L Lenses: 24-70 2.8 Vs. 24-105 4.0 IS

[roger_li2]

First off, thanks to all for their valuable replies to my previous posting

re. "30D + 17-85 USM Vs. Rebel + 24-70 L". Still haven't selected a body,

but, a new question: given that the 2 L lenses referenced above are about the

same price, how is the trade off between 35 more mm's of focal length vs. the

loss of an f-stop? At the heart of the question is does the IS work, and what

type of results does it produce? artificial? odd? etc. Again, coming from the

summilux, summicron world, these features make me a bit wary, but willing to

be convinced. Thanks again.

[alton]

I just bought the 24-105. I will enjoy the extra reach. It replaced a 17-85 and I was happy to have the IS. Part of my job is to sometimes photograph from a bouncing airplane, so IS is a must. When I traveled with the 17-85 it had enough reach for business--reporting for a consumer magazine and mostly writing--but when I had a few hours to myself and tried nature photography the 85 wasn't enough. I only put the 20D body and 17-85 in the suitcase, keeping it light because I carry on. Hope that helps.

[KenPapai]

I.S. on a slower lens can never make up for a faster lens without I.S. And yes, of course, Canon's IS system works well.

 

However, the 4L I.S. lens is always lauded here as an excellent lens; and just as surely is the 24-70. I love the 24-70 and never for a moment (ein Augenblick!) wish I had a 4L I.S. instead.

[PuppyDigs]

IS is absolutely kickass and works as advertised. If you mainly shoot stationary or slow

moving subjects it extends hand holdability about 3 stops. The result is a

sharp picture although you may be able to make it spaz on ya if you lock it down on a stable

tripod. Of course it does nothing for fast moving objects.

 

IS is pretty old school--been around since 1995--so it's stood the test of time and keeps

improving. See for yourself: mount up a 24-105 IS at you fav store and bang off a few frames

2-4 stops below normal hand hold speeds.

[gaetano catelli]

"IS is absolutely kickass and works as advertised. If you mainly shoot stationary or slow moving subjects it extends hand holdability about 3 stops."

 

if so, it would imply that an f4.0 IS lens would have the same

handhold-ability of a non-IS f1.4. is there a consensus on this?

[sattler123]

I shoot landscapes with the 24-105 and I love the IS - it allows small apertures while still hand-holding the camera. i can get great DOF with this lens without a tripod. This lens is extremely sharp and the results rival some of my 4x5 negatives - I would have never thought this to be possible. I use it on a 5D.

[john_r._fulton_jr.]

I just "helped" my brother buy a 5D. (I love to help other people spend their money). Anyway,

he and I were both a bit stuck between the two mentioned lenses. I think you can argue both

ways. My honest opinion is that 70mm lens on full frame is just not very long. It feels like a

long 50mm (to me). My brother ended up with the 24-105. I think he's going to be fine with

it. Between the two, I'm not sure there's really a "wrong" decision. Me? I have a half dozen "L"

lenses, but neither of the above. Good luck with your decision Roger.

[iori]

There is nothing artificial or odd about images taken with an IS lens; i.e., you could not tell whether an image was taken with an IS lens, other than that it will be sharper at lower shutter speeds than the same image taken with the IS off. It is one of those technologies that must be seen to be believed. As another poster recommended, go to a camera store, and take some images with the IS switch in both "on" and "off" positions at 1/15 of a second. It will make you a believer very quick. Be forewarned however, as you will next be lusting after the 70-200L 2.8IS.

 

Whether to choose the 2.8 or the 4IS will probably depend on how you intend to use the lens. The prevailing view seems to be that the 2.8 is a must have for low-light conditions, and the 4IS is the better travel lens. I took the 4IS because I value the extended reach and IS for family and travel photos, and with a digital body, film speed can be readily adjusted for light conditions, negating some of the faster lens' advantages.

[grant g]

"if so, it would imply that an f4.0 IS lens would have the same handhold-ability of a non-IS f1.4. is there a consensus on this?"

 

Nope. On any internet forum, there can be no concensus on this issue.

 

Actually, I think this f/4IS is MORE hand holdable than a non-IS f/1.4. Why? In low light, I can still stop down on the IS lens...with the f/1.4, your're pretty much stuck there or a click or two down, tops.

[brent chadwell]

This question is fighting for the crown of "most asked question on Pnet." It now has a slight lead over "which telephoto lens should I get" and "which camera bag should I get." People, please use the search function first. It even tells you that before you post. This question has been asked a hundred times, and answered 1,000 different ways. SEARCH first.

[KenPapai]

I agree Brent.

 

So many (too many) people are not even aware of what a Faster lens even MEANS. All they focus on is the I.S. without even (likely) knowing what a fast lens MEANS with Canon EOS. No wonder Canon sell so many IS lenses!

[iori]

Brent: For someone so new to pnet who has yet to contribute monetarily to the site's operational coffers, your inpatience is remarkable. Cut Roger a little slack. If you don't want to be outraged by yet another "redundant" post, no one is making you open the thread. The vast majority of posts here have been on topics that have been asked at one time or other. Does that mean everyone should just stop posting? The 24-105 lens has been out for several months now, and it's always good to see how users feel now after some extended period of use.

[gaetano catelli]

i agree, Iori. many of us considering whether to buy an item in the near future want to know the latest feedback.

[gdanmitchell]

IS works and the 24-105 is a very sharp lens. In many situations the IS will more than make

up for the loss of one stop of aperture. I don't think there is anything "artificial or odd" about

IS.

 

Of course, if you are mainly shooting active subjects IS will not do you much good.

[gdanmitchell]

I just thought of another way to sort of quantify the effect of IS. (I thought of this while

reading an erroneous comment that IS "never" makes up for larger apertures.)

 

IS effectively makes up for your inability to hand hold the camera a low shutter speeds. In

other words, I reduces the effect of camera shake by the equivalent of about 3 stops. If

you can normally hand hold, say, at 1/100 second, IS might let you hand hold at 1/12

second. If you are shooting subjects that are not moving much this is very significant.

 

However, IS has no effect on blur caused by moving subjects. If subject motion is such that

you need, say, a 1/200 second shutter speed to get a sharp image without motion blur,

you will still need a 1/200 shutter speed with IS. Here a larger aperture may prove more

useful, though it will only gain you one stop with the two lenses you are comparing here.

 

So, if you frequently work with moving subjects AND AT THE MINIMUM USABLE SHUTTER

SPEED you might find the extra stop of the f/2.8 lens useful. On the other hand, if you are

interested in being able to HAND HOLD YOUR CAMERA AT SLOW SHUTTER SPEEDS IN LOW

LIGHT, then IS will be useful.

 

There is no one absolute right answer to the question, "Which is better, IS or a larger

aperture?" It comes down to which meets your needs most effectively.

 

Dan

[iori]

>>Of course, if you are mainly shooting active subjects IS will not do you much good.

 

Unless one is using the 70-200IS in handheld panning mode. The IS makes this my favorite motorsports lens.

[dogbert]

I have a slightly different take on IS. Yes it works, but it is not something you can necessarily trust 100 per cent of the time and sometimes it work better than expected sometimes worse.

 

If you want to be certain of having critically sharp work you still need a tripod, but IS very significanlty improves the chances of getting keepers 1-2 stops below the 1/focal length shutter speeds.

[delwyn_ching]

24-70 f/2.8 is an excellent lens, especially for low light work. The 24-105 f/4 IS is an excellent lens also, one that I use as my travel lens for the reach and hand holdability at the long eng. I use both and each has it's place. It just depends on your needs.

[digitmstr]

As noted many, many times on this forum:

 

IS = great for STILL subjects.

 

Fast lens = great for ALL subjects.

 

I opted for the 24-70L because I mostly shoot candids (i. e. people moving about, like my children for example) and IS won't help stopping motion blur.

 

In the pase, I enjoyed IS when I had the 28-135 but, other than occasionally "playing" with it I never really had a serious need for it. NOw, I am thinking I could use a good, *fast* IS lens so, I have ordered the 70-200 f/2.8L IS to replace the f/4 which I have recently sold. Of course, in my case I am going to a FASTER lens with IS so, I gain both ways and I will use that lens for portraits mostly. People can usually pose still for a fraction of a second...

[pjmeade]

Hello Roger, I've got the 24-105 to go on my 20D. I've been delighted with the results I've had, including some portraiture.

 

For general photography it's an excellent lens. As the others have said, if your subjects are going to be moving in low light, f2.8 would be advantageous, but f4 is quite capable of producing excellent results in low light conditions too.

 

This photo was taken (with my 70-200/f4) handheld in the deepest gloom, at f4: -

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/3726568

 

Once you have the camera body, see if you try out both lenses.

 

Best wishes. Pete

[mark u]

I'm puzzled by the focus of posts on the effectiveness of IS to the detriment of discussing the optical quality of these choices. Most of what I have seen suggests that the 24-105 makes a better 35-70 f/4 than the 24-70. For 24-35, and the extra stop (still 1-2 stops less than summilux and summicron, and 2-3 stops less on a 30D in terms of DoF isolation of a subject because of the crop factor), the 24-70 wins. The 24-105 is also not quite so stellar at its long end as in its midrange.

[berley]

Both are excellent lenses - that's what makes the decision so tough.

<p>I went with the 105 because I wanted the extra range and felt I could give up the f/stop, given my style of shooting. </p>

<p>Note that while IS doesn't help you with moving subjects, it is great to have. Also using a camera like the 20d which has very good high ISO performance does help ease the lack of f/2.8 in those rare situations when I'm jonesing for the faster glass.</p>

<p>It really comes down to your shooting style - which will you use more? If you're not sure, maybe you're not ready to drop $1200 on a lens.</p>

<p>Here are four examples taken with the 24-105/4L in Vietnam.</p>

<p><a href="http://pix.berley.com/gallery/1160098/1/54209555" target="_blank">http://pix.berley.com/gallery/1160098/1/54209555</a></p>

<p><a href="http://pix.berley.com/gallery/1160098/3/54215676" target="_blank">http://pix.berley.com/gallery/1160098/3/54215676</a></p>

<p><a href="http://pix.berley.com/gallery/1160098/1/54204724" target="_blank">http://pix.berley.com/gallery/1160098/1/54204724</a></p>

<p><a href="http://pix.berley.com/gallery/1160098/3/54216163" target="_blank">http://pix.berley.com/gallery/1160098/3/54216163</a>   (shot at ISO 3200)</p>

[james_symington1]

They are both great lenses and the image quality from them is comparable. The 24-105mm needs to be used at f8 to get around the vignetting which will be evident only against plain backgrounds. The IS works like a dream. I've just spent the last month going around the South Pacific and Chile with just this lens on a 5D - along with a heavy pile of Hasselblads - and the results sparkle.

 

If you need fast lenses don't fall into the trap of thinking that f2.8 is the answer like some people on this forum would have you believe. If you need a good wide angle lens the 24mm f1.4 L beats the hell out of both of the zooms you mention - it's obviously faster should you want to use it wide open and once stopped down it is pin sharp all the way into the corners and the two zooms certainly are not. Same goes for the 35mm f1.4 L which is your classic Summilux equivalent.

 

Really depends on what and how you photograph of course. To my mind the only real advantage the 24-70mm confers over the 24-105mm is slightly shallower DOF if that's the kind of thing you need. But it's a heavy lens to lug about on a hike and doesn't have the reach of the other lens. You have to decide what's important to you really.

[ken munn]

Call me old-fashioned, but to call a f2.8 lens 'fast' seems to be overegging the pudding.

[james_symington1]

Isn't that what I said Ken?