Canon 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM

Hi all

I have just recently got my Canon 40D and 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM lense and want to get it under water.

I have not been able to find any housing that supports this lense?

Ikelite support the:

*28-105mm (1) 1:3.5-4.5 EF USM II

*28-105mm 1:4-5.6 USM (1)

I am really not keen to get another mid range lense just because there is no support for my lense U/W ?

Any suggestion?

Vernon

The lens is very poorly well suited for underwater photography. For the most part there are two classes of underwater images. Wide angle and Macro.

On a 40D, 24mm hardly counts as wide, and the lenses minimum focus distance of 1.5 makes it an even worse macro lens.

And then there is the fact that the lens grows so much that it will not be possible to zoom the entire range in any port. If you get the port close enough to the lens so that there is not vignetting at the lenses wide setting, you will not get half way through the zoom range before the lens crashes into the port.

_______________________________________________________

However if you insist on useing it underwater......

The lens's diameter, will make it a tight squeeze in Ikelite's ports. It will probably fit, but zooming or manual focus are out of the question. You will have to set the zoom before you put the camera in the housing and stick with it for the entire dive.

Although the lens makes a bad wide angle and a bad macro lens, it is less bad at wide angle, so I would choose to set the zoom at 24mm.

At 24mm, the lens is 4.2" long, so it would need port #5503.55.

_________________________________________________________

Hopefully I have convinced you it is not worth the effort to try to house that lens. I would strongly urge you to get a lens that is much wider, and focuses much closer.

I recomend you get the Tokina 10-17mm Fisheye and the Canon 60mm Macro. Neither of these lenses overlap with your 24-104, and they are far better suited for underwater shooting.

I do know someone using this lens underwater on a full frame camer where it apparently is quite usable. On a smaller sensor camera I'd echo the comments above - there are better lenses to house!

Thanks everybody for you replies much appreciated...

I understand that i will need to get a Macro - 100mm and Wide Angle - 10-22mm lense.

If this lense is not that suitable for a Mid Range lense - The lense that you dive with 70% of the time , Then what would you suggest?

Underwater, everything is either a macro, or a wide angle photo. For underwater shooting, a mid range lens that does not focus close like a macro lens falls into no mans land. Yes, there are times where you want to use a mid range zoom, but this is the rare exception, not the lens you want to use 70% of the time.

Personally the Sigma 15mm Fisheye, and the Sigma 150mm Macro account for 95% of my bottom time. The other 5% of the time is shared by the Canon 24mm F2.8, Canon 35mm F/1.4, and Canon 85mm f/1.8. But this is on full frame.

On a crop factor camera like the 40D, if I could only have one lens, it would the the Tokina 10-17. (underwater the Tokina 10-17 is far better than the Canon 10-22)

If I could only have two lenses it would be Tokina 10-17mm Fisheye and the Canon 60mm Macro.

Underwater, everything is either a macro, or a wide angle photo. For underwater shooting, a mid range lens that does not focus close like a macro lens falls into no mans land. Yes, there are times where you want to use a mid range zoom, but this is the rare exception, not the lens you want to use 70% of the time.

 

On a crop factor camera like the 40D, if I could only have one lens, it would the the Tokina 10-17. (underwater the Tokina 10-17 is far better than the Canon 10-22)

 

If I could only have two lenses it would be Tokina 10-17mm Fisheye and the Canon 60mm Macro.

I agree with William. My 24-105L stay dry topside. u/w, I use the 60mm/ 100mm/ 10-17 Tokina. However, a mid range zooom does have its use. I use a Sigma 18-50 for days where I might be looking for shy pelagics. This is with a 400D/XTi and I plan on using these same lenses for my newly purchased 40D... My only gripe is with the 100mm macro AF being a it sluggish u/w if you don't give it enough light to focus.

i also find the 100M slow to focus on my 20D and plan to get a 60S Macro

my 24-105 stays dry as well

however, i do use the 17-85 for fish - it focuses decently close and is acceptably sharp so long as it's stopped down, taking advantage of the Canon's low noise at ISO 400 - i haven't found the distortion of this lens to be a problem UW, although even stopped down corner sharpness is poor at the wide end

If I could only have two lenses it would be Tokina 10-17mm Fisheye and the Canon 60mm Macro.

Agreed. These are the 2 lenses I house with my 20D. All my Bonaire Photos are with these 2 lenses.

Looking at some reviews, People like Ken Rockwell prefer the Canon 10-22mm lenses instead of the Tokina 10-17mm, I suppose this is personal preferance....

Something maybe off topic... But related in my opinion...looking at getting the 40D U/W is a expensive excercise.... I have existing Ikelite DS-125 but needed to send it for Circuit upgrade @ $100 and postage at $50 ... Then found out the excsiting sync wont work and need to get a new cord @ $200 ... then need to get a new lense cause the 24-105mm does not fit so another $500 for new lense...$2000 for the housing.. this get the 40D U/W... Then still prob still need another lense $500 and dome port $250.... So all in all prob $3500 and this has only one strobe.... add another strobe and $1300 ... Then you have a usable rig... so total = $4700....

A mate suggested getting a Sea and Sea DX-1G with strobe or Canon G9 with strobe for $2000 ... then you have a spare camera.. and forget about the 40D for U/W ??

Anybody have views on this?

Looking at some reviews, People like Ken Rockwell prefer the Canon 10-22mm lenses instead of the Tokina 10-17mm, I suppose this is personal preferance....

Anybody have views on this?

Does Rockwell shoot u/w? I think we're comparing different beasts here... Tokina 10-17 is a fish eye and the Canon EFS 10-22 is a rectilinear lens ... I love my Canon 10-22 topside - great landscaping lens for a cropped sensor DSLR, but I just haven't been happy with the results u/w behind my current dome/ extension arrangement. And I didn't want to plunk down $200+ for an expensive diopter to make it work with my dome. (edit: not saying the lens can't work with other housing/ dome arrangements)

As for the second part of your question, I think there's been a lot already written/ discussed on the expensive DSLR kit vs P&S u/w argument. Housing and accessorizing a DSLR is a money pit ... There are some people who are taking some pretty amazing shots with their P&S's. I guess it depends on whether you think the benefits of a DSLR u/w is worth all that $$$ to you... And don't forget the headache of traveling with a full DSLR u/w kit! Possible excess luggage charges, and insurance costs...