Jump to content

Canon 24-70 mm 2.8 vs. Canon 24-105 mm 4.0


jen_demaro

Recommended Posts

<p>Hello!<br />I cannot decide between Canon 24-70 mm 2.8 vs. Canon 24-105 mm 4.0. I am a wedding/portrait photographer. Right now I have a 50d camera. So I like the wider angle of the 24-105. But at the same time I like the 2.8 f/stop vs. the 4.0 f/stop. Anyone have either of these or another suggestion? I need to decide soon!<br>

Also- once I upgrade to the full body camera-would you still suggest the same lens? Thanks so much!</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I'm a Canon L snob for the most part... that and Zeiss... but I'll break down and admit there is something else to consider in your quest.<br /> But first... my ranking in order of Good/Better/Best in reverse... sort of.<br /> Best.. but most expensive... 24-70 2.8L II. End of story. Let's assume you aren't going to spend that kind of money.<br /> Better: Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC or Canon 24-70 2.8L I<br /> Good: Canon 24-105mm or 24-70 f4 IS.<br /> There are your choices in a nutshell.<br /> The good news... they are all very good and will get the job done.<br /> Read through Roger's recent articles here on some of these lenses.<br /> http://www.lensrentals.com/for-canon<br /> Richard<br /> Oh.. and my bias: I have the 24-70 2.8L I.<br>

And they will all work just as well or better on a FF camera.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>This is my first time posting in a thread. So I wasn't sure which section to post in. I didn't expect people to respond so quickly! Also I didn't know how to delete my first thread. Just looking for some<strong> </strong>friendly help. </p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I am a huge fan of the EF 24-105mm IS lens. As a general walk-around lens, it is in my opinion the best solution ever done in the Canon lineup. Despite the necessary compromises made by any of these longer range zoom lenses (including, I am sure, the 24-70), it has clarity and the f/4 + IS is astonishingly useful for low light shooting. When I have wanted to travel light, this is the one lens to take. Any barrel distortion problem where it becomes noticeable is easily correctable in post.<br>

I am no wedding photographer, however; but from what I know in abstract, I would think that the 24-70mm f/2.8 might be better for that specialized kind of shooting, in which I would suppose flash to be commonly used as well.<br>

If you were not going to "full-frame" (a.k.a., FX, 35mm sensor), however, I'd frankly suggest that you consider the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens instead. The 24-something lenses seem to be wide enough for many people on an APS-C body, but I know it wouldn't be for me.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I'd suggest to get the 24-105. It's quality is a bit behind, it's close focus (macro capability) is not as good, but it's modest amount more range on telephoto end and Image Stabilzation make it the better all-'round lens, IMHO. When "bundled" with a camera it's very reasonably priced.</p>

<p>Also, F2.8 vs F4.0 is one stop. Not insignificant, but F2.8 is not going to miraculously improve your motion stopping in low light.</p>

<p>I have both the 24-105, and first gen 24-70, fwiw.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>There was a time when life was simple and the question was Canon 24-70 2.8 vs Canon 24-105 IS 4.0.<br>

Now it's: Canon 24-70 2.8 vs Canon 24-105 IS 4.0 vs Canon 24-70 IS 4.0 vs Tamron 24-70 VC 2.8</p>

<p>This blog entry by Roger Cigala may be worth a look:<br>

<a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/canon-24-70-f4-is-resolution-tests">http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/canon-24-70-f4-is-resolution-tests</a></p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Bridget,<br>

The real decision here is whether you are going to stay with the APS-C body(s) or move to a full frame body. If you are going to stay with the APS-C body then you would be much better off with something in the 17-50/55mm range that translates to approx. 28-85mm with the 1.6 factor. The Tamron 17-50mm non VC is a great bargain in this range with excellent image quality for the price. I personally use the Canon EF-S 17-55mm 2.8 and think it is so good it is a good reason to stay with the APS-C body along with the outstanding 10-22mm. However when I take out my 5D Mark II then I use the 24-105mm IS L lens. So to me you asked the wrong question and got some mistaken answers. Good luck!</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Bridget,<br>

The real decision here is whether you are going to stay with the APS-C body(s) or move to a full frame body. If you are going to stay with the APS-C body then you would be much better off with something in the 17-50/55mm range that translates to approx. 28-85mm with the 1.6 factor. The Tamron 17-50mm non VC is a great bargain in this range with excellent image quality for the price. I personally use the Canon EF-S 17-55mm 2.8 and think it is so good it is a good reason to stay with the APS-C body along with the outstanding 10-22mm. However when I take out my 5D Mark II then I use the 24-105mm IS L lens. So to me you asked the wrong question and got some mistaken answers. Good luck!</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Bridget,<br>

The real decision here is whether you are going to stay with the APS-C body(s) or move to a full frame body. If you are going to stay with the APS-C body then you would be much better off with something in the 17-50/55mm range that translates to approx. 28-85mm with the 1.6 factor. The Tamron 17-50mm non VC is a great bargain in this range with excellent image quality for the price. I personally use the Canon EF-S 17-55mm 2.8 and think it is so good it is a good reason to stay with the APS-C body along with the outstanding 10-22mm. However when I take out my 5D Mark II then I use the 24-105mm IS L lens. So to me you asked the wrong question and got some mistaken answers. Good luck!</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I started off with the 24-105 lens, have used one for over 6 years, love the lens. Something like 70-80% of my photos are taken with that.</p>

<p>When 24-70 f2.8 USM II came out, I read the reviews, saw the testing data and decided to switch. </p>

<p>On the plus side</p>

<ul>

<li>I can really see an improvement in the sharpness with the 24-70</li>

</ul>

<p>On the down side</p>

<ul>

<li>I miss the IS</li>

<li>I <em><strong>REALLY</strong></em> miss the extra zoom that the 24-105 provides</li>

</ul>

<p>Bottom line - If Canon comes out with a new 24-105 II with IS and it comes close to the 24-70 II, I switch over</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>I cannot decide between Canon 24-70 mm 2.8 vs. Canon 24-105 mm 4.0. <strong><em>I am a wedding/portrait photographer.</em></strong> Right now <strong><em>I have a 50d camera.</em></strong> So I like the wider angle of the 24-105. But at the same time I like the 2.8 f/stop vs. the 4.0 f/stop. <strong><em>Anyone have either of these or another suggestion?</em></strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have both those L Series Lenses.<br />I have covered about 1500 Weddings; numerous and various Portrait Sittings and continue now to make Portrait Photographs.</p>

<p>For use (exclusively) on a 50D for “Wedding and Portraits” I would buy the EF-S 17 to 55F/2.8 IS USM.</p>

<p>To answer your question directly and as all encompassing answer for various factors that a W&P Photograher would (usually) consider: the 24 to 70/2.8 is a "better" W&P lens than the 24 to 105/4 IS.</p>

<p>***</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Also- once I upgrade to the full body camera-would you still suggest the same lens?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, I would not.<br />My suggestion of what lens for a ‘full body camera’ would be predicated upon whether you keep the 50D or not and also what other lenses you have presently and also what the final kit is, that you intend to build.<br />So:<br />What other Lenses do you have?<br />What other Cameras do you have?<br />What is the general vision of the Final Kit you think you will need for Weddings and Portraits – and the reasons for each inclusion therein?</p>

<p>***</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I would rather buy the better lens right away because I will just want to upgrade again right after.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The ‘better lens’ is dependent upon many matters – perhaps one most defining element is the camera on which it is to be used - so if you intend to use this new lens purchase as the main working lens on a 50D for "Wedding and Portraits" - then my advice is to get the "better lens" for the 50D.<br />Notwithstanding that - my advice apropos no single lens purchase standing alone is most relevant - so you must consider the WHOLE KIT and how it will work together.<br />Also, gleaned from the post is an easy assumption that you have ONLY a 50D at the moment - that would be dabbling close to professional suicide to take on Wedding coverage with only one camera body.</p>

<p>WW</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bridget, to properly answer your question I would like to know more about your reasoning behind buying a new lens,

what's wrong with your current lens that you want to improve with this new one?

 

I'm not a full-time pro, but still shoot several weddings every year, and there are opposite needs when covering a

wedding. First we have dark churches where one isn't allowed to use flash and also the photographer can't be close to

the couple, then there is the need for a fast telephoto, but then there is also the need to have both the bride and the

groom in focus when shooting from the sides, which calls for a smaller aperture (for me can be up to f/8 when using a

50mm or larger focal lenght with an APS-C format camera), so there is no point in having the fastest glass if you can't use

it wide open. My point is, if you could share your reason to buy one of these lenses, we could better help you deciding if

you actually need one of these, or if you would be better served changing your camera (for example, a 5D Mk II with a 24-

105mm kit is such a good saving that people actually buy it and sells the lens to keep the camera), or even just improving

your technique (as when needing a better lens to improve sharpness in the processional, while this could be solved with

proper technique, like zone focusing).

 

Also, as William W already said, it is quite important to have two complete camera kits when charging for wedding

photography, so you need to consider your camera-lens kit as a part of a system that won't let you down just before the

father walks his daughter down the aisle, or at the first kiss. Just do a search here for Error 99 to see how likely is for a

camera to stop working at the worst time (I had my share of those when my main camera was a 20D, but luckily always

had a backup to just forget about the problem and keep going).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>"So I like the wider angle of the 24-105. But at the same time I like the 2.8 f/stop vs. the 4.0 f/stop. Anyone have either of these or another suggestion? I need to decide soon!"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>(I'm guessing that by "wider angle," you may actually have meant "larger focal length range" or "greater reach" - since both have nominally the same wide angle coverage.)<br>

<br>

In a nutshell, you have identified the difficulty of choosing between two very good and very attractive lenses that come with different strengths and weaknesses relative to one another. It is probably good to hear what people might say about their personal perspectives on the relative value of these things, but in the end you have to make the call. Virtually all lens decisions involve compromise, since no lens is perfect at all things - and that is certainly try here. <br>

<br>

Here are some ways to think about this, though YMMV:</p>

<ul>

<li>In terms of low light shooting, the f/2.8 aperture provides a bit more (one stop, to be precise) ability to deal with <em>moving subjects in low light</em> by shooting at f/2.8 instead of f/4.</li>

<li>On the other hand, the IS feature of the 24-105 extends the ability to shoot in low light by several stops <em>when camera stability</em> is the issue. </li>

<li>When it comes to having more control over DOF, having a slightly larger maximum aperture can narrow DOF just a bit. It is my impression that the quality of the out of focus elements will be a bit nicer with the 24-105, mainly because the OOF is not quite astonishing with the 24-105 in most cases.</li>

<li>On the other hand, if you <em>really </em>want nice bokeh, you can augment the 24-105 with one or more very large aperture primes and do even better than the 24-70.</li>

<li>If you use electronic flash the larger aperture may not be so important and, in fact, the larger range of focal lengths might easily be more appealing.</li>

<li>A lot is made of the image quality differences among the three 24-whatever L zoom lenses. They do not have the same performance, for sure - but all are really fine performers. This is again about compromises - while one might be "sharper," that difference might well be less important that something else, such as macro ability or a larger focal length range or the addition of IS.</li>

</ul>

<p>Good luck with your decision.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I babbled the following in a previous message, and it obviously makes no sense at all:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"It is my impression that the quality of the out of focus elements will be a bit nicer with the 24-105, mainly because the OOF is not quite astonishing with the 24-105 in most cases."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If I had been a bit more careful I would have correctly started that sentence by referring to the 24-70 lens: <em>"It is my impression that the quality of the out of focus elements will be a bit nicer <strong>with the 24-70</strong>..."</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

Sorry!</p>

<p>Dan</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I've had the 24-70/2.8 L II for several months now, and I couldn't be happier with it. I've had both the 24-70 I and the 24-105, and was never entirely pleased with either. I found the low light images I took with the 24-105 to be flat and lifeless, and the 24-70 wasn't as sharp as it should have been. The new 24-70 redresses both of these problems, and more. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I have both the 24-70 f/2.8 II and the 24-105 f/4 IS... and sometimes one is the better choice and sometimes the other is. There is no ephemeral magic to either lens - both are tools and very good ones. And no, I do <em>not</em> recommend getting both! My situation is a bit unusual, or I would also have one or the other.)</p>

<p>Dan</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p> I've had both the 24-70 I and the 24-105, and was never entirely pleased with either. I found the low light images I took with the 24-105 to be flat and lifeless, and the 24-70 wasn't as sharp as it should have been. The new 24-70 redresses both of these problems, and more. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My feelings as well but I got a 24-105 very cheap so for the money its a great lens. I use a lot of primes but I may one day get a 24-70 2.8II. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...