Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: PLEASE HELP - Canon L Lens choice  (Read 8962 times)
Brad H
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


WWW
« on: March 31, 2008, 02:56:31 PM »
ReplyReply

I would love your professional opinions on a dilemma that I am having.  I picked up the Canon 24-105 F/4L a week ago but am going through buyers remorse. Everyone (B&H Photo here in NYC, and folks online) seems to love the 24-70 F/2.8L, and feels that the speed trumps all.
 
I'm shooting with a 30D, and my bag includes the Canon 10-22, Canon 50mm 1.8, Tamron 17-50 2.8, Canon 24-105 F/4L, and an old Tamron 28-200 3.5-5.6.  I am an avid amateur photographer who shoots everything from family/kids, Macro, Landscape, and general travel. I shoot in raw and appreciate NOT spending too much time in post process; I prefer to get the highest quality image out of the camera/lens.
 
My question is, in your opinion should I return the 24-105 for the 24-70?
 
I know the 70-200 F/2.8L is fantastic lens, should I sell my 17-50 and 28-200 for the rounding out of my kit?
 
Thanks in advance,
Brad
Logged
Dansk
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 153


« Reply #1 on: March 31, 2008, 03:28:15 PM »
ReplyReply

I've used both the 24-70 and the 24-105 L's on 1Ds ( Mk 1's and 2's ) and I prefer the 24-70 considerably. I cant give you technical jargon to prove which is better I dont know and frankly i dont care. I just prefer the images out of the 24-70 and I very much prefer how it handles compared to the 24-105 which I felt was a little touchy and awkward. That said keep in mind this is just my 2 cents neither of these are bad lenses by any stretch.

I'd say they are both as sharp as each other theres no gain there IMO.
Logged
Dave Gurtcheff
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 468


« Reply #2 on: March 31, 2008, 04:12:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I've used both the 24-70 and the 24-105 L's on 1Ds ( Mk 1's and 2's ) and I prefer the 24-70 considerably. I cant give you technical jargon to prove which is better I dont know and frankly i dont care. I just prefer the images out of the 24-70 and I very much prefer how it handles compared to the 24-105 which I felt was a little touchy and awkward. That said keep in mind this is just my 2 cents neither of these are bad lenses by any stretch.

I'd say they are both as sharp as each other theres no gain there IMO.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185848\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I had both and ended up selling the 24-70. Most of my work is outdoor seascapes, and the f2.8 speed was of little importance. But the IS is important to me as I rarely use a tripod. I use a monopod and the IS works beautifully--I have made numerous 20"x30" prints using this lens. I do, however, process with DXO Optics pro which "fixes" various lens faults. I use a full frame DSLR, and like wide shots (my favorite lens is the 17-40 f 4 L, used at 17mm).
So you see, you will get all kinds of answers, depending on the type of work one does. Just my 2 cents....  
Good Luck
Dave G in NJ
www.modernpictorials.com
Logged
Dansk
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 153


« Reply #3 on: March 31, 2008, 04:25:24 PM »
ReplyReply

In fairness most of my work is with strobes at 125 shutter so the IS does not factor in for me at all
Logged
Dave Gurtcheff
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 468


« Reply #4 on: March 31, 2008, 04:42:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
In fairness most of my work is with strobes at 125 shutter so the IS does not factor in for me at all
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185869\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Dansk is exactly correct....the choice boils down to what kind of work you do, and which features you need.
Dave
Logged
Brad H
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


WWW
« Reply #5 on: March 31, 2008, 05:09:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Dansk is exactly correct....the choice boils down to what kind of work you do, and which features you need.
Dave
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185875\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Dave, Dansk

Thank you very much for your advise.  I am not much of a studio shooter as flash/lighting is not my strong suit yet. If I am shooting indoors it's of my 9 mos old son or other candid shots.  I have found my 50mm 1.4II great in that regard.  a 24-702.8 IS would be nice if Canon sold one!  

This topic seems to light fires with many people like religion or politics!
Logged
David Sutton
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 898


WWW
« Reply #6 on: April 01, 2008, 02:24:21 AM »
ReplyReply

I would love the f2.8 for my 40D, but the extra weight is the killer for me. I can carry the 24-105 all day for landscape and travel without tiring. 670 vs 950 gm doesn't sound a big difference, but it adds up after a few hours. Also that extra 35mm gets used all the time. If I was shooting moving objects in low light I'd probably change my mind, but otherwise the IS takes care of camera shake rather well.
As an aside,  the 70-200 f2.8 is around 1470gm. The f4 model is 760gm. Having the f2.8 would be cool but I know I'd hardly use it as at my age I no longer want to lug that sort of weight around all day.
As the others have said, it depends on what and how you are going to photograph. Cheers,David
Logged

Plekto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 551


« Reply #7 on: April 01, 2008, 02:36:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Apparently Canon's quality control seems to be rather hit and miss recently.  You might have just gotten a bad lens.  Exactly what is the problem that you aare having with it?
Logged
n1r0t
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 30


« Reply #8 on: April 01, 2008, 08:51:51 AM »
ReplyReply

From what it sounds like, if I were in your situation, I'd go with the 24-105mm. As Taquin previously stated, the extra reach is very nice and it is a great walking around lens. The IS is very effective and my copy is sharp enough for my needs.

The 70-200 f/2.8 IS is a monster (in terms of weight) by comparison. Although the lens is fantastic, you need to get the lens to meet your needs. I have both (70-200 & 24-105) and only bring out the 70-200 in low light performance situations (concerts, etc) or with a 1.4x TC for wildlife shooting. I'll either be using a monopod or a tripod. If you're looking for that range maybe the 70-200 f/4 would work.
Logged
sojournerphoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 473


« Reply #9 on: April 01, 2008, 11:53:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I would love your professional opinions on a dilemma that I am having.  I picked up the Canon 24-105 F/4L a week ago but am going through buyers remorse. Everyone (B&H Photo here in NYC, and folks online) seems to love the 24-70 F/2.8L, and feels that the speed trumps all.
 
I'm shooting with a 30D, and my bag includes the Canon 10-22, Canon 50mm 1.8, Tamron 17-50 2.8, Canon 24-105 F/4L, and an old Tamron 28-200 3.5-5.6.  I am an avid amateur photographer who shoots everything from family/kids, Macro, Landscape, and general travel. I shoot in raw and appreciate NOT spending too much time in post process; I prefer to get the highest quality image out of the camera/lens.
 
My question is, in your opinion should I return the 24-105 for the 24-70?
 
I know the 70-200 F/2.8L is fantastic lens, should I sell my 17-50 and 28-200 for the rounding out of my kit?
 
Thanks in advance,
Brad
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185835\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I've got a 24-105 and a 70-200 f4 L is. I l like the f4 zooms as they're easy to carry around and use, as well as costing less than the f2.8s. I've made big prints from the 24-105 using both Dxo and LR (1.3 on) as raw converters (on a 5D) and they're nice. I use primes when I want something wider

Mike
Logged
Andy M
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 333


WWW
« Reply #10 on: April 01, 2008, 12:11:45 PM »
ReplyReply

I recently sold my 24-105 in favour of a new 24-70 to use on my 1Ds 3.

On one hand both bokeh and colour saturation are noticeably better with the 24-70, but the extra reach and lighter weight of the 24-105 are appreciated, certainly for travel photography.

I'm happy with my choice of 24-70, but still appreciate the 24-105 to be an excellent lens
Logged
seanw
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 34


« Reply #11 on: April 01, 2008, 12:45:17 PM »
ReplyReply

I owned both the 24-70 and 24-105 and tested both on my 1Ds mark III. I found my copies to be very close in resolution with one slightly edging out the other at one focal length but the reverse result at another focal length.  Color was virtually identical between the two. I do think the 24-70 had slightly better contrast, a little less barrel distortion and noticeably less vignetting at wide focal lengths and large apertures. But none of these really concerned me based on my needs.

I think both are excellent and the choice really comes down to the features applicable to your use. I shoot mostly landscapes at small apertures and do a lot of hiking so the 24-105 was the best choice for me due to weight and the extra reach.
Logged
marcmccalmont
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1724



« Reply #12 on: April 01, 2008, 12:54:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I had both and ended up selling the 24-70. Most of my work is outdoor seascapes, and the f2.8 speed was of little importance. But the IS is important to me as I rarely use a tripod. I use a monopod and the IS works beautifully--I have made numerous 20"x30" prints using this lens. I do, however, process with DXO Optics pro which "fixes" various lens faults. I use a full frame DSLR, and like wide shots (my favorite lens is the 17-40 f 4 L, used at 17mm).
So you see, you will get all kinds of answers, depending on the type of work one does. Just my 2 cents....  
Good Luck
Dave G in NJ
www.modernpictorials.com
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185864\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I too owned the 24-70 2.8 and sold it after I had the 24-105 IS. DXO was the equaliser. The 24-105 is just as good after DXO and much more versatile.
Marc
Logged

Marc McCalmont
Dr. Gary
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 83


« Reply #13 on: April 01, 2008, 02:01:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I would love the f2.8 for my 40D, but the extra weight is the killer for me. I can carry the 24-105 all day for landscape and travel without tiring. 670 vs 950 gm doesn't sound a big difference, but it adds up after a few hours. Also that extra 35mm gets used all the time. If I was shooting moving objects in low light I'd probably change my mind, but otherwise the IS takes care of camera shake rather well.
As an aside,  the 70-200 f2.8 is around 1470gm. The f4 model is 760gm. Having the f2.8 would be cool but I know I'd hardly use it as at my age I no longer want to lug that sort of weight around all day.
As the others have said, it depends on what and how you are going to photograph. Cheers,David
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186025\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I have a 24-70 2.8 I am considering trading it for a 24-105 f/4. I never shoot the lens wide open and IS would be a big plus. I am trading up my 70-200 2.8 IS for th f/4 version. Again, even at concerts I don't shoot wide open. The f/4 is lighter and optically a better lens

drgary
« Last Edit: April 01, 2008, 02:04:28 PM by Dr. Gary » Logged
Nill Toulme
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 741



WWW
« Reply #14 on: April 01, 2008, 02:11:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Like so many things, it depends.  Do you want f/2.8 for the aperture & narrow DOF or do you value handholdability and flexibility? The 24-105L'sIS is good for at least a stop or two more handholdability at f/4 than the f/2.8 in many situations, the extra reach comes in very handy, and the lens is appreciably smaller and especially lighter than its f/2.8 sister.

I traded my 24-70 straight up for the 24-105 and couldn't be happier about it. (Of course, the guy I traded with is equally happy, so different strokes...)

I don't miss the f/2.8 a bit. But, in fairness, I'm most often using this lens for event work with flash, or for group shots without flash in decent light. I still think it's a good "walkaround" though.

If I need more aperture in that focal length range I reach for one of my primes. Compared to them, even f/2.8 is still a pretty severe compromise in the aperture department.

Personally I always found the 24-70 overly heavy and bulky, and often just a little too short, for the sorts of things I wanted to use it for. The 24-105 just works better for me.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
Logged
lovell
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 131


WWW
« Reply #15 on: April 01, 2008, 11:06:57 PM »
ReplyReply

I have both.  

For travel, I prefer the F4, as it's longer focal length means less lens changes on the road.

However, for most everything else, I prefer the F2.8 for it's faster aperture.

I really do not see these two lenses as competitors...they both have their place and purpose, and I don't see them as redudant or overlapping.
Logged

After composition, everything else is secondary--Alfred Steiglitz, NYC, 1927.

I'm not afraid of death.  I just don't want to be there when it happens--Woody Allen, Annie Hall, '70s
DonWeston
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 148


« Reply #16 on: April 02, 2008, 06:53:19 AM »
ReplyReply

If you shoot subjects that are moving the F2.8 is the way to go...

If you shoot mostly static subjects, the IS is more important unless you shoot everything on a tripod....

Simple....sharpness is not the end all nor is distortion unless you shoot only brick walls .....
Logged
Ronny Nilsen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 341


WWW
« Reply #17 on: April 02, 2008, 07:13:03 AM »
ReplyReply

I made a quick comparison of the two lenses a couple of years ago here.
Logged

nigeldh
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 56



WWW
« Reply #18 on: April 02, 2008, 08:57:51 PM »
ReplyReply

The folks have summed it up nicely:
2.8 to 4 is only one stop or ISO 400 vs 800.

28-70 f 2.8 if you have to shoot wide open, can't use a flash, and don't need the extra 4mm wide angle. Think indoor sports where you can get closer enough that you don't need the 70-200 f 2.8.
24-105 for landscapes where you need the extra 4mm and your subject is still/slow moving so the IS for 1/30 sec exposures is more critical.

And with the 30D you have a 1.6x magnification. This makes a 28 mm lens 45mm or close to a "normal" 50mm lens. A 24mm lens is actually 38mm.

I found that for high school basketball our local school is bright enough that I can get 1/200 at f 5.6 and ISO 3200 with my Canon 28-135. But a lot of other gyms are darker so it gets down to 1/90 even at -1/2 stop and this is a bit slow.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2008, 08:58:17 PM by nigeldh » Logged
DonWeston
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 148


« Reply #19 on: April 03, 2008, 11:48:59 AM »
ReplyReply

BOY are you lucky, I need fast primes to shoot in my kids gym and get a reasonable shutter speed to stop the motion for high school basketball. All the news guys shooting older Nikon just shoot with flash, that must be one bright gym...read that as newer maybe....:-)
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad