Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Decisions, decisions: 24-70 or 24-105 "L" Lens
- Thread starter Razeus
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Where is your wide angle man!
Yes. USM gives you smoother, faster, more accurate focusing. It's also quieter. But the reason I love it is that it (almost always) means full-time manual focus (FTM); something I frequently use when composing certain types of shots as I can tweak the focus after auto focusing (don't even think of trying this with non-USM lenses!).
I have two non-USM lenses that both fill a certain niche, but in general if I'm paying serious money for glass I want USM -- and FTM - in the bargain. YMMV.
You're a bit late to the party I'm afraid, I already explained why I asked about whether USM was important. It wasn't because I don't understand the benefits of USM, it was because the discussion didn't list it as a requirement at the time.
Rereading the thread, I guess I must've missed where you actually addressed USM. Maybe it was in one of your snarky comments, making it easy to overlook?
The original point was that the self-professed "most important (and reliable) publication" at DPR screwed up and listed the new 18-135mm as IS USM, which it obviously is not USM. Perhaps Phil no longer cares, having sold out the site to Bezos and the big A?
To the second point that you brought up, whether it matters that the 18-135 IS lacks USM, my point was that it does to some of us.
Apparently, you think only your opinion matters? Or maybe you are having a bad day and are taking it out on the entire thread? Who knows?
The original point was that the self-professed "most important (and reliable) publication" at DPR screwed up and listed the new 18-135mm as IS USM, which it obviously is not USM. Perhaps Phil no longer cares, having sold out the site to Bezos and the big A?
To the second point that you brought up, whether it matters that the 18-135 IS lacks USM, my point was that it does to some of us.
Apparently, you think only your opinion matters? Or maybe you are having a bad day and are taking it out on the entire thread? Who knows?
You mean one of those comments that was mistaken to be a snarky comment perhaps? I'm also well aware USM it matters to some people, it matters to me, but I don't see you recognising that USM wasn't an issue for the person who started the thread, hence the reason why I suggested it in the first place. I don't care whether you need it or not, this isn't about you dude.
You clearly don't, you're second guessing at this point and you're not that perceptive.
If I'm buying an L lens, I fully expect USM with full time manual focus. Some lens have USM, but don't give you full time manual focus.
To my knowledge they're based on an older design. Newer USM L lenses all have FTM.
I thought you were referring to non-L lenses in your post.
I just got a 24-105 and 17-40 L series lens. I love the 17-40 for wide shots it replaces my sigma 2.8 18-50mm it was not reliable my copy. I was getting very poor output. I got the 24-105 casue i went back to my old shots and found that most of what i shoot was around 35mm to 50mm and i would love to reach to 65mm etc with out having to switch. I got the 17-40 used and it is going to canon for a tune up for the price i picked it up for it just could not be beat. I also got the 24-105 at a great rate. I am getting my sigma 2.8 back from a recertification and i hope that the AF is better. I was getting well over 70% reject rate. I verified the body on my 70-200mm and it was flawless. I shoot weddings, portraits, action, nature, products (for Ebay). I do just about a little bit of everything. I know i want to get some primes but i think that would serve me better when i step up to a full frame body.