Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: 24-70 compared with 24-105 IS  (Read 4555 times)
Hank
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 679


« on: August 23, 2005, 09:51:25 AM »
ReplyReply

If this lens had been around a few years ago, I probably would not have dropped Canon. That's how important the combination of zoom range and image quality are to me.  I went back to Nikon both because we already had a houseful of their lenses, and specifically because of their 24-120VR.

If I can "interpollate" a bit between Nikon and Canon, here's my experience.  I'm really happy with the lens for "walk around" shooting, and especially in dusty conditions.  The less often you have to change lenses, the better off you will be.

Though the 24-120 isn't absolutely critically as sharp as either my 20-35mm f/2.8 or my 35-70mm f/2.8, I already owned those and I use them when critical sharpness is required- especially landscape.  In fact, that was a large part of my decision to abandon Canon- I already owned those lenses in the Nikon line, but was faced with buying similarly sharp lenses to go with the 28-135 if I persisted with Canon.

My summary of the situation, based upon my own shooting needs is this:  If the 24-105 is as sharp as the 24-70, you are ahead of the game.  If it's not, you may end up owning both lenses if the zoom range is critical for dust or diversity, yet the 28-135 doesn't measure up.
Logged
Paul Sumi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1217


« Reply #1 on: August 23, 2005, 10:44:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Does anyone know if it has close-up capability?
I just checked the specs.  Max magnification for the 24-105 is 0.23x as compared to 0.29x for the 24-70 (both at the tele end).  Not a deal-breaker, but was hoping for something closer.
Logged

jcarlin
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 31


« Reply #2 on: August 28, 2005, 10:04:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Currently the 24-105 is priced just higher than than the 24-70, this may change in the future.
Logged
eatstickyrice
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 109


WWW
« Reply #3 on: August 23, 2005, 12:51:09 AM »
ReplyReply

I've just been comparing the leading 24-70 f/2.8 L USM with the new 24-105 f/4 L IS USM lens. Looking at each product, I don't think there's any need to dump our 24-70's, especially for those owning a 70-200 of some sort as well, but I am excited about this lens. I'm kinda thinking it might be a good walk around lens. The IS is definitely welcomed, as I tend to find it's hard to hold the camera steady when my heart is beating faster than normal from walking around a lot, up hills etc. It will be interesting to see how people like this lens as the story unfolds in the next few months. Kudos to Canon for developing it, and the 5D! Those of us who enjoy lighter setups are greatful!

Rick
Logged

Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #4 on: August 23, 2005, 08:55:28 AM »
ReplyReply

IMO it's the perfect "walk-around" lens for the 5D or other full-frame Canons. It's wide enough and long enough for most general-purpose shooting, and fast enough to keep a reasonable shutter speed at a reasonable ISO unless shooting indoors without flash. And the IS is a bonus that makes it even more useful. If image quality is good, I may put my 35-350L into semi-retirement and get one. I've been shooting outdoor events with a 17-40/4L on my 1Ds and the 35-350L on my 1D-MkII. But unless I really need the 350mm reach (which I usually don't) the 24-105/4 L IS would make a lot more sense.
Logged

Jack Flesher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2595



WWW
« Reply #5 on: August 23, 2005, 10:15:41 AM »
ReplyReply

I'll be getting one.  I sold my 24-70 primarily due to its size, but also for the fact I was always looking for a bit more reach when I had it on.  

However, f4 is somewhat of a limitation as a portraiture lens in the 85-105 range due to the not a shallow enough DOF. But this new offering is smaller and has the added reach so I agree it makes a stellar walk-around lens.  IS is a huge plus too.
Logged

Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #6 on: August 23, 2005, 03:27:40 PM »
ReplyReply

As long as the lens is even close to it's MTF predictions, I'm in the market. I've already bought an 85mm 1.8 on ebay (V.good price) for fast portraiture and the 24-105L will be my main lens, not for the focal length but the IS (FF really shows up your handholding technique!). If it's lacking at the wide end for landscape work then I'll get primes.
Logged

kwanon
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #7 on: August 24, 2005, 08:25:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Quote
Does anyone know if it has close-up capability?
I just checked the specs.  Max magnification for the 24-105 is 0.23x as compared to 0.29x for the 24-70 (both at the tele end).  Not a deal-breaker, but was hoping for something closer.
You can always add a 500D for close-up work.
Logged
David R. Gurtcheff
Guest
« Reply #8 on: August 24, 2005, 10:44:01 AM »
ReplyReply

I for one use the 17-40 f4L, and 70-200 f4L, as I very seldom shoot indoors with available light, so f4 is not a limitation for me. My "walk around" lens is the 24-70 f2.8 L, but I have always thought it was too heavy and bulky. I rarely use a tripod, so the IS would be very welcome. I may sell my 24-70 and get the 24-105 (I don't really need the 105; I seldom use the long end of my 24-70. but nice to have it).
Dave
Logged
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #9 on: August 28, 2005, 04:34:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I think it's too pricy. You can buy either 17-40/4 + 70-200/4 or 24-70/2.8 instead.
Uhm, the 24-70 f/2.8 is more expensive than the new lens.

Also, the combination of the 17-40 + 70-200 is both more expensive and it doesn't offer the very handy IS feature.

The offerings are simily not comparable.
Logged

Jan
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #10 on: August 29, 2005, 03:54:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Currently the 24-105 is priced just higher than than the 24-70, this may change in the future.
That's curious, because in my end of the world, the new 24-105 is about 15% cheaper than the 24-70.
Logged

Jan
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #11 on: August 23, 2005, 03:21:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I've just been comparing the leading 24-70 f/2.8 L USM with the new 24-105 f/4 L IS USM lens. Looking at each product, I don't think there's any need to dump our 24-70's, especially for those owning a 70-200 of some sort as well, but I am excited about this lens. I'm kinda thinking it might be a good walk around lens.
This is actually a better point than I first thought about.

Quite a lot of people seem to start out with the medium-priced 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS as their multi-purpose, walk-around, image stabilized lens.

I think it's more appropriate to look at the new lens as an L version of this lens than as a 24-70 with longer reach and IS.

The 24-105L is just that little bit wider (and therefore more useful on smaller sensors), and the fixed maximum aperture and weather protection are very welcome extra features.
Logged

Jan
Paul Sumi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1217


« Reply #12 on: August 23, 2005, 10:49:27 AM »
ReplyReply

If the quality is there, I'm seriously considering this lens to either complement or replace my 24-70 L.  It definitely looks like an ideal walk-around lens.  Does anyone know if it has close-up capability?

Paul
Logged

Guest
« Reply #13 on: August 28, 2005, 07:03:31 AM »
ReplyReply

I think it's too pricy. You can buy either 17-40/4 + 70-200/4 or 24-70/2.8 instead.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad