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

[jason_hall4]

>>>"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."<<< WW

 

I pretty much voted for the 24-105 right out of the gate. Still say you would do well with it, however, after thinking of the wisdom Mr. William imparted above, I would say he make a good point there. Many times the only way to LEARN PHOTOGRAPHY is to turn off those bells and whistles. One thing I did a while back is turn off the continuous shooting feature. 6fps second is cool(and is a must at times) but I leaned on it instead of working to catch the right moment and time my shots. Besides, you would be surprised how fast you can press a shutter under pressure. That is why I also recommend some nice primes no matter what zoom you get.

 

Just a thought

 

Jason

[jason_hall4]

>>>"For me the 24-105 is the utilitarian, convenience lens, lighter, more compact, with relatively high keeper rate due to it's IS."<<<

 

That is pretty well true, and to me(and just me)that is what a zoom should be. If you want the lens for the artistic approach, then look into primes. It is know that even the most expensive zoom can be compared to the cheapest prime in many areas.

 

That is why I have the 24-105f4IS and the 70-200f2.8IS then in primes I have 15mmf2.8 fisheye, 35mmf2 50mmf1.8, and 85mmf1.8. I have plans to buy the 400mmf5.6 and a few others. To me a zoom should be a versital workhorse.

 

Just my thoughts

 

Jason

[m_barbu1]

<p><i>how slow can you shoot at 70/2.8 without noticable image blur?</i></p><p>That depends on 1) how fast your subject is moving -- no amount IS cannot change that, 2) the inverse rule would suggest around 1/80-1/160 second, but depending on how steady you are, that can be dropped -- this is the only place where IS is of benefit</p>

<p><i>because it's only one stop that we are talking here.</i></p><p>If a shot requires ISO 3200 at f/2.8 in order for your subject to be in focus due to the subject's motion, you likely won't get the shot at f/4. If you're shooting ISO 3200 at f/4, you'll be able to shoot at ISO 1600 at f/2.8. I don't think there's any disputing that there is a noticeable improvement between ISO 3200 and 1600, even on the 5D.</p>

<p>As for Jami's original question, I have only one thing to add to all the things mentioned above. As my skills as a photographer have developed (no pun intended), I find myself shooting at wide angles more than long. I have all three f/2.8 zooms and I now find myself using 16-35mm more than the rest. That's not to say that you shouldn't get the 24-70, but rather that I really don't think you will miss the 70-104mm as much as you might think at this point in life. The one thing that can't be avoided is that human vision gives us very close to 180 degrees field of view, with no fish-eye distortion. The closer you can get to that field of view, the more a photo will make the viewer feel like they are "there", as opposed to "looking through a window". That's part of the mystical "pop" that people refer to, when speaking of the 5D.</p>

<p>A faster lens (like the f/1.4 you mentioned), will also help you compensate for the lack of IS, if shot at f/1.4. So, my proposal is that you consider the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM and a faster prime, instead of the EF 24-104mm f/4L IS USM and a faster prime.</p>

[jason_hall4]

Oh, and I forgot the newest....a Lensbaby 2.0!

[johnmottershaw]

"If a shot requires ISO 3200 at f/2.8 in order for your subject to be in focus due to the

subject's motion, you likely won't get the shot at f/4."

 

Theoretically, yes. In practice it's far, far less likely than wanting to use something longer

than 70mm. We are talking about one "general purpose" lens here. My suggestion for

travelling is that getting cluttered up with different lenses and messing about changing

them has its own disadvantages.

 

"As my skills as a photographer have developed (no pun intended), I find myself shooting

at wide angles more than long. "

 

That's a purely personal thing. There is no correlation between experience and wide angle

useage. I don't even possess anything wider than 24mm and I've been earning a living

from photography for 20 years! Everyone has their own different ways.

[m_barbu1]

I didn't mean to suggest that Jami should get something wider than 24mm on a 5D, merely that I think ultimately the wider end of the lens will see more use than the longer -- especially for travel in Germany.

[gdanmitchell]

<p>I think that this thread more or less confirms my point - that there is a great diversity of opinions and perspectives on what the "best" lens (or other gear) might be. I

wasn't tweaking Colin in the least when I wrote: <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>I honestly think that Colin makes the very best decisions for his photography. I honestly think that I make the best decisions for my photography. (Well, except for that UV

filter thing... ;-) I am confident that both of us take our work very seriously and strive to produce the best work possible in our respective formats, and that we've chosen gear

on that basis. I think that is true of others posting here also.

 

<p>And you'll see recommendations that range from all-primes, to smaller apertures zooms plus a few primes, to all wide aperture zooms, to... [the list continues]. If we

expanded the discussion you'd find some arguing passionately for large format, medium format, Nikon, etc., etc. And great photography is made with all this stuff. Yes, even

with Nikon... ;-)

 

<p>So my objective is not to persuade anyone to buy the same gear I have, but to get people to think more clearly about how they shoot and about what equipment features

and capabilities will and will not support that most effectively. In some cases my approach might be right. In others a different approach could be more suitable.

 

<p>Heck, if you have enough money just buy everything and figure it out later. :-)

 

<p>Take care,

 

<p>Dan

[andrew_viny]

As the owner of a 24-70 2.8 I often find myself wishing that I went with the smaller lighter 24-105. Then I go out shooting (often at a school function inside of a poorly light room) and my joy at the ability of this lens to always perform far beyond any expectation reassures me that my decision was the right one for me.

[bnyc]

I'm late to the party, but I'll throw in my $0.02... I own both, and both are wonderful lenses.

 

The 24-70 is an absolute classic lens, destined to go down in Canon lore as one of the all time greats. It was the first "good" lens I purchased, for a long time the ONLY good lens I owned, and it has served me very well for a very long time. I love shooting with it every opportunity I get.

 

BUT... ever since I bought the 24-105, the 24-105 has been on my 5D for about 90% of the photos I've taken. For what I like to do it's just much more practical, and it only comes off the camera if I know specifically that I want/need something different.

 

YMMV.

[alan_myers]

OMG, here goes the debate again.

 

Truth is, either lens might be right for the original poster. Both have their purpose and strengths. Best way to find out is to buy one and start shooting with it. If it meets your needs, great. If not, sell it and get the other one. Neither lens depreciates very much on the used market.

 

I see the 24-105 as a more useful lens for travel, or if it's your only lens for a while.

 

The 24-70 found it's way into my bag because I really couldn't live with less than f2.8, I use it in conjunction with two other zooms, and IS isn't all that helpful to me at these focal lengths, plus after 30 years of photography I can handhold it at 1/30 at the short end and 1/60 at the long end with reasonably good success, even on 1.6X crop cameras.

 

But, that's just me. Others are just as happy (obviously!) with the 24-105.

 

So, just make the best deal you can and start shooting. That's really the only way you'll ever find out what's "right-est" for you.

 

Note: You can very likely rent either lens, too, if perhaps you want to more closely compare it with the one you buy.

[William Michael]

>>>"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."<<< WW I pretty much voted for the 24-105 right out of the gate. (JH)

 

 

Thanks for the kind comment:

 

 

As well as turning off the bells and whistles to learn so to speak, I was also wanted to stress that, IMO, playing with a more shallow DoF (for portraits as an example) and taking the lens to concerts, (faster speed) and shooting sports (faster speed) the 24 to 70 F2.8 would be a better FIRST all around lens.

 

 

`I also want to buy a general purpose lens to go with it.` (op cit)

 

 

Unless we have a full and exact grasp of what it is we are GOING to attempt to capture first up, it is better to go for a wider compass incorporating all shooting aspects.

 

 

It is just the balance of the aspects is difficult, when comparing unlike and lenses with differencing prominent aspects. And this is so when comparing these two lenses.

 

 

As most will note I have a predisposition for lens speed, and thus will bias towards speed in 99% of cases.

 

 

My logic for this bias is simple, and mentioned often, and at the risk of being a parrot (I`ll invert the sentence a bit): . . . lens speed is the single shooting criterion which will eventually make a shot possible or impossible.

 

 

Good luck with the decision, as many have mentioned you`ll get great shots with either lens.

 

 

WW

[William Michael]

>>> 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. <<< (JM)

 

Well no, not in my experience.

 

Just moving inside can be a differentiating factor: where 1 stop may be vital in general photography for a general purpose lens.

 

Some simple examples: with an active young child and the necessity to capture him playing or her feeding etc.

 

Going to a kid`s BBall game is another.

 

Wanting a shallow DoF tight ambient light shot of your lover is another . . .

 

[Noted your reference to the 5D and its low light and high ISO capacity that has been factored to my comment.

 

I own a 5D and use its low light, high ISO capacity a lot.]

 

Also, in general photography, if the photographer is active enough, at some time or another, the remaining (about 16 or so) virtues of a 1 stop faster EF lens will come into play, on any body, including a 5D.

 

WW

[colinsouthern]

"Heck, if you have enough money just buy everything and figure it out later. :-)"

 

Sounds similar to an approach that I like to use in life ...

 

"Buy it first, justify it later"

 

(It's always so much easier to justify it once you already have it! :)

[gdanmitchell]

<p>Shot with the 24-105 under stage lighting only using the 24-105...

 

<p><img src="http://www.gdanmitchell.com/images/JamoFiddler20070331.jpg">

 

<p>The low light issue cuts both ways. You do get one extra stop for dealing with subject motion using the 24-

70 f/2.8, but you also get 2-3 extra stops for handheld shots where subject motion can be controlled (or

tolerated) with the 24-105 f/4.

 

<p>Dan

[William Michael]

>>> but you also get 2-3 extra stops for handheld shots where subject motion can be controlled (or tolerated) with the 24-105 f/4.<<< (DM)

 

 

`where subject motion can be controlled (or tolerated)`:

 

No argument from me whatsoever with that thought and that caveat.

 

Also (with IS) an extra couple of stops hand held if you can release the shutter at the point of minimum motion to render the motion `tolerable`.

 

And IS very useful for panning.

 

IS is a great tool: stated to clarify my position (to others) that my position is certainly NOT `anti IS`.

 

:)

 

WW

[markonestudios]

The votes are in and the winner is...

[jim_a]

How is this for a plan?

 

Buy the 5D as a kit with the 24-105. Then rent the 24-70 for $70 for a week from rentglass.com. If you like the 24-70 better sell the 24-105 on Ebay, Craig's list or here on Photo.Net. If you buy the 5D and 24-105 alone you will pay $3,196 versus $2750 as a kit. You should easily be able to net $800 for the 24-105.

 

You can read all the "expert" opinions and look at all the photos online taken from each lens. Until you get each lens in your hands and see the results you will never know the right choice for you.

[wen_qian]

the ideal would be that Canon came out with a 24-105 f/2.8 IS L Lens...

 

that would be just perfect...i woudln't mind carrying an extra 100-200gms on the lens for the all purpose powerful lens...

[mendel_leisk]

Something I just noticed: my 24-105 is a bit wider than my 24-70, both set at 24mm. Setting both to *any* particular focal length gives wider results with the 24-105.

 

After quite a while of just using the 24-70, I've been giving the 24-105 more of a try out of late, it does give sharp consistant results, and I like the color balance, which is cooler than the 24-70. Not sure if it's just the IS making the difference, but I like the results. Think I need to take both along more and do some test shot series.

[mendel_leisk]

And something else:

 

I was doing some comparison shots to test focus with both lens, some little ornaments on a table with a table lamp above, for illumination, both lens without hoods. The 24-70 showed a suprising amount of flare, dark areas of the picture showing washed out reddish glow. Putting on it's hood reduced the flare considerably, but did not eliminate it.

 

With the 24-105 however, at same point-of-view and focal length, I could see *no* evidence of this flare. Using it's hood, or not, the results were the same. Good contrast and clean/dark shadows were evident, better than the 24-70 even with it's hood.

 

Both lens had good quality UV filters on, which might be a factor. I'll try again without and post if I see any difference results.