pentax and loved it). The third party lenses are generally cheaper, and do have quality glass in them. It might be worth looking into Sigma or Tamron macros.
Personally, I would look into a macro lens. You have 18-55mm covered and then 55-250mm. A 24-105mm is going to overlap what those two lenses can already do. While I really like my Canon 100mm, third party lens makers can make some quality lenses (I had a Sigma 105mm for my Pentax and loved it). The third party lenses are generally cheaper, and do have quality glass in them. It might be worth looking into Sigma or Tamron macros.
Re: Herp Lens
I was thinking of dumping the two kit lenses and just having the 24-105L and the 100-400L.
Re: Herp Lens
One question you should ask yourself is how often do you expect to shoot herps wide open at f/4. I would think that to obtain wide enough DOF you'd be doing most of your shooting at f/8+, in which case the sharpness advantage of the L lens becomes much less apparent. The 24-105L is a fine lens, but I'm not sure if it provides any particular advantages for herp photography.
Re: Herp Lens
I use f4 a lot for low light in-situ shots. The weather proofing gives me a little more comfort and I enjoy the range. Also, if I just want to bring one lens - it is a great range for what I do (rattlesnakes, gilas, horned lizards, pyros). The 100-400L tempts me, but I would use it for mammals. The only lizards I shoot are ones that I get with my macro lens.
It all comes down to what you need/want and how much you are willing to spend.
It all comes down to what you need/want and how much you are willing to spend.
Re: Herp Lens
I shoot a wide range of animals, some plants and some landscapes, not just herps (http://www.flickr.com/photos/79861098@N06/). That is why i was hoping to stick with the two lenses, as they cover a wide range and the 24-105 should cover the macro reasonably well. I realise the F/4 is wasted on herps however there are other situations where it will be helpful. Im not looking at the lens for advantages in shooting herps, more that it is capable of doing the job. But can also be used in other situations.
Re: Herp Lens
I dont know anything about that lens, but if you’re thinking of replacing your 18-55 and 55-250 with it consider that 24mm is not very wide on a dx format camera. I would really miss the 18mm.
-
- Posts: 121
- Joined: June 7th, 2010, 11:54 am
- Location: Arizona
Re: Herp Lens
You could probably pick up a 17-40mm L and a 100mm non L for the same price as a 24-105mm. Gives you a wider angle for landscapes, and also a solid macro lens for herp photography. I shot the 24-105 all last year, but I ended up selling it in favor of the 100mm L over the winter. Don't regret it one bit!
Re: Herp Lens
Do you like the 100mm L over the non-L version? Is it worth the money? I have been using the non-L version for 6-7 years and wondered if an upgrade would be worth it. However, I doubt I'd be able to do it for awhile.Aaron Mills wrote:...but I ended up selling it in favor of the 100mm L over the winter. Don't regret it one bit!
-
- Posts: 121
- Joined: June 7th, 2010, 11:54 am
- Location: Arizona
Re: Herp Lens
I never used the 100 non L. I did have a Tamron 90mm and the 100 L is much better. I can shoot handheld at 1/20 with sharp images 100% of the time. It's very nice to have when shooting in low light conditions. As for the price, I was debating whether it was worth the extra money when one popped up nearly brand new on Craigslist for $450 so that really made my decision for me. That being said, if for some reason mine were to break, I wouldn't hesitate to buy another at full price!Nshepard wrote:Do you like the 100mm L over the non-L version? Is it worth the money? I have been using the non-L version for 6-7 years and wondered if an upgrade would be worth it. However, I doubt I'd be able to do it for awhile.Aaron Mills wrote:...but I ended up selling it in favor of the 100mm L over the winter. Don't regret it one bit!
Re: Herp Lens
Holy crud, $450 for the L version? That's a steal, considering the used non-L version sells for that price. I may look into upgrading to the L version later this year, but I haven't had issues with mine, though I don't handhold a lot.Aaron Mills wrote:I never used the 100 non L. I did have a Tamron 90mm and the 100 L is much better. I can shoot handheld at 1/20 with sharp images 100% of the time. It's very nice to have when shooting in low light conditions. As for the price, I was debating whether it was worth the extra money when one popped up nearly brand new on Craigslist for $450 so that really made my decision for me. That being said, if for some reason mine were to break, I wouldn't hesitate to buy another at full price!Nshepard wrote:Do you like the 100mm L over the non-L version? Is it worth the money? I have been using the non-L version for 6-7 years and wondered if an upgrade would be worth it. However, I doubt I'd be able to do it for awhile.Aaron Mills wrote:...but I ended up selling it in favor of the 100mm L over the winter. Don't regret it one bit!
Re: Herp Lens
Damn, not bad at all! I'll have to start gleaming craigslist then...! I got an ebay offer on a 17-40L for $430 and thought that was a hell of a fine price!Aaron Mills wrote:I never used the 100 non L. I did have a Tamron 90mm and the 100 L is much better. I can shoot handheld at 1/20 with sharp images 100% of the time. It's very nice to have when shooting in low light conditions. As for the price, I was debating whether it was worth the extra money when one popped up nearly brand new on Craigslist for $450 so that really made my decision for me. That being said, if for some reason mine were to break, I wouldn't hesitate to buy another at full price!Nshepard wrote:Do you like the 100mm L over the non-L version? Is it worth the money? I have been using the non-L version for 6-7 years and wondered if an upgrade would be worth it. However, I doubt I'd be able to do it for awhile.Aaron Mills wrote:...but I ended up selling it in favor of the 100mm L over the winter. Don't regret it one bit!
Anyway, on the point of this post...this is a sound plan!! Though two lenses are beasts and are prefect for herp photography!Aaron Mills wrote:You could probably pick up a 17-40mm L and a 100mm non L for the same price as a 24-105mm. Gives you a wider angle for landscapes, and also a solid macro lens for herp photography. I shot the 24-105 all last year, but I ended up selling it in favor of the 100mm L over the winter. Don't regret it one bit!
- Kevin Price
- Posts: 421
- Joined: October 13th, 2010, 9:42 am
- Location: So. California
- Contact:
Re: Herp Lens
Speedy,
I have used a Canon 24-105L as my primary lens for several years now. It's a very versatile zoom and is relatively light weight. The majority of my shooting is at night and I've found the 24-105L lens to be my go-to lens over the years. Its excellent glass, weather sealed, no zoom creep (at least for me), and has the most versatile range. I too use it for shooting things other than herps. I also shoot with a 24-70L, a 70-200L, a 100-400L, and a 100 macro (non L).
The 24-70L is a great lens but it's also very heavy and the zoom range is not as versatile as the 24-105L. The 70-200 is my favorite lens, but at night the minimal focus distance is too great (meaning I have to be too far away to achieve focus on the animal and still be able to control it) so I never use it at night. The 100-400L has the same problems with the focus distance, only I have to be MUCH further away! Awesome for day, totally useless at night. The 100 macro is my second night time go-to lens, but ultimately it's the 24-105L that gets the nod more often than not; depending on what I'm shooting at the time.
The 17-40L on an APS-C body is pretty limiting. I thought I really wanted that lens until I shot with it. It's not as wide angle as I'd like and the 40mm reach is much too restrictive for me, especially shooting rattlesnakes. It's not a good all-purpose lens. It is great on a full frame camera, and when I finally can buy one, that lens will be the very next lens I buy. I suggest you rent the 17-40L first before you spend any money on it. The 24-105L though, I can give you my full endorsement on, FWIW.
I have used a Canon 24-105L as my primary lens for several years now. It's a very versatile zoom and is relatively light weight. The majority of my shooting is at night and I've found the 24-105L lens to be my go-to lens over the years. Its excellent glass, weather sealed, no zoom creep (at least for me), and has the most versatile range. I too use it for shooting things other than herps. I also shoot with a 24-70L, a 70-200L, a 100-400L, and a 100 macro (non L).
The 24-70L is a great lens but it's also very heavy and the zoom range is not as versatile as the 24-105L. The 70-200 is my favorite lens, but at night the minimal focus distance is too great (meaning I have to be too far away to achieve focus on the animal and still be able to control it) so I never use it at night. The 100-400L has the same problems with the focus distance, only I have to be MUCH further away! Awesome for day, totally useless at night. The 100 macro is my second night time go-to lens, but ultimately it's the 24-105L that gets the nod more often than not; depending on what I'm shooting at the time.
The 17-40L on an APS-C body is pretty limiting. I thought I really wanted that lens until I shot with it. It's not as wide angle as I'd like and the 40mm reach is much too restrictive for me, especially shooting rattlesnakes. It's not a good all-purpose lens. It is great on a full frame camera, and when I finally can buy one, that lens will be the very next lens I buy. I suggest you rent the 17-40L first before you spend any money on it. The 24-105L though, I can give you my full endorsement on, FWIW.
Re: Herp Lens
Thanks kevin and everyone else. I can't exactly rent any lenses as I live in the outback of australia (nearest capital city is about 2000km away). I was looking at the tamron 90mm macro yesterday and it has some great reviews. Bloody cheap aswell. I still think the 24-105mm is a good option and since the tamron is cheap I might get it as a macro. Then just have to save up for the 100-400l.
Re: Herp Lens
I carry a 100mm, and 70-300mm as my main herping arsenal. I have a few other lenses but I don't like them for herping as much.