F2.8 24-70L or f 4.0 24-104 IS ?

<p>So I'm needing to replace my Sigma 24-70 lens, and I'm shooting on a 5D Mk ii. Went to the camera store and they were sold out of Canon Lseries 24-70, but the sales guy tried to push the 24-105 (f 4.0). He said that the image stabilisation was better than getting hte 2.8 24-70. What are your thoughts? I have a lot of weddings in dim-ish churches, I think being able to go to 2.8 is better than 4.0.... is hte IS really worth it on a 24-70 lens?<br>

I'd appreciate input and opinions, as I don't want to drop 1400 on a lens to regret not getting the other model...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have a lot of weddings in dim-ish churches, I think being able to go to 2.8 is better than 4.0....</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You said it for yourself!</p>

<p>Theres a reason they are sold out ;-) </p>

<p>In practicality, since you were shooting w/ a 24-70/2.8 already, you know if the lens was a good range for you, and if f2.8 was an appropriatemax ape. Since you were looking for the same thing, I'd expect you haven't found a strong desire for a slower, longer range lens.</p>

<p>I'd look over your portfolio and see how much of it is shot at f2.8 - f3.5. That range is not accesible on the 24-105/4. The IS is helpful, but wont help control your DOF, which is a critical aspect of portfolio grade work.</p>

<p>Well, the salesman is only partially right in sayong the stabilisation is "better" than 2.8. Stabilisation does add a couple of stops in terms of hand-hold-ability, however, it only adresses camera shake-not subject movement. Having one more F-stop is more beneficial when you're dealing with subjects that are moving about. F2.8 will also offer slightly better bokeh than the F4 counterpart, and it will be easier to see what you're looking at in the viewfinder with the wider aperture. Also, the wider aperture makes it easier for you camera to attain focus in dimly lit situations. So, to these ends I feel the 2.8 offers a better solution.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I have a lot of weddings in dim-ish churches"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If I were in your situation, I'd seriously consider some fast prime lenses instead of the zoom e.g. the 1.4 35mm, 1.4 50mm and the 1.8 85mm. You'd be able to blur your backgrounds much more and shoot in even less light.</p>

<p>The exposure advantage math is very simple: f2.8 gains you one stop over f4.0, the IS improves your hand held steadiness by at least 2, more likely 3 stops. OTOH, IS does not stop motion blur.</p>

<p>It is a tough call, that is why this question comes up ad nauseum. There are other pluses/minuses to the 2 lens to consider. One good comparison site is The Digital Picture.</p>

<p>I have both, and FWIW, I've been mainly using the 24-105 lately, just for walk-around. I know the trade-offs, just live with them.</p>

<p>I guess if Canon put IS on the 24-70 it would solve your dilemma, maybe ;)</p>

<p>I say this for the benefit of others who stumble upon this thread... Never let a salesman dictate what you need based on what he or she has <em>in stock</em>. A photographer and a salesperson have different objectives. Obviously, Carolyn knows this because she didn't buy the 24-105, which is a great lens but, from what I've read, not one well suited to her needs. </p>

<p>The extra stop provided by the 24-70 will probably benefit you more than the slightly better IS and longer reach of the 24-105. As Randall wrote, IS only compensates for camera movement, not subject movement. Being able to shoot one stop faster in dim light will be of more value than marginally better IS, IMO. With the added benefit of a brighter viewfinder, more attractive background blur, and slightly less weight in your wallet that might make you sluggish and fatigued.</p>

And isn't focusing a bit less accurate when not using faster lenses (f 2.8 or faster) with the central focusing point on

the body? If you have an assist beam from a flash it does not matter that much.

<p>For most purposes, I would go for the 24-105 - for this use, the extra stop might well be of more use.</p>

Everyone's needs are unique. I own the 24-105 f/4L and use it on my 5D mark II. I also own a Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8G which I use on my D700. Here are my impressions.

 

 

I find the 24-70 range to be frustratingly limited. The 24-105 gives me more compositional options in situations where shots evolve quickly.

 

 

The IS on the 24-105 works very well and increases sharpness even in unexpected circumstances.

 

 

The 24-105 exhibits a lot more distortion. It's easy to correct in Lightroom 3, but it's still a consideration, especially when framing shots tightly.

 

 

Sharpness is not a problem for either lens. Some of my Canon lenses are a bit sharper than the 24-105, but the difference has never been noticeable enough to make me think twice about using the 24-105. I consider it a sharp lens. It's just that some others are extremely sharp.

 

 

The extra stop is helpful at times, but in most cases I get more out of having IS and the extra range at my disposal.

 

 

AF is reasonably fast and accurate with both of these lenses, but of course I can't vouch for the Canon version of the 24-70.

<blockquote>

<p>The 24-105 exhibits a lot more distortion. It's easy to correct in Lightroom 3, but it's still a consideration, especially when framing shots tightly.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The wide end has a lot of barrel distortion and makes ocean horizons bow big time! Not nearly as apparent on humans or landscapes of rocks and mountains. The normal to tele range has much less distortion, so little I don't bother to correct. 24mm shouts correct me if left unattended...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm needing <strong><em>to replace my Sigma 24-70 lens [F/2.8],</em></strong> and I'm shooting on <strong><em>a 5D Mk ii [iSO 3200 capable]</em></strong>. . . .sold out of Canon L series 24-70, but the sales guy tried to push the 24-105 (f 4.0) . . . <strong><em>image stabilisation was better than getting hte 2.8 24-70.</em></strong> What are your thoughts? I have a lot of <strong><em>weddings in dim-ish churches</em></strong> . . .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>How “dim” is “dim-ish”?<br>

How often because of “dim-ish” do you need to pull F/2.8 with your Sigma?<br>

What other lenses do you have?<br>

How often do you (have you) needed 71 to 105?<br>

I don’t see shallow DoF a greatly important consideration in this choice, perhaps slightly relevant for a Full Length Portrait Shot, but as we frame tighter the difference between F/4 and F/2.8 is even less impactful for most work. For a Full Length Shot, if we want a really SHALLOW DoF, then a fast 50 or fast 85 would be a better alternative, anyway.<br>

I do see Subject Movement a more important consideration – and that gets back to – how “dim-ish” and what is your acceptable limit of ISO.<br>

I am not taking the Salesman’s side but I am pointing out that it is not a slam dunk 24 to 70F/2.8 answer, either – and I DO prioritize lens speed, but any lens purchase must take into account the whole kit and the 24 – 105 might have more advantages than the 24 to 70, for the loss of one aperture stop.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If I were in your situation, I'd seriously consider some fast prime lenses instead of the zoom e.g. the 1.4 35mm, 1.4 50mm and the 1.8 85mm. You'd be able to blur your backgrounds much more and shoot in even less light.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The 24-70 is a highly overrated lens, and the 24-105 is great as an outdoor walkabout zoom, but I wouldn't recommend it for low light work where IQ is critical. I'd take Martin's advice, and get a faster prime or two.</p>

<p>Wow thanks everyone for the advice! <br>

I have a canon 28-135, canon 70-300, canon 50mm 1.8 (wouldn't trust this one for a wedding, as its just plastic), sigma 2.8 24-70, and a canon fisheye 2.8 15mm<br>

I just went back through the past couple weddings I've shot and quite a few shots were at 2.8... I'm thinking I'm going to go with my gut, and get the 2.8 24-70l for my 5dmk2, and when I upgrade the second gun from a 40d to a 5dmk2, I'll probably get the 24-105 for my second shooter.</p>

<p>Thanks for detailing the rest of your kit.</p>

<p>Then considering the other lenses and for a “Dim-ish” Church, and choosing between the two Canon lenses you are thinking about, I too would opt for the 24 to 70 F/2.8.</p>

<p>But on another note that has been mentioned: specifically for someone who wrote <strong><em>“dim-ish” Churches</em></strong> (assuming you selling or dumping the Sigma 24 to 70), you don’t really have any real lens speed – as you don’t trust your 50/1.8.</p>

<p>Maybe you should rethink those folks’ advice, about a couple of Fast Primes, also..</p>

<p>WW </p>

<p>PS: What specifically is wrong with your 50/1.8?</p>

<p>It's hard to argue with the fast primes, particularly if you have a couple of bodies so that lens changes are not necessary (and you should certainly have back up bodies anyway).</p>

<p>If the choice is between the 24-70mm f2.8 and the 24-105mm f4 IS, then I would go for the 24-70mm without a second thought. The extra stop is indispensable where subject movement may be an issue, at 24mm the 24-105mm has horrendous vignetting (wide open) and serious distortion, also the AF is compromised in dim light by the one stop deficit.</p>

<p>My own 24-70mm is either an outstanding sample, or the lens is not over rated at all. I use it more than any other lens (at all apertures) and it is a consistently superb performer.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>If eBay is any barometer I am disturbed by the number of 24-105mm Canons up for sale at any one time. I know this isn't a scientific study or anything but does it mean there are a lot of people unhappy with this lens and are trying to sell them off?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I am disturbed by the number of 24-105mm Canons up for sale at any one time.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would guess that it's at least partially to do with the fact that the 24-105 is included as a kit lens. Many people who already had the 5D and wished to upgrade to the MkII were forced to by the buy the 5D MkII/24-105 kit because Canon (intentionally?) supplied so few body-only boxes when the camera was released and for some time after, leaving many with a duplicate lens.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>the 24-105mm has horrendous vignetting</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not true. That's a colorful and melodramatic <em>opinion</em>. One that I and many thousands of other satisfied 24-105 owners will disagree with vehemently.</p>

<p>I've shot a few people dancing at a wedding (I am not pro), with the 24-70. Still hopelessly too slow to stop motion. You're on a fools mission trying to solve existing light problems simply by going from f4.0 to f2.8. I'd suspect almost all pro-wedding photographers are using flash, at least for the bulk of shots.</p>

<p>I just went back through the past couple weddings I've shot and quite a few shots were at 2.8... I'm thinking I'm going to go with my gut, and get the 2.8 24-70l for my 5dmk2</p>

<p>As a few others pointed out, it may be that you want to go w/ something that has a little more to give WO. I've found that despite needing the zoom (24-70/2.8) A lot of the time, I love being able to pull out the primes... especially when the lighting is really bad! If you don't trust your 50/1.8 (which , despite it's diminutive size, and plastic feel, has proven more reliable than my EF 50/1.4s), I'd probably reccomend a set of fast, USM primes. for $1100-1200 you could get a 28/1.8 USM, a 50/1.4 USM, and an 85/1.8 USM, all of which are capable of collecting imagery that even a 24-70/2.8 ( LOL or a 24-105/4 of course) is completely incapable of. If you plan to continue shooting dual format, maybe mix that up a bit to maximize the 'dual length' nature of the primes... IDK ...something practical to think about.</p>

<p>Jeff - Point your 24-105mm at a white wall or flat cloudy sky at 24mm and at f4 (which I did specify and should have been included in the quote), the only way to describe the vignetting is horrendous. While this can be removed in post processing without too much trouble, it's not a step you can miss unless the image works OK with the effect.</p>

<p>@ William:<br>

"PS: What specifically is wrong with your 50/1.8?" Nothing wrong with it, I guess I just dont trust it to be 100% accurate, it is fairly new as well so I haven't played with it enough to have a working relationship with it so to speak ;)</p>

<p>Also - the comment about most pros using flash: this one wedding in particular, the minister has actually said no photos at all. I plan on shooting without a flash until she actually stops me.</p>

<p>Thanks for answering about the 50mm F/1.8.<br>

I appreciate your comment: "I haven't played with it enough to have a working relationship with it"<br>

Perhaps play with it a bit more: it is a nice lens: don’t let the focussing noise put you off. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"this one wedding in particular, the <em>minister has actually said <strong>no photos</strong></em><strong> at all. </strong><br>

<strong><em>I plan on shooting without a flash until she actually stops me</em></strong>."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I know you didn’t ask for advice on this - but it would be less than professional of me if I did not seriously caution you against that course of action.</p>

<p>WW</p>

 

<p>@ William W: I know.. the bride has requested it.. she figures she is requesting wedding photography, she should have photos of her ceremony. The church has ok'd video but supposedly not photos. Obviously I won't make scene, but I'm going to shoot as much as I can until I get the stank-eye-stop-shooting-in-my-church stare. I'm hoping if I'm not too obtrusive that that won't happen....</p>

<p>I say get another 24-70 2.8. I have the 24-105 4 and sometimes I wish I would have gotten the 24-70 2.8 for better bokeh.</p>