24-70 f/2.8 L vs. 24-105 f/4 IS L for 5D body

[jami_lee_tatro]

I'm going to be buying my first DSLR, the Canon 5D, and so I also want to buy a

general purpose lens to go with it.

 

Basically, it's the larger aperture (f/2.8) vs. the longer focal length and IS.

 

I would just like some opinions on what you think is a better general purpose

lens for a beginner?

[jonny_mac]

That is a super common question and if you put those two lenses in the search window,

upper right, you will get tons of threads. also check out luminouslandscape.com for a good

comparison

[jason_hall4]

It is a very personal thing and you will get opinions for both lens. They are both wonderful pieces of glass.

 

Personally I would go for the 24-105f4L IS (I own it) I have come real close to selling the 24-105 to buy the 24-70 for the f2.8, however I can not let go of the IS. So I kept the 24-105 and bought a couple of nice fast primes. I really like the 85mmf1.8 and I have an older Nikkor 35mmf2 that is pretty nice(it was pretty much free but in like new condition). I do have the 50mmf1.8 but it needs to stoped down to 2.8 and I am just not a fan of the f1.4 version.

 

Jason

[marcomariano]

hi Jami, i think we have the same problem at this very moment.

 

but my question is. if get to choose 24-70/2.8, how slow can you shoot at 70/2.8 without noticable image blur?

[anthony_zipple]

If I had to live with just one, it would be the 24-105. For my needs (and for most "general purposes") the longer length,IS, and lighter weight trumps the faster speed of the 24-70. Optically both are great and, in real use, you would have a hard time telling which photos were produced by which lens. If, on the other hand, you need the faster speed only the 24-70 will do.

[ericf1]

Jami,

 

I have the 5D and the 24-105 and it is the lens I use most frequently. So if you are looking for a versatile lens, I think the 24-105 is a good choice. I find that I'm usually working closer to 105mm than 70mm and below, so the decision was was pretty simple. That having been said, I also have the 17-40mmf4L to handle the wider end.

[wgpinc]

Jamie Lee,

 

Buy the 5D with the 24-105mm together in a kit. Save some money and you will have essentially all the camera and lens you need for the next year or two. Maybe forever. Either lens is good. I prefer the 24-105mm for the extra reach, lighter weight and fantastic image quality. Get a good flash with the money you save.

http://www.adorama.com/ICA5DK.html Good luck!

[jami_lee_tatro]

First off, this is my first post on photo.net, and you all reply FAST!

 

Second, I checked that link, Gil, and that's the 5D and 24-105 f/4 L IS for $2700? That's pretty cool seeing as it's over $3K when purchased separately.

 

Thanks for all the help, everyone.

[colinsouthern]

If you're in it for the long-haul then get the 24-70/2.8 - and later on get the 70-200/2.8. Last of all get the 16-35/2.8 and you're "good to go" for most things.

[jason_hall4]

Leave it to Colin. :o)

 

Jason

[jami_lee_tatro]

Now, I'm new and know the basics, but not exactly the practicality.

 

I know that bigger apertures are more desirable (generally), but what exactly does the f/2.8 allow me to do that the f/4 doesn't. I mean somewhat specifically, at least more so than: It works in lower light ;)

[gdanmitchell]

<p>A very common question, and there is no definitive "one size fits all" answer.

 

<p>Both are great lenses and both can produce excellent results. There are serious photographers who prefer one and there are those who prefer the other. It comes down to a question of which feature set better fits your personal approach to

photography.

 

<p><strong>24-70mm f/2.8</strong> - Provides one additional stop for getting narrower DOF, if that is an issue for you. You also get one additional stop of shutter speed in low light for dealing with active subjects. Focal length range is very

useful though it doesn't extend as far into the "long" range as the other lens - in fact it doesn't quite make it to what some might regard as a typical "portrait" length of 85mm. It may have slightly less barrel/pincushion distortion at the ends of its

focal length range. It is larger and heavier than the 24-105.

 

<p><strong>24-105 f/4</strong> - Provides a bit more focal length range at the long end - goes well into "portrait" focal lengths. However, the f/4 aperture won't get quite the narrow DOF if that is important to you. It has one <i>less</i>

stop which means that the low light shutter speed in marginal situations might be twice as long - e.g. not quite as good for stopping active subjects in marginal situations. On the other hand, it has image stabilization (IS) which allows hand held

shooting at 2-3 stops slower shutter speed in situations where subject motion is not a problem. A bit smaller/lighter than the other lens.

 

<p>Bigger apertures <i>can</i> be desirable, but in most lens choices there are compromises. The question is, for example, whether the larger maximum aperture provides more advantages <i>for your photography</i> than IS and a slightly

longer focal length range. Again, there is no one right answer to this. I happen to come down on the side of the 24-105, but that is not because it is an objectively better lens - but because its feature set is more advantageous for my particular

type of photography.

 

<p>To pick an example, Colin recommends the 16-35mm f/2.8, the 70-200mm f/2.8, and the 24-70mm f/2.8. That is a fine set of lenses, indeed, and I'm certain that it is perfectly suited for the sort of work he does. On the other hand, I

prefer my setup of 17-40mm f/4, 24-105mm f/4, and 70-200mm f/4 - also a fine set of lenses but tailored for what I do. Colin would undoubtedly feel constrained by my set of lenses in his photography, and I'd have some problems with his

setup for mine.

 

<p>Who is right? Colin is. And I am. :-)

 

<p>The question is whether you are more of a "Colin-type photographer" or more of a "Dan-type photographer" or something entirely different.

 

<p>One difficulty with being a "beginner" and jumping into such expensive equipment is that you may not have the background experience to be able to make intelligent choices based on your preferences - because you haven't developed any

yet. Sometimes a better path is to start with less expensive, slightly more generic equipment and shoot, shoot, shoot. Before long you'll begin to sort out your interests and needs and have a basis for making significant equipment decisions.

 

<p>Without that it is a matter of guessing or believing one of us here in the forum more than the others.

 

<p>Dan

[jami_lee_tatro]

Thanks to all. I understand your comments, Dan, and everyones. One of the best answers I saw was: If the advisor owns a 24-70, he'll tell you that's better, and if he owns a 24-105 he'll tell you that's better. <B>I think everyone agrees that these are both wonderful lenses.</B><P>

 

<U>I think I'm going to go with the 24-105mm for a few reasons:</U><P>

 

1. It has a wider range of focal lengths, and since I am new, I think that will give me a little more versatility.<P>

 

2. It has IS, which I can turn off, so I can experiment with IS and see what I think of it.<P>

 

3. There is a package deal with the Canon 5D and it saves me about $400. <P>

 

4. If later I find I want a smaller DOF, I can always pick up a 50mm f/1.4 or 85mm f/1.8 with the $400 I saved (see item 3).<P>

 

I do want to thank everyone again for taking the time to respond/reply. If you see any flaws with my logic, feel free to poke fun. I can take it.<P>

 

-jlt

[shambrick007]

IS or no, for me f4 is just too slow for daily use.

[joe_s.2]

with regard to the 24-70 2.8, Is it sharp wide open?

[mendel_leisk]

"If the advisor owns a 24-70, he'll tell you that's better, and if he owns a 24-105 he'll tell you that's better"

 

And if he has both? This is not uncommon. That's my situation, using both with a 5D, though I'm purely an amateur. For me the 24-105 is the utilitarian, convenience lens, lighter, more compact, with relatively high keeper rate due to it's IS. But I know when I use it the corners are going to have more light fall-off, the sharpness/contrast will slip, there will be more distortion and CA. I know I won't be able to focus near as close, and will be getting motion blur one stop sooner.

 

All of these differences are slight, and not that noticeable unless you pixel peek. OTOH, the 24-70 obviously has less reach, though it's less than purported, 70 on the 24-70 seems about the same as 75 on the 24-105. (If you can get your hands on a 24-105 in advance of the purchase, try setting it at around 75, and then rotate to 105, to see the difference.) And the lack of IS can spoil shots. And it weighs more than the 70-200 f4.0 IS for chrisakes!

 

The color of the 24-70 is warmer than the 24-105. Neither gets it right I think, they're both off a bit, the 70 too warm, the 105 too cool.

 

When I rotate the zoom of the 24-70 it's silky. With the 24-105 something's a little raspy in there.

 

Emotionally, I like my 24-70 a lot better. The 24-105 just seems a mercenary little so-and-so. Something to ponder: why does the 24-70 never come bundled with a camera?

[colinsouthern]

"with regard to the 24-70 2.8, Is it sharp wide open?"

 

Hell yes :)

[William Michael]

There is no definitive answer: but you must get the 24 to 70F2.8L.

 

Jokes aside, I do think as the first lens, for a beginner, between the two lenses the short answer is:

 

The F2.8 will serve you better and allow you to learn and grow more than the extra length and the IS: neither of which is to be glossed over lightly.

 

Also it is my opinion that the faster zoom is a better beginning to building a lens cache.

 

AND, I seriously suggest you looking at a 50mm or 35mm or 85mm or 135mm (or a couple of them), AFTER you have used the 24 to 70 for a while and settled into some pattern of what you like going after photographically.

 

You may find that the extra speed (over F2.8) appeals to you and will satisfy even more of your needs.

 

Then again the trilogy of F2.8 zooms, (as Colin S mentioned) is good to go for a great % of gigs.

 

I do not personally own a 24 to 70, but have recently fitted a few Pro Wedding Kits out with them (on 5D`s) and can borrow one quite readily: it is a truly wonderful lens.

 

WW

[colinsouthern]

<i>"The question is whether you are more of a "Colin-type photographer" or more of a "Dan-type photographer" or something entirely different."</i>

<p>

Very diplomatic Dan ;)

<p>

I tend to look at questions like this from what is (hopefully) a wider-perspective (ok ok, pun intended, but there's a serious point to it as well!) ...

 

<ul><li>When I read that someone has, say, an 350D or 400D and is looking for "one lens to do it all", I see merit in a wide-range zoom, but

<p>

<li>when I can see that they appear to be concerned about quality - and they're thinking ahead - I like to at least introduce the concept of "thinking beyond the lens that you're looking to buy". </ul>

<p>

In this case Jami Lee has made a serious committment to photography by purchasing a "serious" camera - and has indicated that this was to be followed through with a serious lens purchase (L-Series none-the-less) ... for people like this I'm thinking <p>

<ul><li>"will this camera + lens be likely to keep them happy for a long time", or ...<p>

<li>"are the likely to want to build on this quality foundation"?</ul><p> <b>If it's the latter then a 70-200/2.8 or a 70-200/4 is "practically a given" at some point</b> - especially with a FF camera.

<p>

Hence my initial post.

<p>

<ul><li>If it's only a matter of time before the venerable 70-200/x.x is added to the mix then it probably makes more sense to stick with the faster 24-70/2.8 for now, whereas ...<p><li>if the 24-105 "is it for now and the forseeable future" then that's probably a better choice.</ul>

<p>

If Jami Lee makes has made a choice having considered all of these things that we've mentioned then I think that we've all done our "job" well :)

<p>

Cheers,

<p>

Colin

[William Michael]

>>> If you see any flaws with my logic, feel free to poke fun. I can take it. <<<

 

I posted the above without noticing your subsequent decision to get the 24 to 105.

 

I stand by my previous, but really do not wish to pick flaws in your logic: which incorporates the money aspect, and which is a good point.

 

In reality it is a journey, and I am sure yours will begin quite nicely with either lens, and either choice will equip you better to make the next lens decision.

 

WW

[tony_law]

5D + 24-105 kit at BH photo $2,749.95.

5D with 24-70 f/2.8 will cost you $3,168.95

(5D $2109, 24-70 $1059).

I will buy the kit 5D + 24-105 and use the money you saved to add

a EF 50mm f/1.4 for low light.

[jami_lee_tatro]

AHHH! You've succeeded in making me doubt myself again! You guys are good at making good points. Plus, when you guys are buying new lenses, do you get kind of giddy? ;)

 

Ok, so let's try this angle. I'm in the Army, and although currently deployed, I'm stationed in Germany which offers numerous opportunities to travel/photograph. For an all around travel lens, I'm guessing they both are comparable. (Although, the 24-70mm seems to weigh a bit, according to Mendel.)

 

Like I said, with the saved money, I was thinking of getting a 50mm f/1.4 or 85mm f/1.8 for places where no flash/tripods are allowed.

 

So, the starting kit would be:

 

Body: EOS-5D

Lenses: 24-70 OR 24-105 &

50 OR 85

Tripod: No idea yet (there's a lot of choices)

Bag: Crumpler 5 Million

 

Sorry to bring up more questions, but I guess it's kind of hard to rate how well the lenses will work without knowing what I plan to do.

 

So uses would be travel and, of course, just learning to use the dSLR ;)

 

-jami

[colinsouthern]

"Although, the 24-70mm seems to weigh a bit, according to Mendel."

 

Probably no more than the collective on a Black Hawk ;) Seriously, I'm not the strongest of chaps, but the weight of the 24-70 doesn't bother me - and that's on a heavy 1D Mk3 - often with a 580EX II flash mounted on top just for good measure. The heavier the camera + lens the less camera shake you'll get (more enertia). You'll have it on a neck strap anyway.

 

The unfortunate "curse" of full frame cameras like the 5D though are that they give you a lot less reach in comparison to crop-factor cameras - if you're someone who needs reach then FF puts you at a disadvantage compared to something like a 40D (which, in addition to being a much later creation, has many other advantages as well (Bigger screen, much faster, Digic III, 14 Bit A/D resolution, Live-view with AF, cheaper, focal length multiplier).

 

If you stick with cameras that have good high-ISO performance, and with zoom lenses that are fast (ie F2.8 or faster) then you'll negate much of the need for specialist ultra-fast primes. (Put it this way - on my 1D3 I've taken shots of my daughter - hand held - with a 70-200/2.8L IS USM lens with the light of only 1 candle). Unless you're having to consistantly take professional level shots in crappy lighting (eg weddings in church with no flash), my personal advice is to not put a great priority on glass like 85/1.2 or 50/1.2 (put another way, if your zoom glass is F2.8 then you'll probably have more occasions where you're likely to be limited by not having the correct focal length than you will be needing something faster).

 

Perhaps consider a 40D with 24-70/2.8L & 70-200/4 IS? Throw on a 580EXII at some point - and if you get into ultra wide angle, then consider the 16-35/2.8L (keeping in mind that even with the 24-70/2.8 you could still shoot wider simply be taking 2 or more overlapping shots and joining them together in post-processing (This ultra-wide angle shot was shot at 80mm on a 1.6x crop factor camera!)

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/6194139&size=lg

 

Cheers,

 

Colin

[markonestudios]

Jami,

<p>I'll use my own past experience. I started off with a film SLR and the 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 USM (the 5D has a full-frame sensor too). I found this an ideal combination for the better part of 3 years. I learnt most of what I know about photography (exposure and composition, lighting and framing, etc) with that one lens. I shot entire weddings with it. It afforded me wide enough to get the shots in tight spaces and the length to get those unobtrusive candids. I travelled with it and shot landscapes. I used the entire zoom range and certainly more often than not I needed 70mmor longer. Later, I bought the 50 f/1.8 for low-light and portraiture.

<p>With all due respect to William and Colin, they put a higher premium on lens speed (i.e ability to capture more light in a low-light setting) as they have a different lens philosophy. But in terms of sheer exploration of your photography, I would respectfully disagree with them on the f/2.8 and go instead for the longer focal length (and image stabilisation) afforded me by the 24-105L (which I now have). I would love to use the 24-70 f/2.8 and eventually might buy it. But I wouldn't recommend it as a first lens. You'll probably rarely need to shoot in low light to begin with, although you could get the 50 f/1.8 or f/1.4 for that, and a decent tripod.

<p>In conclusion, I would get the 24-105L. Your logic is sound.

[johnmottershaw]

As an all round single travel lens, the 24-105 is ideal. The extra reach over the 24-70 makes

a big difference and the IS is fantastically useful. It's also cheaper and lighter.

 

Those who say that f/4 is just too slow for everyday use must be doing something pretty

specialist, because it's only one stop that we are talking here. The IS takes care of more than

that when photographing stationary objects and one stop isn't a big deal when

photographing moving objects. The 5D's high ISO ability also more than makes up for the f/

4 "limitation".