Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Which 24 - 70 lens ?  (Read 4565 times)
Alan Matuka
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 54



WWW
« on: October 01, 2013, 04:01:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I am thinking about buying zoom lens for Canon 5d mk II and was looking at following lenses :

- Canon 24 - 70 f 4 IS USM
- Canon 24 - 105 f 4 L IS USM
- Sigma 24 - 70 f 2.8 IF EX HSM (  there was also macro version, but I heard they've stopped making it ).

Lens would be mostly used for portraits and landscapes and quality of bokeh would be sometimes important. I read several test but still can't make up my mind which lens to get.
It would be great to hear some first hand experiences :-)

thanks,

Alan 
Logged

Tony Jay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2157


« Reply #1 on: October 01, 2013, 05:16:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi Allen.

My suggestion would be to hire each lens in turn and put it through its paces.
Give each a good workout according to how you shoot and what you think each lens should do for you.
Ultimately things like bokeh are somewhat subjective.
I think doing your own testing would be the way to go.

Tony Jay
Logged
k bennett
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1478


WWW
« Reply #2 on: October 01, 2013, 07:08:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Of the three you list, I have only the 24-105, but I also own both versions of the Canon 24-70/2.8. Of the three lenses, the one I grab most often is the 24-105. The extra reach makes it a significantly more useful lens, as does the image stabilization (which the Canon f/2.8 lenses lack.) It's good for landscapes on a tripod, and as a walk-around candid lens for portraits and general photography. Out of focus areas at f/4 are smooth and look good, though of course it doesn't have the dramatic look of a very fast prime.
Logged

Equipment: a camera and some lenses.
The Ute
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 190


« Reply #3 on: October 01, 2013, 07:49:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Be sure to check out the Tamron 24-70.

It has gotten excellent reviews.

 Wink
Logged
JeanMichel
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 242


« Reply #4 on: October 01, 2013, 11:04:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,
On this site, go to product reviews, you will find some very useful review on the two canon lenses you are looking at. I have the 24-105 (came as a kit with my original 5d, so it was a rather good deal), and a 20 and 40 from Voitglander-Cosina for my 5d2. The 24-105 is very useful, but at the wide end (24 mm) it has a fairly pronounced moustache distortion, so do not photograph brick walls with it! I plan to keep the 24-105, and perhaps buy a 70-200.
Jean-Michel
Logged
kaelaria
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2228



WWW
« Reply #5 on: October 01, 2013, 11:45:30 AM »
ReplyReply

The Canon 24-70 is a 2.8 and the Sigma is/was not a real macro.  I love my Canon!
Logged

k bennett
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1478


WWW
« Reply #6 on: October 01, 2013, 12:50:32 PM »
ReplyReply

The Canon 24-70 is a 2.8 and the Sigma is/was not a real macro.  I love my Canon!

There is a new Canon 24-70/4 IS zoom. It replaces the 24-105/4 IS as the kit lens with full frame mid-level cameras.
Logged

Equipment: a camera and some lenses.
kaelaria
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2228



WWW
« Reply #7 on: October 01, 2013, 04:02:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Ah yes I completely forgot about that thing!
Logged

stever
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1073


« Reply #8 on: October 01, 2013, 11:17:58 PM »
ReplyReply

it really depends on your use of the lens.  the tests of the 24-70 f4 vs 24-105 are not compelling.  the extra reach of the 24-105 is useful even though it's soft at the long end.  symmetrical performance is an issue with all these lenses and they really need to thoroughly tested if you wand good resolution at both edges - significant of lens-lens variation.
Logged
Bryan Conner
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 521


WWW
« Reply #9 on: October 01, 2013, 11:43:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Allen.

My suggestion would be to hire each lens in turn and put it through its paces.
Give each a good workout according to how you shoot and what you think each lens should do for you.
Ultimately things like bokeh are somewhat subjective.
I think doing your own testing would be the way to go.

Tony Jay

I agree with Tony.  Rent or borrow these lenses for a day or so at least and see for yourself.  I have not used the Canon lenses, but I have rented the Sigma.  I was very pleased with it's performance on my Canon 7d.  But, I did not see enough of a difference to replace my Tamron 28-75.  I actually liked the color rendition of my Tamron a bit more than the Sigma.  Sharpness was relatively equal.  Keep in mind, I am shooting a crop camera and was not doing proper scientific testing other than using a tripod, live view while connected to a tablet to focus manually and cable release.  The build quality and focus speed of the Sigma is definitely better than my Tamron.  But, you need to experience each for yourself and determine what is the best choice for you to use on your camera in the way that you shoot. 
Logged

Alan Matuka
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 54



WWW
« Reply #10 on: October 02, 2013, 03:21:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for you replies  Smiley

@ Tony
you're right, best thing would be parallel test - the only way to really see what certain lens can do for you :-)

@ k bennett
very interesting, you have both versions of Canon 24 - 70... that means you have f 2.8 L II USM and one other I don't know. I would presume that L lens gives best performance in terms of clarity, contrast and definition. Also, I would guess that 24 - 70 would perform better than 24 - 105 because of the zoom ratio - but may be wrong about it.

@ JeanMichel
thanks for the info, mustache distortion would be a problem sometimes - although Camera Raw can probably fix it ( or not, as the case might be )...

@ Bryan Conner
build quality is definitely a factor ( although I am very, maybe even too careful when handling my equipment ). thank you
Logged

k bennett
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1478


WWW
« Reply #11 on: October 02, 2013, 07:01:24 AM »
ReplyReply


very interesting, you have both versions of Canon 24 - 70... that means you have f 2.8 L II USM and one other I don't know. I would presume that L lens gives best performance in terms of clarity, contrast and definition. Also, I would guess that 24 - 70 would perform better than 24 - 105 because of the zoom ratio - but may be wrong about it.


Alan, yes, I have the version II and also the Version I of the 24-70/2.8. Note that the 24-105/4 is also an "L" lens. All of them perform quite well for zoom lenses, and the latest 24/70 version II is equal to a lot of primes that I've used. The original 24-70/2.8 is a decent lens, but it was definitely due for an upgrade. The new one is substantially better.

The latest 24-70 does perform better than the 24-105, though that may have more to do with advances in design than the zoom range. Also, the 24-105 totally outperforms the others from 71-105mm Smiley
Logged

Equipment: a camera and some lenses.
carl dw
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 68


« Reply #12 on: October 02, 2013, 08:33:46 AM »
ReplyReply


Alan, yes, I have the version II and also the Version I of the 24-70/2.8. Note that the 24-105/4 is also an "L" lens. All of them perform quite well for zoom lenses, and the latest 24/70 version II is equal to a lot of primes that I've used. The original 24-70/2.8 is a decent lens, but it was definitely due for an upgrade. The new one is substantially better.

The latest 24-70 does perform better than the 24-105, though that may have more to do with advances in design than the zoom range. Also, the 24-105 totally outperforms the others from 71-105mm Smiley

I can second this.  I bought the 24-70 vII  a week ago to replace my vI.  Besides sharpness wide open, colour and contrast are also nicer.  I loaned one to see if the price justified the cost; in the UK right now Canon are offering 200 cash-back so that reduced the pain.... slightly.  No regrets.
Logged
Alan Matuka
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 54



WWW
« Reply #13 on: October 03, 2013, 05:29:33 AM »
ReplyReply

@ k bennett and carl dw

thanks for your help - it seems that 24 - 70 v. II is the way to go...
I've seen Canon UK current prices, it costs around 1600 quid... I guess I'll just have to bite the bullet  Roll Eyes
Logged

francois
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6954


« Reply #14 on: October 03, 2013, 07:18:42 AM »
ReplyReply

I can second this.  I bought the 24-70 vII  a week ago to replace my vI.  Besides sharpness wide open, colour and contrast are also nicer.  I loaned one to see if the price justified the cost; in the UK right now Canon are offering 200 cash-back so that reduced the pain.... slightly.  No regrets.

And I third this comment. The 24-70 f/2.8 II is really a superb performer. I've been using it for a quite a while and I don't regret selling the original 24-70 f/2.8 (although it was a good lens).
Logged

Francois
barryfitzgerald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 608


« Reply #15 on: October 03, 2013, 02:50:19 PM »
ReplyReply


Alan, yes, I have the version II and also the Version I of the 24-70/2.8. Note that the 24-105/4 is also an "L" lens. All of them perform quite well for zoom lenses, and the latest 24/70 version II is equal to a lot of primes that I've used. The original 24-70/2.8 is a decent lens, but it was definitely due for an upgrade. The new one is substantially better.

The latest 24-70 does perform better than the 24-105, though that may have more to do with advances in design than the zoom range. Also, the 24-105 totally outperforms the others from 71-105mm Smiley

I won't disagree with you, but I'm not convinced about the longevity of the 24-105mm myself. It's an attractive lens (with decent, though not outstanding optics) price wise it pulls people in. Until you get hit with the Error 1 problem, and out of the 6 people I know using this lens day to day (I've used it but only from time to time) 4 of them have had problems.

I think Canon have some QC problems here, that's far too high a number to let that slip. And all of them have had the lens only a few years before problems start. So I'd add the cost of the repair to the purchase price of that lens..it's not a lens I can recommend being honest due to this problem.

Logged
k bennett
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1478


WWW
« Reply #16 on: October 03, 2013, 03:57:37 PM »
ReplyReply

I'd never heard of this problem. Had the lens for several years now. Not disagreeing with you, either, just hadn't seen it.
Logged

Equipment: a camera and some lenses.
DaveCurtis
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 460


WWW
« Reply #17 on: October 04, 2013, 09:30:30 PM »
ReplyReply

You will not find a better zoom performer than the new 24-70 f/2.8 II.

Personally if I'm using a zoom I use the 24-105mm for versatility.
Logged

nemophoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 508



WWW
« Reply #18 on: October 18, 2013, 08:27:29 PM »
ReplyReply

I have the 24-70/2.8 Mark I. Generally a very good lens used carefully. I never cared for the Canon 24-105, though I used it a number of times, borrowed from CPS. For me, I found it a bit soft, slow focusing and flared easily. I used the new Canon 24-70/4 and found generally a nice lens to use, fast focusing and have had thoughts of replacing my older 24-70 with that lens. For almost any lens, I still adhere to the age old wisdom that you'll find almost every lens is best 1-2 stops from max aperture. Some of my "L" lens break that, but on most it still holds true, so keep that in mind for your shooting.

Finally, the possible deal breaker. Sigma just announced a new 24-105/4 with image stabilization. VERY interesting. They have made tremendous inroads lately with lens quality. Their new 35mm is considered one of the best 35mm prime lenses on the market today. You might want to wait a tad longer and see what this lens brings to the table.

Nemo
Logged

BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8365



WWW
« Reply #19 on: October 18, 2013, 08:38:04 PM »
ReplyReply

The Tamron 24-70f2.8 is probably not quite as good as the Canon II, but it is excellent in absolute terms, features IS and is much cheaper.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad