24-70 f/2.8 OR 24-104 f/4 ?

[davebell]

<p>Nice one Sinh. Also, it would be better than on the wedding the endless ads for Bella Imaging hriring photographers. They don't seem to be too successful in attractiove staff, mmmmm</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Ken, just a point on TCs - the Canon ones will not fit on the 24-70 F2.8 as the rear element is too close to the mount. It is a while since I owned the 24-105 but I belevie it has the same problem. the shortest zoom I have that accepts a TC is the 70-200 F2.8</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Reading this thread, I'm struck with how political (and acrimonious) photographers can be. This is very strange, given that I consider photography to be a Zen-like form of art.</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

<p>In my experiences (I've skipped most of the replies so far - -the 24-105 (And I've tried three of them) is iffy on a Canon EOS-1Ds Mark 2 and 1D MArk 3 so I think it will more than likely definitely show it's limitations on the higher resolution 5D Mark 2 body.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>24-105, also very close:</p>

<p><img src="http://gdanmitchell.com/gallery/d/1309-2/ChineseLanternFlowers20080426.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[mark from thailand]

<p>Sinh,</p>

<p>What do you have against lingerie ads?</p>

<p>(Guys, this is a forum for photographers for fun, not the UN :) )</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>Dan,</p>

<p>The 24-105 will yield .22x full size, and the 24-70 yields .29x, at least according to The-Digital-Picture:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-105mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-105mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx</a></p>

<p>I'm just trying to give the OP info; I don't want to get drawn into debate.</p>

[nhut-nguyen]

<p>Nothing against lingerie ads, I'd refer Frederick of Hollywoods over Lane Bryant :)</p>

<p>On a serious note though, I don't think it's appropriate for a photography forum. I was showing my 5-year old nephew some of my bird shots and out of no where a lady wearing lingerie appeared on the right side of the screen. Yes, we are a conservative family.</p>

<p>Regarding the topic of this thread, I would suggest the original poster to rent these lenses and give them a test run. I know you'll have to spend extra money but you'll get to have hand-on experience with both lenses before you drop $1000+.</p>

[mark from thailand]

<p>Sinh,</p>

<p>If I were you I'd purge all my cookies. I only get v boring ads for Adorama & Canon on my screen.</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>Of the subject about the ads, I would suggest that maybe your son would be better of not visiting with dad while on photo.net, there are plenty of photography sites that would not carry those types of ads. That is why I never took my sons to any of the football and basketball games too many good looks gals that were scantly clad. Don't even let them watch on TV. Not true</p>

<p>I found it much easier to explain life to them at an early age rather then they learn from their friends or else where.</p>

[asher]

<p>I just compared these 2 lenses on my 5D, in person at a local retailer. All I will add to the above discussion is:</p>

<ol>

<li>the 24-70 is absolutely HUGE, especially with the hood attached and "extended" to 24mm (designed that way so the hood won't vignette- it's a long hood). The 24-105 still feels like a "regular-sized" zoom, even with the IS.</li>

<li>I never cared much for IS... until I tried it: it's quite impressive, even just looking on the LCD vs the 24-70</li>

<li>the IS is great for separating the elements that you WANT blurred vs sharp, as apposed to blurring the entire frame with camera (hand) shake.</li>

<li>the extra stop on the 24-70 is appealing, especially to me (I've shot with fast primes almost exclusively). BUT the VF on the 5D is so big and bright, that the difference (2.8 vs f4) is negligible, at least to me.</li>

</ol>

[rob - atlanta, ga usa]

<p>"The f/2.8 aperture can give a bit narrower DOF if you need it and it is easier to get nicer bokeh with this lens." G Dan Mitchell<br>

How does an f/2.8 lens give you <em><strong>narrower</strong> </em> DOF than an f/4 lens?</p>

[john_bellenis]

<p>Well, assuming the same focal length, f2.8 will give a narrower (less) depth of field than f4. Also, assuming that both lenses are shot wide open of course.</p>

<p>There is nothing factually incorrect about Dan's comment that a couple of caveats won't clear up.</p>

[KenPapai]

<p>David B., I am happy I am not as mature and serious as you are.</p>

<p>This is a GEAR forum and I find two things laughable here:</p>

<p>1. The nausea of the 24-70 v. 24-105 post frequency (subjective)<br>

2. The kitchen sink mentality Canon built into the 24-105 (objective)</p>

<p>If that makes me immature, then so-be-it. I'll wear that crown proudly.</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>Yeah, If "narrower" equals "shallower" it all falls into place. FWIW, I've never been too thrilled with the 24-70's bokeh. Out-of-focus backgrounds tend to look mottled, I'm not sure why. Maybe depends on how detailed/busy that background is.</p>

[photo_dark]

<p>my (second) .50 (up to a dollar now).<br>

<br /> Personally, i find the 24-70 Irreplaceable with a full frame camera. Sometimes i wish it was a little longer, but the mind-blowing quality the lens offers is truly second to none in the world of zoom lenses.</p>

<p>On a regular basis since purchase, i've realized that the 24-70 defines my photography. Basically, if I had the 24-105, I wouldn't be as good of a photographer..... period. I tried using one for a while, but I stopped getting clients. They all said the same thing... "F4? seriously? amateur! We're not hiring you!"<br>

<br /> So I went and bought the 24-70. After all, everyone else was doing it. Since then i've noticed at LEAST a 50% increase in my creativity, and i've gotten more clients too... not just more clients, but also hotter clients. The babes have GRAVITATED to me since buying the 24-70. I see those losers with the 24-105's literally surrounded by nerds, while i'm swingin the ladies.</p>

<p>.... Ok you get it... seriously, they are both great lenses, who the hell cares which one you pick? My HONEST advice? Go buy a Canon G9 and see if you still feel limited by your gear.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<blockquote>

<p>"The f/2.8 aperture can give a bit narrower DOF if you need it and it is easier to get nicer bokeh with this lens." G Dan Mitchell<br /> How does an f/2.8 lens give you <em><strong>narrower</strong> </em> DOF than an f/4 lens?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe I'm misunderstanding something here or perhaps there is a hidden message I'm not understanding (hey, it has happened...), but that's how DOF works.</p>

<p>Smaller apertures - e.g. f/4 in this comparison - give you a larger/wider/bigger DOF than larger apertures - e.g. f/2.8. That's why you shoot at f/16 on FF if you want really deep DOF and why you shoot at f/2.8 (or smaller) if you want to limit DOF.</p>

<p>Frankly, the DOF difference between f/4 and f/2.8 is often not all <em>that</em> significant, and often the very smallest DOF can be too small. And if you want really narrow DOF you might want to acquire a prime or two - unless you are using very long focal length lenses which, by their nature, tend to give limited DOF.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>Ken, I'm not taking the bait this time. :-)</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Gack. I knew I should have proofread that... I wrote: "...and why you shoot at f/2.8 (or <em>smaller</em> ) if you want to limit DOF."</p>

<p>Of course, that sentence should have read: "and why you shoot at f/2.8 (or <strong>LARGER</strong> ) if you want to limit DOF."</p>

<p>Crawling back into the hole... ;-)</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[markonestudios]

Has anyone noticed that the OP hasn't responded in a while? Aaron, did you even bother to do a search? This is arguably the mother of all FAQs on these fora. Right up there with such classics as "Which is better, Nikon or Canon?"

[aaron emanuel litvinoff]

<p>Glad to be the catalyst for what will remain a relevant and interesting topic for years to come.<br>

I'm still waiting to receive my 5DMk2 with 24-105 and will let you know my thoughts once I give it a good go!</p>

[john_manganiello]

<p>Questions: Why did Canon use the 105 as the kit lens on the new 5D and not the older lens? Will Canon upgrade the 24-70 as they upgraded the 16-35 - does it need an upgrade? </p>