michael_ransburg2 Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 Hi all, I've now researched the 24-70 f2.8 vs. 24-105 f4 for an extended period of time. Based on this I tried to come up with an objective comparison which ignores comparisons w.r.t. quality variation (sharpness, ...) because I think that both are optically equivalent / excellent if you get copies of equivalent quality. What I came up with are the following advantages for each lens: Canon 24-105 f4: - lower price - lower weight - longer focal range - image stabilisator Canon 24-70 f2.8: - better control of DoF The reason why I only quote "better control of DoF" rather than the more general "better low light capabilities" as an advantage of the 24-70 are the following practical considerations: o If you are in an indoor / low light environment which has insufficient lighting for f4, then it would almost always (except maybe for well-lit soccer/football stadions) also be too dark for f2.8. In this case zooms are not an options in any case and fast (1.x) primes need to be used. o If you (have to) use a zoom in such an environment you would need to use flash as your primary light source, where the difference f2.8 vs. f4 is negligible. When I started my research, I was very spoiled by my current f2.8 zoom (18- 50mm) and was very very uncomfortable thinking about a f4 zoom. I was always thinking about this being a "step back" and partly I still think so. But I forced myself to the above practical considerations which make me think better about the f4. Said that, I'm still not fully convinced. A very though choice indeed. What's your opinion in light of the comparison which I came up with above? All the best, Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_smith6 Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 I would buy 24-70/2.8. EF 24-105/4 is vignetting on full frame cameras and it's slower. If the weight and size is not a problem then you don't have much to think about. f/2.8 is always better - that's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcolwell Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 The 24-70L also offers faster and more accurate focusing in low light, and a one-stop faster shutter speed for freezing moving subjects in low light. In many cases, the difference between f/2.8 and f/4 for indoor shooting is substantial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_chow Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 IMHO, the aperture difference is insignificant, unless (1) you manual focus a lot, in which case the F2.8 would give you brighter viewfinder, or (2) you shoot fast actions, where the F2.8 would freeze action slightly better. Otherwise:- If image quality is the priority, get the 24-70. If you shoot FF, get the 24-70. If you want convenience and lighter weight, get the 24-105. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iansky Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 I have the 24-105 that I use as a standard lens on my 5D - The vignetting mentioned by Michael is not a problem as anybody with basic PS skills can correct this easily. The Canon DPP Raw convertor also has a special tool built in to correct this, it is insignificant in the consideration process. I have not had any problems with my 24-105 in the 2 yrs I have had it that makes me regret my purchase, it is a superb lens that performs well. I have a mix of images taken with the 24-105 and 70-200 lens posted on this site, the latest B&W images are all with the 24-105. http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=632927 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitmstr Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 >>I've now researched the 24-70 f2.8 vs. 24-105 f4 for an extended period of time.<< You don't specify wha your 'research' consisted of. Do you own both lenses? Did you rent both for a series of tests and evaluations? And where do you get the idea that if it's not enough light at f/4 then, it follows that there isn't enough for f/2.8? That hurts my brain... There are countless times in which I could NOT have taken pictures had I not been using a faster lens. Using a flash is NOT the same as using available light. F/2.8 is NOT the same as f/4 - just like 1/15s is NOT the same as 1/30s. It DOES make a huge difference. If you need the extra reach and do NOT need to shoot in avail. light much (or you shoot mostly STATIC subject) then, the 24-105 IS would be the lens to get. But, don't even think for a second that in real life shooting situation the difference in apertures doesn't make a difference. It does, and it's a huge difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronald_moravec1 Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 The 24/70 has much less distortion that needs repair. I find distorion really objectionable and can see it even in shots that do not have straight lines. After repair, I can see a big difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric merrill Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 "I've now researched the 24-70 f2.8 vs. 24-105 f4 for an extended period of time. " I'd suggest you would be better off renting both rather than looking at spec sheets. If you need 24-105, the 24-70 won't cut it. If you need IS, the 24-70 won't cut it. If you need faster than f/4, the 24-105 won't cut it. That's it. Both lenses are capable of taking great pictures. For my needs, the 24-70 seemed like the worst of both worlds. Slow aperture. Small range. 24-105. Slower aperture. Larger ranger. IS. When I've had "analysis paralysis", that's usually a sign that I don't really need either item being considered. If these lenses are solutions to your problems, one should be obvious. Otherwise, both are equally good solutions in search of a problem. Eric Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mars c Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 I dont think both lens will have enough reach for soccer games.<p> If you did the research, You'll find the answers are almost the same. <p> Optically , both lens have weaknesses anfd strengths against each other. Just look at the comparison in this link.a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?FLI=0&API=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=101&Camera=9&LensComp=355&Go.x=8&Go.y=11" >LINK</a> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mars c Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 Ooops I'm sorry, here is the link, <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?FLI=0&API=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=101&Camera=9&LensComp=355&Go.x=8&Go.y=11" >hyperlink</a> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_bellenis Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 I also researched both lenses, trying them side by side at Calumet and doing a series of apples to apples comparisons on the spot at different apertures, distances and focal lengths... although when I went into the store I thought I'd be leaving with the 24-105 f4 (I wanted the IS. extra reach and lighter weght) I ended up (very happily) with the 24-70 f2.8. The vignetting wide open at 24mm was totally unacceptable (with no difference between 3 samples) as was the barrel distortion. I also appreciated the slightly brighter viewfinder image of the 24-70mm. On a crop body the conclusion might be differnt though (I use 1Ds MkII and 5Ds). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotograf Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 I heard alot about the vignetting problem with the 24-105 lens, and many of the images I've seen-taken with this lens, look average. Kind of like "snapshots," really. Nothing spectacular about the image quality. I tried one in a local store, and thought it felt somewhat cheap and a bit loose-feeling with the zooming. The 24-70 is much more rugged, with a far better track record and consistently a top performer. Plus, it's faster lens in low light situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdanmitchell Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 Didn't read the entire thread before posting, so apologies for any repetition of points already made... You are on the right track here. I get tired of the "which is best" threads on these two lenses - as you recognize, it is really about "which lens has the features that are best for me." Both a fine lenses and can perform extremely well. While it is true that the minimum DOF (with f/2.8 instead of f/4) is a difference, I'd describe the low light capabilities in a bit more detail. 24-70: slightly better (one stop) and stopping or slowing action of moving subjects in low light due to one stop larger maximum aperture. Advantage: one stop advantage with moving subjects. 24-105: better for hand held shots of relatively stable or slow moving subjects in low light due to IS. Advantage: Hand held shots possible in lower light if subject motion not an issue. I'd add another subtlety regarding image quality. The 24-105 is a bit more subject to two optical issues: corner fall-off and pincushion/barrel distortion. The former is can be fairly visible at wide apertures and the latter in shots with lots of straight lines. I don't consider this a problem, but they are part of the trade-offs between the two lenses. In cases where these artifacts are an issue in actual photos - and this is only rarely - I may correct them in post-processing. (These issues are not entirely missing in any lenses that I'm familiar with, though they are probably both better controlled in the 24-70.) Dan (Disclaimer: I use the 24-105 but I have merely studied the 24-70, so I have direct and extensive experience with only one of the two lenses.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnson_d. Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 In my experience if something as simple as choosing a lens requires this much internal struggle and analysis then it probably doesn't matter which you go with. Choose one and run with it. In all likelihood you will be happy after using either for a while. If not, you stand to lose very little as the used market for Canon gear is very strong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan_rockwood Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 Are you considering this lens for a full frame camera (e.g. 5d or 35mm) or a crop frame camera (e.g. 30d or XTi)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_ransburg2 Posted September 23, 2007 Author Share Posted September 23, 2007 Hi Alan, all, I'm considering the lens for a crop frame camera. I currently have a 18-50mm f2.8 which I use (for my shooting style) almost always at at least 25-30 mm. At the same time I tend to shoot 50-70% at 50mm, i.e., the tele range is too low for me. This is why I consider the 24-105 or the 24-70 for the additional tele range. Later on, I might then sell my 18-50mm if I really do not feel the need to go below 24mm. Many thanks for all the replies so far and I'm sorry that the interpretation of my post causes headaches for some ;-) All the best, Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitmstr Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 In that case, sell the lens you own and get the 24-70L - later, you can add the 70-200 and you are done. With those two zooms alone you can cover most of any photographic needs known to mankind (and a few well heeled Aliens..) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mendel_leisk Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 I've got both, using them on a 5D, and I *still* can't make up my mind as to which is the "better" lens. Both will take decent pictures. I'd agree with the chorus of responses saying the 24-105 is a notch behind, both in image quality and build. Contrary to one comment above, I do find the 24-105 acquires focus faster. And it's IS will salvage borderline hand held. But (with my copies) taking out the variables and doing tripod mounted target shots, the 24-70 is sharper, particularly off-center and in the corners. When toggling between test shots, I'll suddenly realize, "never mind the text sharpness, I can see the paper texture with the 24-70". Also, I was thinking for a while the 24-70 had a warm cast compared to the 24-105, but that appears to be due in large part to different UV filter brands I was using. It may be slightly warmer, but it varies from shot to shot, dependant partially on exposure I think. As to the increased telephoto range of the 24-105, it is not as much as advertised. With both my lens at 24mm, the 24-105 is slightly wider, which is nice. But at the other end, to match the field of view of the 24-70 at 70mm, I have to set my 24-105 about 1/3 to 2/5 of the way from the 70 to 105 numerals on it's barrel. So, assuming the 24-70's 70mm is spot-on, I would guestimate the 24-105's longest reach is somewhere around 100mm, if that. I think Brian Cincotta's response sums up my take on the 24-105. Except that's not totally negative. Sometimes slow and steady utilitarian can win the race. You may very well get a higher percentage of keepers with the 24-105, largely due to it's IS. But keeping an eye on your shutter speeds and being very careful with your hand held technique, you'll get sharper, better contrast shots with the 24-70. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jake_crews Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 I own both lens. I keep the 24-70 on the body most of the time. If I know I'm going somewhere and I want take only the body and lens (not my bag), I'll put the 24-105 on body. From my use of them over the past year . . I like the 24-70's speed/low light handling (as one would expect) over the other, but the versatility of the 24-105 makes me keep it. Just my 2 cents . . . Good luck with the decision . . . mine was not to choose, but by both! ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony_hicks Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 My experience of the focusing capability of the two lenses: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00LujE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_ransburg2 Posted September 23, 2007 Author Share Posted September 23, 2007 Hi all, Yes, the 24-70 & 70-200 combination looks attractive. However, should I chose the 24-70 f2.8, then I'd probably go with a third party manufacturer (i.e., Sigma is making a 24-70 f2.8 which gets very good reviews). The thing about the 24-105 is really its versatile zoom range. I'm working (more or less as a hobby) for a local news agency and I think I'd really appreciate the 24-105 range. On the other side everything you said about the benefits of the f2.8 are certainly true and I'm experiencing them with my 18-50mm f2.8 which I really like. This is why this is such a hard decision for me. It's unfortunately not in my budget to simply get both of them :-) All the best, Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_ransburg2 Posted September 23, 2007 Author Share Posted September 23, 2007 Hi again, renting both lenses and trying them out would be the ideal solution. Unfortunately I'm living in a quite small town in southern Austria where there are no lens rental shops. The next lens rental shop (which I know of) is about 300 km away :-(. I could try trying out the lenses in one of the photo stores in town, but I'm not sure to what extend they would let me try them out. I'll definitely try to borrow both of these lenses somehow. It seems to be the only way to get to a decision... Thanks, Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthias_meixner2 Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 All depends on what you shoot most: <ul> <li> landscape -> 24-105 </li> <li> travel -> 24-105 </li> <li> portrait -> 24-70 </li> <li> outdoor action -> 24-105 </li> <li> indoor action -> 24-70 </li> </ul> I have the 24-105 and the low light performance is amazing, e.g. see the attached sample<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Michael Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 They are both good lenses. My opinion simple and biased. My bias is speed. Very simply put: an F4 lens cannot allow any exposure combination utilizing F2.8, F3.2 or F3.5. The application of this fact of physics into the practical world of photography is vast and broad ranging, considering all the shooting scenarios one might encounter and cannot be summarized by the simple statement: `If you are in an indoor / low light environment which has insufficient lighting for f4, then it would almost always (except maybe for well-lit soccer/football stadiums) also be too dark for f2.8. (. . . ) where the difference f2.8 vs. f4 is negligible. ` The 1 stop difference is NOT negligible. My comment is: basing the choice of a lens purchase on such a simplistic viewpoint, IMO, is flawed logic, if that is what one is doing. That is not to say, one might prioritize one lens` mass above another`s speed, or IS above speed etc. but do so fully knowing the limitations of the lack of speed, not by condensing such into a simplistic `logic`. This is especially the case if one is choosing a lens as the work horse (i.e. usually on the camera). WW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now