EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM vs EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM

[joseph_lasker]

can someone help me decide between the two lenses. With this lens I'll be

shooting mostly family pics, Indoors and Out. Sharp pictures are a must. I

need a lens that can handle low light well. Current equiptment list: Canon 30D,

EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM, EF-S 17-85MM f4-5.6 IS USM, Extender EF 1.4x II,

Speedlite 580EX II. The problem is that when I shoot indoors I don't get the

quality I want.

[jon_austin]

Do a search here, and you'll find a zillion threads on this topic ... usally two or three a week.

 

How do you want to handle low light? Faster shutter speeds or IS?

 

What is the quality you're not getting indoors: too much noise (high ISO) or too blurry (camera shake)?

[kance]

"Sharp pictures are a must. I need a lens that can handle low light well."

<p>

Answer: 35 1.4L (ridiculous good in lowlight and sharp!) Good luck with whatever you

choose.

<p>

<a href="http://pixel-peeper.com/lenses/?lens=21" target="_blank">Some 35 1.4L

samples</a>

[ni_gentry]

If all you care about are sharp pictures, either lens and many others will do the job. For low light, get the fastest lens available, so that means the 24-70mm in this case. But for a 30D, I would recommend the 17-55mm f/2.8 for a focal length range better suited to that camera. It will also take "sharp" photos... proper technique being used of course.

[images_in_light_north_west]

If you cant get it with your 70-200 2.8 go with 35 1.4L

[joseph_lasker]

Jon:

I'm new to this. Whats more important in your opinion faster shutter speed or IS. Indoors my pictures are blurry, maybe because most of the time I try to take candid shots.

[leopoldstotch]

Because its for family pics, and not static subjects, f2.8 will do you much more good than IS, plus the focal length of the 24-70 compliments your 70-200 well.

[joseph_lasker]

Ross: 70-200 2.8 is a big lens. I use it mostly to shoot sports (outdoors). I'm looking for something that I can take with me to a wedding, for example, I'm not a professional, but I want versatility and qaulity.

[davebell]

Here are my reasons for choosing the 24-105:

 

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00L6J3

[PuppyDigs]

I find IS more useful for static indoor shots of friends and family than a stop more of light.

But my family members are slow moving. You can always crank ISO another stop if needed.

[brucecyr]

"The problem is that when I shoot indoors I don't get the quality I want."

 

Maybe that should have been the subject of your post.

[gdanmitchell]

Both are great lenses. Both are good in low light, but it different ways. Which has the features

that you need the most? There is no right answer to this question other than the answer that

is right for _your_ particular situation.

[joseph_lasker]

OK Bruce C lets say that is the question, do you have an answer? Is the lens I'm using (EF-S 17-85MM f4-5.6 IS USM) not good enough for indoor shots?

[leopoldstotch]

<p><i>"Indoors my pictures are blurry, maybe because most of the time I try to take candid shots."</i></p>

<p> If you were using the 17-85 for thsoe shots, that should indicate that IS really isn't helping in that situation. In that case, you really need a higher shutter speed to capture those moments (hint hint 24-70;)</p>

[mendel_leisk]

I have both, and would say go with the 24-70, you won't regret it. The 24-105 has a higher "convenience" factor: lighter, more compact, and IS. But it's slower, the build is a notch down from the 24-70. With my copies, it's much softer towards the corners, and has signif. greater light fall-off.

 

The 24-70 is a stop faster, beautifully sharp and bright into the corners, focuses quite a bit closer (for in-a-pinch macro). With it's longest-when-widest zoom a very efficient hood design is possible. Downsides: heavy, no IS.

 

For a comparison, download and toggle the 2 large photo attachements I posted at the very bottom of:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00L6ed

[brucecyr]

Mr. Lasker,

 

What I'm suggesting is that it might be useful to determine why "when I shoot indoors I don't get the quality I want." If its a matter of technique, then no amount of money spent is going to ameliorate the problem -- there are lots of proficient, helpful folks hereabouts, my presence notwithstanding :-)

 

So, the way to start is to post a shot or two that you feel doesn't give the quality you want and relate pertinent technical details, like lens, focal length, ISO, shutter speed, aperture, IS engaged or not, flash used or not, etc.

[m_barbu1]

<p><i>Is the lens I'm using (EF-S 17-85MM f4-5.6 IS USM) not good enough for indoor shots?</i></p>

 

<p>I've found that f/2.8 is the slowest I can go for indoor people photography. However, if the light is really low (like at an evening reception), even f/2.8 can be too slow. To be sure, f/4 or the f/4.0-f/5.6 range of your EF-S 17-85mm lens will be too slow to use in such a scenario, without flash. Image Stabilization won't help you stabilize your moving subjects, so don't substitute it instead of a large maximum aperture (small f/ number).</p><p>I bought the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM and don't regret owning this lens, but, at times, I wish I had some of the faster primes (like the EF 35mm f/1.4L USM) as well.</p>

[PuppyDigs]

Consider the EF-s 17-55 2.8 IS USM and get the best of both worlds. You'll enjoy the speed

of F2.8, the optical quality of an L optic and the build of a nice prosumer lens (doctor-lawyer

lens).

[eric merrill]

"I need a lens that can handle low light well."

 

I'll echo some of the other posters. Go with the 35/1.4.

 

I have the 24-105/4, and while I'm happy with it, it doesn't handle low light. Let alone well. The 35/1.4, on the other hand, is a stellar performer in low light.

 

 

Eric

[mendel_leisk]

Or on the cheap: the 35mm f2.0.

[pbizarro]

"Jon: I'm new to this. Whats more important in your opinion faster shutter speed or IS. Indoors my pictures are blurry, maybe because most of the time I try to take candid shots."

 

If you do not understand what you are doing wrong, and what the limitations of your lenses are, then a new lens will not solve your problem. Your example (candids in weddings) is not an easy one to photograph. If you do not want to use flash, you have to go for fast lenses; this means f/1.4, or f/1.8. Which, in tirn, means primes instead of zooms.

 

In interior situations, with low available light, and at 400 ISO, I can often shoot at 1/30 seconds. If you are like me, you will then need something between a 28mm 1.8, 35 1.4, or 50 1.4. One very simple test you can do is go to a church, take your camera and zoom, and see what shutter speed you can get with your lens wide open, at several ISO's. This little exercise will tell you much more than a bunch of posts in photo.net.

 

Perhaps you can get away with the lens at f/4.5 and 1600 ISO? I dont know, you have to try it. After these tests, if you then think you need a lens, fine. But buying new kit without understanding the fundamentals, is useless.

[William Michael]

Mr Lasker,

 

For one moment let`s disregard all the good suggestions for other lenses and focusing on the two you mention in the question.

 

It is difficult to suggest one over the other, because it is difficult to isolate what the blurry in this sentence refers to, or what it is caused by:

 

>>> Indoors my pictures are blurry, maybe because most of the time I try to take candid shots. <<<

 

So, perhaps this is what the thread is missing:

 

IS (Image Stabilization) will assist the reduction of and sometimes eliminate blur caused by CAMERA MOVEMENT. (eg shaky hands etc)

 

A fast lens, compared to a slower lens (eg F2.8 vs. F4) will allow for a faster shutter speed to capture a scene, at a given light value, using the same ISO (eg F2.8 @ 1/60 vs F4 @ 1/30)

 

The faster lens then has better `action stopping` or `subject motion stopping` capacity, and a capacity to assist in the reduction of blur from camera shake, because the photographer is using an higher shutter speed.

 

Simply put, IS does NOT have the capacity to stop subject movement.

 

So, it seems to me, (and I believe what some others were getting at) is that you need to isolate more technically why you are not happy with your indoor captures.

 

Perhaps the route to this answer lies in identifying if the BLUR is a result of the incapacity to use a fast enough shutter speed to stop the subject motion, or is it the fact that you have a lot of camera movement / shake at low shutter speeds or if it is a combination of both.

 

In specific regard to the question, choosing between the two zooms I would get the F2.8, because I want the fastest. But, I have two fast primes (F1.4 and F1.8) which I use extensively for low light indoor work. Rarely would I use a zoom indoors in available light, generally, they are just too slow.

 

Hope this assists.

 

WW

[dogbert]

If you can't get the quality you want indoors, it is probably better to spend some time thinking about your technique and get some books on photogpraphy and/or take some classes.

 

If you can't get good shots with a cheap fast prime indoors, I doubt an expensive L zoom is going to help.

 

Anyway my 2 cents is low light static shots, choose IS. Low light moving shots choose the faster lens. Super fast lenses are more about control of DOF than low light capabilities, especially for close work where a moving subject may move out of DOF anyway.

[ni_gentry]

"IF" the problem is blurry or soft images, then the question is "why?". The specific lens is

likely NOT the problem. As already suggested, post an example and the exposure

information... <p>

- If it was dim lighting, what was your aperture, shutter speed, and ISO? <p>

- Was the shutter speed too slow to hand hold? too slow to freeze subject movement? If

so, then could you have opened the aperture and/or bumped up the ISO to increase

shutter speed? <p>

- Were you shooting in Automagic mode and letting the camera decide this stuff for

you? ...

<p>

Answer those questions first, then decide IF you need a new lens or if you just need to

polish your technique.

[ni_gentry]

I just peeked at the candids in your "people" gallery on your website. It looks like you're

using the built-in flash and (I'm guessing) Program Auto or Aperture Priority. Some

photos look like the focus point is off (not on the subject's face/eye)... so there is a sharp

plane of focus, it's just not where you'd want it to be. Some other photos look like the

camera picked a slow shutter speed so you see a little motion from dragging the shutter.

Not sure if those are the things that brought you to post your questions, but just thought

I'd mention it. <p> And if you're using flash, then that changes a lot. The speed of the

lens and image stablization don't really mean as much when it comes to hand-holding,

freezing motion, etc.... The flash will take care of freezing the subject... you just have to

focus on the correct spot. A wider aperture (or other increase in ambient exposure) will let

in more ambient light and usually make the photos apear more natural. ... Of course,

that's all if you're using flash...