Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Canon 24-70mm f2.8 vs. Canon 24-105mm f4.0  (Read 6893 times)
maggieddd
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 36


« on: December 24, 2005, 08:55:56 AM »
ReplyReply

I currently own Canon 24-70mm f2.8 and I think it is a great lens. What I don't like is the bulkiness of it and it's weight. I am considering exchanging that lens for Canon 24-105mm f4.0. What are your thoughts on that. I don't use a tripod that often. What will I be sacrificing with the new lens?

Thank you
Maggie
Logged
francois
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6733


« Reply #1 on: December 24, 2005, 11:02:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Maggie,
Have you read the reviews on this site? My personal experience is limited as I broke my 24-70 f/2.8 last week and have a 24-105 f/4 IS until my lens returns. So far I can say that it is light compared to the f/2.8 lens. The stabilizer is very quiet and is effective in low-light situation. I find that the zoom and focusing rings are not as smooth as my 24-70 but it is a brand new lens and I expect that it will loose it "tightness". The lens hood is smaller and not as clever as the one from the 24-70.  It moves as you zoom whereas on the 24-70 it stays in the same place. As others, I've noticed that there's distortion when use in the wide-angle range, at least on a full frame camera. On my other body (1DMk2), it's not as severe. You'll have to see if you find it objectionable or not for your use.
Auto-focus is fast although I feel it's not as fast in low-light as my 24-70, but it's more of an impression than real facts as I can't do side-by-side comparison. I like it but I'll keep my 24-70 if it is correctly repaired.
Others may have a different opinion but I think it's a more do-it-all lens than the 24-70. In your case, I don't think you'll regret the 24-70.
Logged

Francois
boku
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1493



WWW
« Reply #2 on: December 24, 2005, 01:34:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The lens hood is smaller and not as clever as the one from the 24-70.  It moves as you zoom whereas on the 24-70 it stays in the same place. As others, I've noticed that there's distortion when use in the wide-angle range, at least on a full frame camera.

Ditto on both of those points. I had a 24-105 and returned it for a 24-70. I compared them on a 5D full frame.
- the flare issue before the recall, for me, was absurd.
- the wide distortion was even more absurd (the 24-70 is far better)
- the 24-70 lens hood arrangement is much more functional.

I don't miss the lightness and the IS feature because my "walk around rig" is a 20D with the EF-S 17-85 IS.
Logged

Bob Kulon

Oh, one more thing...
Play it Straight and Play it True, my Brother.
francois
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6733


« Reply #3 on: December 24, 2005, 02:20:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
.....
- the wide distortion was even more absurd (the 24-70 is far better)
- the 24-70 lens hood arrangement is much more functional.
.....[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=54277\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, that's precisely the main reasons why I keep my 24-70 f/2.8. Its size and weight doesn't bother me.
« Last Edit: December 24, 2005, 02:22:18 PM by francois » Logged

Francois
vciinc
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #4 on: December 24, 2005, 03:39:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Well, that's precisely the main reasons why I keep my 24-70 f/2.8. Its size and weight doesn't bother me.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=54279\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If you're interested, here are some samples.
www.pbase.com/vciinc/tests

Jerry
Logged
boku
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1493



WWW
« Reply #5 on: December 24, 2005, 05:04:24 PM »
ReplyReply

I think it's important to understand what I'm claiming...

This photo was taken with the 24-105 at 84mm on a 5D. 84mm!!!!

The leftside is as the camera recorded it from the scene, incredible pincushion distortion. The rightside has been corrected using PTLens with the defaults for this lens. Every other focal length this lens has has similar serious distortion of one type or another. My other lenses have no where near this amount of distortion.

Now you may say, so what? "I can just use PTLens." Sorry folks, for US $1200 that just doesn't cut it for me. This lens should not be flawed for that kind of money. I can accept distortion for under $500, but over a grand and I walk away.
[attachment=76:attachment]
« Last Edit: December 24, 2005, 05:09:18 PM by boku » Logged

Bob Kulon

Oh, one more thing...
Play it Straight and Play it True, my Brother.
francois
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6733


« Reply #6 on: December 25, 2005, 03:26:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
...
This photo was taken with the 24-105 at 84mm on a 5D. 84mm!!!!
...
Bob,
My very short experience mirrors yours! But I understand that for some users the lower weight and smaller size (compared to the 24-70f/2.Cool can swing the decision in favour of the 24-105.
Logged

Francois
boku
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1493



WWW
« Reply #7 on: December 26, 2005, 06:28:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Bud,

Sorry, I'm putting this response here because your LL mailbox is full.

I also started with the 28-135 IS on the 20D. I moved to the 17-85 for the same reason you are explaining (more suitable zoom range). I like it - I found that the range is more appropriately matched, the image quality seems at least as good and the lens doesn't have the same tendency to loosen up and have zoom creep when you point it downward.

Hope that helps,
Bob

Quote
Bob,

I saw your posting on the LL Forums. I have a Canon 1DsMkII and 20D. I own a bunch of "L" glass including the 24-70 f2.8 which I think is a great lens.

For my "walk-around" rig, I use the 20D with a Canon 28-135 IS. The lens is ok, but too long on the short end and not as sharp as I'd like.

I was curious what you thought about the EF-S 17-85 IS? Are you happy with the sharpness and contrast with this lens compared to the 24-70?

Thanks.
Bud James
North Wales, PA
Logged

Bob Kulon

Oh, one more thing...
Play it Straight and Play it True, my Brother.
raymondh
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


WWW
« Reply #8 on: December 26, 2005, 11:30:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Now you may say, so what? "I can just use PTLens." Sorry folks, for US $1200 that just doesn't cut it for me. This lens should not be flawed for that kind of money. I can accept distortion for under $500, but over a grand and I walk away.
[attachment=76:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=54281\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[/quote]


Not only that but PTLens doesn't completely fix the issue.  Take a close look at the lower left portion of the window frame, the left side of the "wall" right below the window, and the left side of the grafitti wall.

Not knocking your picture at all by the way, just trying to point out that software like PTLens are good for somethings but not for correcting every image shot with the lens...
Logged
JKSeidel
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 27


WWW
« Reply #9 on: December 26, 2005, 01:36:00 PM »
ReplyReply

I haven't had any problems with my 24-105mm L IS. Pincushioning hasn't been a problem and I haven't had any flare issues. I did make sure I waited before buying to read some detailed test reports, so I avoided the initial releases with the flare problem. I do mostly nature shots, so the hood hasn't been a factor as I mostly have it off so I can use a circular polarizer. The IS is particularly nice.

I don't use a 2 body setup, so weight was a factor for me over the 24-70mm along with my wanting something a bit longer than 70mm. I am avoiding the EF-S line of lenses, even though I own a 20D as I believe FF will be the future and APS-C sensors are going to be a dead-end before long (I'm betting two more iterations ... that equates to probably 4-5 years).

The 24-105mm IS has replaced my 28-135mm IS because it is a much better lens all around. L glass build, better IS (version 1.5 vs. version 3), and better optics.
Logged

Jeffrey

"Squirrels are just rats with better PR."
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6821


WWW
« Reply #10 on: December 26, 2005, 04:29:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Yes, the 24~105 is better than the 28~135 - you can read the results of several field tests on this website, including mine on that specific comparison (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/24vs28.shtml). Mine was done with one of the so-called defective batch. I shot over two thousand photos with it in China and had no flare, except on three pictures where the camera was pointing at the sun. No lens would survive thnose kind of photos without a but of flare that the clone stamp eliminated in a few secs. Anyhow, I brought the lens back to Canon, exchanged it for a new one, tested it, found it less sharp than my defective one and went straight back to Canon to get my "defective" one back, as it is the sharpest zoom lens I've ever used. The Canon folks were surprised and a bit hesitant, but they obliged. I'm glad I did it.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
maggieddd
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 36


« Reply #11 on: December 26, 2005, 05:59:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Yes, the 24~105 is better than the 28~135 - you can read the results of several field tests on this website, including mine on that specific comparison (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/24vs28.shtml). Mine was done with one of the so-called defective batch. I shot over two thousand photos with it in China and had no flare, except on three pictures where the camera was pointing at the sun. No lens would survive thnose kind of photos without a but of flare that the clone stamp eliminated in a few secs. Anyhow, I brought the lens back to Canon, exchanged it for a new one, tested it, found it less sharp than my defective one and went straight back to Canon to get my "defective" one back, as it is the sharpest zoom lens I've ever used. The Canon folks were surprised and a bit hesitant, but they obliged. I'm glad I did it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=54345\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks, but I am not interested in 28-135mm lens.
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6821


WWW
« Reply #12 on: December 26, 2005, 06:06:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Maggie, I was agreeing with JKSkeidel on that comparison - however, the stuff I referenced could also be somewhat relevant to your question evfenthough I do not have a direct comparison of the kind that interests you. It should also be of some general interest to confirm yet again that there can be noticeable quality differences between L lenses of the same type.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
maggieddd
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 36


« Reply #13 on: December 26, 2005, 06:07:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Maggie, I was agreeing with JKSkeidel on that comparison - however, the stuff I referenced could also be somewhat relevant to your question evfenthough I do not have a direct comparison of the kind that interests you. It should also be of some general interest to confirm yet again that there can be noticeable quality differences between L lenses of the same type.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=54353\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thank you MarkDS.  I do understand that there are differences.  I will chack out your comparison.  
Maggie
Logged
Seigmund
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #14 on: December 27, 2005, 12:38:29 AM »
ReplyReply

I inadvertently posted to the wrong topic.

Apologies,
Scott
« Last Edit: December 27, 2005, 12:48:21 AM by Seigmund » Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad