5D kit with 24 - 105 4.0L IS or 24 - 70 2.8L

[eric_thaler]

Who knows the difference in image quality between the 24 - 105 4.0L

IS or the 24 - 70 2.8L. The price difference between the 5D kit with

24 - 105 L IS USM and a 5D body with the 24 - 70 L is big. Is it

worth it? I like to take indoor pictures without flash - with

unprepared people. i.e. a restaurant. Quality for websites and max.

A3 printmedia is enough. On the other hand I have to take panoramas

ut to 360� for websites i.e.: http://www.gerlitzen.org . Thanks for

helping me to decide. Eric

[jim_larson1]

Big? You mean. . .about $100 cheaper with the 24-70/2.8L right?

 

When you are talking about $3800, what's $100 price difference?

 

Image quality: Geez. Owners of both lenses rave about them. The 24-70/2.8L is pretty darn good. As is the IS-4L. The IS-4L will vignette notably bit at 24mm. Some claim it is sharper in the mid range.

 

For ambient light shots of people. . .you want the 2.8. Shooting an image stabilized lens in this zoom range will result in blur due to subject movement.

 

For portraits. . .the 2.8 is on the slow side (and the 4.0 is molasses). For panoramas.. . . geez, I think you want the 17-40/4L.

 

For websites and A3 prints. . . you don't need a 5D or "L" glass. A 20D with a 24-85 is quite adequate ($1500 total)

[bellavance]

I don't think one should worry about quality differences between these two excellent lenses.

 

Worry about what you'll do with the lens, and the choice should be easier.

 

For me, I think I'll probably end up selling the 24-70/2.8L, because of 105mm and because of IS, but this is personal.

 

Pierre

[eric_thaler]

Hi Jim:

In Austria the they sell the 5D kit with 24 - 105 4.0L IS for 3.490 EUR incl. 20 % sales tax otherwise I've to spend 700 EUR more. ( body and lens separate ) Is it worth it? I thought of getting a 30D with the 17-40/4L, and save a lot of money, but hope to get a better photographer, and then ( hopefully ) don't have to switch to a non-crop camera. The 5D with 17-40/4L will need a 2nd lens to start with!? - at least for my private use. Eric.

[eric_thaler]

Hi Pierre:

Worry about ... > Do you mean like Jim that for my work and knowledge I better don't spend to much and go for the kit or a 30D? Eric

[gdanmitchell]

<p>Either of those lenses on that body will have more than enough "quality" to do web

photos and A3 prints.</p>

 

<p>A3 prints are not all that large and creating images for the web is even less

demanding in terms of lens quality and sensor size. If cost is a concern, you could easily

use a 30D/20D/350D for those purposes and you would almost certainly not notice any

difference. (That's a subtle way of saying that the 5D <i>might</i> be overkill for your

intended use.)</p>

 

<p>For indoor photos without flash I would consider at least one large aperture prime

lens. Depending upon your preferences, it could likely be one of the following: 28mm,

35mm, 50mm, 85mm.</p>

 

<p>In fact, given a maximum print size of A3 you might consider allocating your

budget a bit differently. For example:</p>

 

<ul>

<li>30D body (or even 20D or 350D at less cost).</li>

<li>24-70 f/2.8 or 24-105 f/4</li>

<li>16-35 f/2.8 or 17-40 f/4</li>

<li>50mm f/1.4 or 85mm f/1.8 or other prime(s)</li>

</ul>

[pete w]

Eric, both lenses are excellent however if non flash photography is your main goal I would

take the 24-70 2.8. I have both and there is no question in low light the 2.8 is a must.

Take Care, Pete

[david_shawe]

Eric, I replaced my 20D with the 5D in November and it was the best move I could have made. RAW images from the 5D are suberb and a class above those from the 20D - much less work needed in Photoshop. They seem to 'leap out' with clarity and colour - a bit like trannies. The full frame sensor was also a selling point as I do mostly landscape.

 

I already had a 24-70L but had a look at the 24-105. Not impressed! Light falloff at the corners is significant (as mentioned in so many reviews & often a problem with full frame digital) and barrel distortion is also an issue for a landscape photographer if you want to keep lines & horizons straight. I would go as far as to say I don't think Canon should be marketing the 5D/24-105 combination as a kit for these reasons, however sharp the lens may be. I'm sure it would be excellent on a 20D or 30D though.

 

Needless to say I have kept the 24-70 as my everyday lens as these issues are far less severe.

 

I hope this helps you. David

[m_barbu1]

<p><i>They seem to 'leap out' with clarity and colour - a bit like trannies.</i></p>Sorry; I don't get the reference -- would you please explain?

[._kaa]

<p><i>They seem to 'leap out' with clarity and colour - a bit like trannies.

<p>Sorry; I don't get the reference -- would you please explain?</i>

 

<p>LOL.

<p>Tranny = transvestite : wrong reference.

<p>Tranny = transparency (aka slide, aka color positive film) : right reference

[m_barbu1]

Ah! Thank you. Incidentally, I was thinking tranny like transmission. :)

[savas_kyprianides]

How about those who ride railroad for rapid transit?

[whwhitejr]

Eric,

 

The two lenses have the same basic range function but have different job functions. The 24-70 f2.8L being low light and general studio work but is heavy for a walk around lens. The 24-70 can be lugged around ok and I do it all the time. On the other hand the 24-105 f4L is a good walkaround lens but not so good inside with out flash. With the 24-105 the 50mm f1.8 for inside or even the 85 f1.8 might be ok. The 28-135 IS may be a better choice at about $400 new with the 50mm f1.8 @ $70 for low light. LoL, Bill

[david_shawe]

My reference to 'trannies' would only be understood by those of you who have used transparency (slide/positive) film. If you have not then you have missed out, as a well exposed photo 'leaps out' with a unique vibrancy when projected or viewed on a lightbox. Digital cannot reproduce that. For that reason I still use a medium format film camera for certain types of work.

 

The 5D RAW images are the most accurate and vibrant I have seen from a digital camera, hence the reference. No ambiguity intended!

[mendel_leisk]

The 105 end of the focal length range of the 24-105 on the 5D would be close to the 70 end of a 24-70 on a 1.6 crop. Of course, 24mm (on either lens) would work a lot better on the full frame.

 

The 24-105 is about 1/2" shorter, almost 300 grams lighter, so when hanging on the neck strap it's signif. lighter and not pointing straight down. It has IS. The smaller aperture is the main downside, but not signif. to me.

 

I have a 24-70 with a 20D. *If* I were shopping for a 5D, I think my #1 choise would be a 50mm f1.4, and then likely the 24-105.

[qtluong]

In my Imatest-based testing on the 1Ds2 the 24-105 comes out better than the 24-70 in terms of resolution/contrast. However the 24-70 is better corrected for distortion and vignetting (which doesn't worry much since I run DxO). <a href = "http://www.terragalleria.com/">Terra Galleria Photography</a>

[george_lund]

I had both, and now all I have is the 24-70 f/2.8...nuf said?

George

[jerry_liles]

I have both lens. The 24-70 is great, some better than the 28-70. The 24-105 is much lighter, somewhat slower but is image stabalized. On the full frame 1DSII it is fast and sharp. The main differrence in the two is weight.

[m_barbu1]

<p><i>If you have not then you have missed out, as a well exposed photo 'leaps out' with a unique vibrancy when projected or viewed on a lightbox. Digital cannot reproduce that.</i></p>

 

<p>David,</p>

 

<p>How does <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/3318118">this</a> compare?</p>