Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Post photokina, New Canon Glass  (Read 10016 times)
Ronny Nilsen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 340


WWW
« Reply #20 on: September 30, 2008, 05:52:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
As far as I can figure, the 24-70 is sharper (true?), has IS, and shallower DOF (because I think with the new ISO capabilities, the lenses are pretty much the same speed...). Whereas the 24-105 has a wider focal length (making it better for events) and IS (again, the ISO capabilities are making the speed a smaller issue). Is this a fair comparison to make?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I made a comparison of the two lenses a couple of years ago [a href=\"http://www.ronnynilsen.com/Essays/Test/24-70vs24-105/]here[/url].

For general use I would recommend the 24-105 as it have IS that to me is more
important than one stop more that is a bit soft (but still good thou).

Ronny
Logged

Christopher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 944


WWW
« Reply #21 on: September 30, 2008, 06:55:38 AM »
ReplyReply

I had both the the 24-70 and 24-105 and sold both of them in the end. The 24-70 is a little better compared to a 24-105, but both were not what I wanted on a 1DsMk3. So I switched to the Leica 35-70. I would wish Canon could give us a new 24-70 2.8 or 4.0 with IS. It could even be a 28-70 or 35-70, as long as they deliver a lens that can be compared to some primes in that range. Companies like leica and Zeiss, Schneider, Mamyia show that it is possible.


But what i REALLY hoped for was a new 100-400 or 200-400. That oled thing sucks like hell and is a waste of money. Nikon has done it so plz Canon do it as well ;-)
Logged

Khun_K
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 349


WWW
« Reply #22 on: September 30, 2008, 06:56:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I have both lenses, the 24-70f2.8L and the 24-105 f4 IS. I use these lenses on my 40D (used to have a 20D) and my new 1DsMkIII (used to have a 1DsMkII). I have done any formal tests, I just shoot a lot of pictures in various settings - landscape, kid sports, horse races, vacations etc.

The 24-105 has become my "standard" lens. It's more compact, lighter and does not have the obnoxiously large lens hood like the 24-70. The IS is a nice touch and it works well. I still use a tripod for my landscape photos.

You can see some images shot with the 24-105 lens on my web site.

If I could only have one of these, I definitely would take the 24-105 over the 24-70.

Cheers.
Bud
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=225715\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I will pick the 24-105/4L if I can only have 1 lens between the 2. The 24-70/2.8 has more distortion (base on the lens I have) at the range of 50-70mm compares to the 24-105/4 which is the range I use a lot, so optically I gave the 2 lenses equal performance, and for close, 50-70mm range, the 24-105/4 to me is a better lens.  The only thing I missed is that being a f/4 lens, when it became darker in late of the day, the AF becomes not very effective, it is when you will wish a faster lens. I use to have more problem with my 1Ds MK2 when the on-camera sharpness check is less effective, and now with 1Ds MK3 faster control and larger screen does help a lot.
Logged
Jim Pascoe
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 754


WWW
« Reply #23 on: September 30, 2008, 09:45:19 AM »
ReplyReply

On the subject of comparing the 24-70 with the 24-105.  My experience with the lenses is that the
24-70 is quite soft at 2.8 but much better stopped down.  The 24-105 is very sharp.

However, for me the one area where the 24-70 wins is with the lens hood.  When shooting at the long end and against the light it is much more flare resistant due to the hood being so deep.  The 24-105 by contrast suffers quite a lot with flare with its cutaway hood.

Just my experience.  This is with 5D and 1Ds 111 cameras.

Jim
Logged
mike.online
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 207


WWW
« Reply #24 on: September 30, 2008, 10:28:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Wow, Awesome advice guys! thanks! looks like the 105 f/4 would be a much better fit for me... as an all rounder.

PMA is in january, right? is there any possibility that there would be new canon glass at that show?
Logged

Deep
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 174


« Reply #25 on: October 01, 2008, 03:54:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
As of now, there is no reason to think that it is technically possible to design a pro 2.8 trans-standard zoom with IS/VR. Nobody has managed to do it.

It would seem that Sony is probably doing the right thing with the body IS in their full frame A900... no problem even with bright lenses whose internal elements must be heavy and large, and therefore difficult to move quickly enough for efficient stabilization.

Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=225487\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
First,  I think the short/fast zooms may not have a construction which makes image stablisation easy in larger lenses with smaller central elements, though I guess the market will demand it and Canon/Nikon will be forced to produce it.  From the makers point of view, I suspect it is cheaper to make a slightly slower lens with stabilisation than a slightly faster one without, so they assume people will take it as an option to optical speed.

Secondly, I have in-body stabilisation in my E3 and have tried it with the Sony 900 and have to say it is very effective.  It certainly wasn't something that swayed my decision when I bought my body but now I have it I find it much more useful than I ever expected.  It works with all lenses, even old manual screw mount lenses used with an adaptor.  Sony have been very wise going with this option.  I got good results with the Zeiss 24-70 even at 1/4 second (amazingly).
Logged

Don
aaykay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 359


« Reply #26 on: October 02, 2008, 08:05:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Sony have been very wise going with this option.  I got good results with the Zeiss 24-70 even at 1/4 second (amazingly).

For a camera manufacturer with a significant "film" user base, in-lens IS is the only option available.  An in-body IS is not an option at all, for obvious reasons, since if the lenses don't have built-in IS, they will not provide I.S on the film bodies.

Makers like Sony who provide in-body IS, on Full-frame digital bodies, do not have to contend with a userbase who shoots film, and hence they have moved full tilt into in-body I.S., which obviously provides stabilized shots with all lenses, including the el-cheapo 50mm f/1.7.
Logged
kaelaria
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2226



WWW
« Reply #27 on: October 02, 2008, 08:40:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Cause yeah, planning your future around film is the way to go.
Logged

BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7855



WWW
« Reply #28 on: October 02, 2008, 08:59:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
For a camera manufacturer with a significant "film" user base, in-lens IS is the only option available. An in-body IS is not an option at all, for obvious reasons, since if the lenses don't have built-in IS, they will not provide I.S on the film bodies.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=226465\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'd be surprised if backward compatibility with film SLR were still high on the priority list of Canon and Nikon...

I think that Canon/Nikon not having released body side VR bodies yet does have more to do with other factors:

- patents
- past investements in lens VR technology
- concerns regarding reliability and basic body performance with body side VR (difficulty of maintaining the sensor exactly perpendicular to lens axis, impact of shocks when a body falls,...)
- advantages of lens stabilisation
  -> the optical viewfinder is stabilized too
  -> technology enhancement can be rolled out lens by lens and therefore tuned for each lens's specific requirements that are going to impact typical vibration patterns (weight, inertia center location, typical handling,...)
  -> location of the acceleration sensor probably makes more sense in the lens than in the body,
- lack of combined solution using both lens and body side VR because of lack of communication between body and lens as far as VR real time information goes
- ...

Regards,
Bernard
« Last Edit: October 02, 2008, 09:52:31 PM by BernardLanguillier » Logged

A few images online here!
Mike W
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 217


« Reply #29 on: October 03, 2008, 05:31:58 AM »
ReplyReply

The biggest question I ask myself is; why do they introduce so many camera's and so little lenses.

They're up to 21mpx for christ sake, you're not telling me they'd be able to build better digital lenses and market these as such. Who wouldn't buy them?
Logged
Geoff Wittig
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1017


« Reply #30 on: October 03, 2008, 04:57:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: budjames
I have both lenses, the 24-70f2.8L and the 24-105 f4 IS. I use these lenses on my 40D (used to have a 20D) and my new 1DsMkIII (used to have a 1DsMkII). I have done any formal tests, I just shoot a lot of pictures in various settings - landscape, kid sports, horse races, vacations etc.

The 24-105 has become my "standard" lens. It's more compact, lighter and does not have the obnoxiously large lens hood like the 24-70. The IS is a nice touch and it works well. I still use a tripod for my landscape photos.

You can see some images shot with the 24-105 lens on my web site.

If I could only have one of these, I definitely would take the 24-105 over the 24-70.

Cheers.
Bud

I think it depends on what you're shooting. I also own both of these lenses and an Eos-1Ds III. Optically both lenses are very good, but the 24-70 is just that little bit sharper, particularly at the wide end. The 24-105 does indeed have a smaller lens hood, but it's a lot shallower and less effective too. More importantly to me, the 24-105 vignettes badly. Even when stopped down to f:16 there is still enough vignetting in a blue sky to make stitching a major pain in the ass, requiring a lot of post-processing to make the files usable. The 24-70 doesn't have this problem at all. Then again, that extra reach at the long end of the 24-105 means a lot less lens swapping in the field.

So I tend to use the 24-105 when I want just a single 'walk-around' lens on the camera. For this it's quite nice. If I'm taking landscape photos on a tripod, however, the 24-70 wins hands down.
Logged
Dr. Gary
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 83


« Reply #31 on: October 04, 2008, 01:05:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Unless you shoot a lot at 2.8, you might want to consider the 70-200 f/4 IS. It is considerably sharper than the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. I traded the later in for the former and have never looked back.

dr gary
Logged
kaelaria
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2226



WWW
« Reply #32 on: October 04, 2008, 01:09:24 PM »
ReplyReply

That's a false blanket statement.  There are good and bad copies of everything.  I went from the 4 to 2.8 and both were equally good at 4+.
Logged

David Anderson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 439



WWW
« Reply #33 on: October 04, 2008, 04:38:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Dr. Gary
Unless you shoot a lot at 2.8, you might want to consider the 70-200 f/4 IS. It is considerably sharper than the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. I traded the later in for the former and have never looked back.

I agree, I found my 2.8 IS a little disappointing on the DsIII compared to the f4IS and swapped.





Logged

Dr. Gary
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 83


« Reply #34 on: October 04, 2008, 04:40:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: kaelaria
That's a false blanket statement.  There are good and bad copies of everything.  I went from the 4 to 2.8 and both were equally good at 4+.


I didn't have any big issues with my 2.8. I read a lot of threads and reviews regarding the 70-200 f/4 IS and they universally praised it and said it was the sharpest zoom made by Canon and one of the sharpest by anyone. My personal experience agrees with them. They have a lot more experience than I do.

drgary
Logged
budjames
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 690


WWW
« Reply #35 on: October 05, 2008, 12:33:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Dr. Gary
I didn't have any big issues with my 2.8. I read a lot of threads and reviews regarding the 70-200 f/4 IS and they universally praised it and said it was the sharpest zoom made by Canon and one of the sharpest by anyone. My personal experience agrees with them. They have a lot more experience than I do.

drgary

I had the 70-200 f4 (pre-IS version) and it was very sharp. I purchased the 70-200 f2.8 IS for the IS option and this lens is as sharp form what I can see. The IS works great but it's a hefty lens compared to the f/4 version, the having one filter size among my all my lenses is a nice convenience. I use the the f2.8 IS lens on my 40D and 1DsMkIII bodies.

Now that I find myself not using many filters, except for a polarizer, I'm considering buying the new 70-200 f4 IS for the lighter weight and smaller size.

Cheers.
Bud James
Logged

Bud James
North Wales, PA
www.budjamesphotography.com
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad