What would you think about this kit?

[mitchell_rainero]

<p>I had asked about which body to buy a little down the page. I decided on the 5d MKii. Mainly because of the increased iso, self cleaning, mp, screen.<br>

I was going to get a 24-105L IS f4 lens that comes in the kit. <br>

The more I think about it I have been thinking of getting the 24-70L f2.8.<br>

My setup would be this<br>

24-70L f2.8<br>

70-200L f2.8<br>

1.4x tele<br>

2.0x tele<br>

I shoot my families birthday parties, concerts I attend, a little wildlife.<br>

Most of my shots are candid shots. <br>

Going to have my first child later this year and can't wait to start with pictures of it.<br>

I always prefer the look of shots without a flash. If I have to, I always will diffuse it/bounce.<br>

When I had my old 5d I had the 24-105 with it. I liked the lens but I found that many indoor shots and night shots would have blur because of the low light even when I had the iso cranked up. Then I would get noise.<br>

Will the 24-70 2.8 be much better for this use?<br>

How about the 70-200 with the 2x tele to get the 400mm 5.6?</p>

[tom_harvey3]

<p>The 5d Mk II with the 24-105 is an excellent low-light combination for kid-chasing (or in my case, grand-kid chasing). The 4 to 1 range and sharpness are hard to beat. Works well with video too. Once the little tyke learns to roll over, he's not that far removed from going all-out mobile and can be harder to track than a mouse peeing on cotton. The zoom range comes in handy.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>The 24-70/2.8 would buy you only one stop over the 24-105/4. For indoor low light use, I prefer to use fast primes over zooms (though I have got good results with my 24-70). The 35/1.4, 50/1.4, and 85/1.2 II are my main lenses for that application. Of course, the 85/1.2 focuses slowly, so the 85/1.8 would probably be better for you. The 24-105 is a superb lens, but I use mine almost exclusively outdoors.</p>

[jim_j2]

<p>The 1.4X TC is good, I have one, but I read a considerable amount of negatives on the 2.X TC.</p>

<p>I use the 1.4 on my 100-400 quite a bit, more so with a film EOS than the 50D.</p>

<p>IMHO, use the $$$$ for the 2X somewhere else.</p>

[stp]

<p>I'll second what Jim Johnson says about the 2.0x multiplier. Like Jim, I don't have personal experience with this multiplier (I do have with the 1.4, and it's superb), but I've read many, many posts that don't find much support for the IQ that comes from using the 2.0. I think your proposed setup is otherwise o.k..</p>

[digitmstr]

<p>I have those lenses and I wouldn't use anything else for indoor and/or candids -BTW, one stop difference in shutter speed can make or break a shot, that's for sure.</p>

[john_bellenis]

<p>For my money the 24-70mm f2.8L is in a different league to the 24-105mm f4L - definitely the right way to go. I know the 24-105mm has a lot of fans and is indeed very convenient with IS, 35mm more reach and smaller and lighter, but after extensive testing I found the vignetting wide open at 24mm absolutely atrocious, the barrel distortion unacceptable and the resolution down until it equalled out at around f8 (and I really wanted to like that lens because of all the "advantages"). I know people will say this can all be corrected in post processing, but that's not how I want to spend my time or how I choose my lenses. </p>

<p>I would also not bother with the 2X TC. It will knock yet another stop off your shutter speed (after the 1.4x) and the IQ takes a substantial hit. With 21MP on your 5D Mk II, you would probably be better off just cropping into the image you made with the 1.4X TC.</p>

<p>The only thing I'd add would be a fast prime or two and a super wide option. For occasional use, and to avoid being caught out by huge groups or tight spaces, you could add a 17-40mm f4L for pretty low money.</p>

<p>Good luck - you have chosen some excellent equipment, the rest is up to you!</p>

[jaydesi]

<p>I just traded in my 24-70mm f/2.8L for the 24-105 f/4L IS. Sure, you get one extra stop on the 24-70, but for my purposes, having IS was well worth giving up that stop...if you're going to be shooting wide open indoors without a flash, you're going to have a relatively slow shutter speed anyway, so subject movement is still going to show...I'd rather have 3 stops of IS than one stop of aperture. I'd rather use a flash if necessary, because you're also giving up depth of field. The times when I can't use a flash are so few and far between it made no difference to me.</p>

<p>I was recently at a wedding and thought the f/2.8 was going to let me shoot without a flash and not be obnoxious like all the people flashing their P&Ss all over the place...but even wide open, I had to really crank the ISO to get a reasonable shutter speed, and my pics were nothing spectacular, noise was barely acceptable to me. I would say, though, that my pictures have a realistic representation of the wedding and reception, whereas the people who took pics with their P&S and flash had shots that looked like the room was pitch black.</p>

<p>I also have the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS, and don't mind having the overlapping range.</p>

<p>Put IS on the 24-70 f/2.8, and the decision is a no brainer.</p>

[avery1]

<p>One thing to add...IS doesn't help at all with motion blur which may be an issue shooting kids' birthday parties. Unless you like motion blur!<br>

I have both the 24-70 and 24-105 and use both, although I've thought about getting rid of the 24-105. I use the former when I need/want to shoot faster or when I really care about image quality (it's a little bit better imho). I use the latter when I care about weight or want the added flexibility of the 70-105 range (traveling or backpacking).</p>

[martin-s]

<blockquote>

<p>"The 24-70/2.8 would buy you only one stop over the 24-105/4. For indoor low light use, I prefer to use fast primes over zooms (though I have got good results with my 24-70)."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree with Mark. You'd only gain one stop with the 24-70mm, but you'd lose the extra reach and IS. I would rather add a fast prime to the 24-105mm for low-light use.</p>

[robertbody]

<p>for portraits I would use a prime, definately a prime... a prime for babies...... 135mm f/2<br>

light bounced off something [not head on]... cheapest way is bouncing it off a book wrapped in a white garbage bag... but just for a few dollars more there are better options :-)<br>

<img src="http://www.robertbody.com/people00/images/2007-07-12-high-micah02.jpg" alt="" width="750" height="500" /><br>

24-70mm is a great lens but for portraits you want something lighter and a bit sharper doesn't hurt<br>

a dedicatd portrait lens is best. and the focal length would give you some room to stand back, and get a closeup. for alternative view, a 50mm f/1.8 would be an economic choice [in addition to the 135mm f/2].</p>

[William Michael]

<p><strong><em>“The more I think about it I have been thinking of getting the 24-70L f2.8.”</em></strong></p>

<p>If you are considering a kit based upon zoom lenses then the 24 to 70/2.8L is the better choice given the outline of your shooting requirements.</p>

<p>***<br /><strong><em></em></strong><br /><strong><em>70-200L f2.8</em></strong><br /><strong><em></em></strong><br />I have this lens, IMO it is a very special lens and a specialist lens. For your needs I suggest the <strong><em>EF70 to 200F2.8L IS</em></strong> or the <strong><em>EF70 to 200F2.8L IS MkII</em></strong><br /><br /></p>

<p>***</p>

<p><strong><em>1.4x tele<br />2.0x tele</em></strong><br /><strong><em></em></strong><br />I will assume the both tele-extenders will be the MkII versions.</p>

<p>In a two zoom kit, both make sense. You will hear negative comments about the x2.0MkII when used on all three of the 70 to 200F2.8 lenses.</p>

<p>Frankly there is image degradation, but not as much as what is bandied about. But I agree that cropping a 21mp image is an option, but I would still buy the x2.0 . . . I did and I do carry both extenders always - horses for courses . . . The 70 to 200f/2.8L + x2.0MkII makes a very notice lightweight alternative to bringing out the 400 or 300 and carrying it around all day at the kids birthday party.</p>

<p>Correct Post Production especially correct SHARPENING is critical to get the maximum performance from this combination.</p>

<p>If you are really full bottle on using the x2.0 then the EF70 to 200F/2.8L gives marginally better performance than the EF70 to 200F/2.8L IS, I have not used the EF70 to 200F/2.8L IS MkII so I cannot comment there.</p>

<p>Below is the 70 to 200F/2.8L USM + 2.0MkII used at 400mm @ F6.3 @ 1/1600s @ ISO250 Head-On Motion - Hand Held</p>

<p>The Original is in <strong><em>"Five Training Daze"</em></strong> also here is a dedicated pixel peeping set: <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=944717">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=944717</a></p>

<p>And if you want a low priced telephoto then the 300f/4 IS would be a better option to complement that kit IMO (considering you will have the x1.4MkII) than the 400/5.6</p>

<p>WW</p><div></div>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>John, the resolution figures for the 24-70 and the 24-105 are about the same.</p>

[mitchell_rainero]

<p>I have bought the 5d mkii and the 24-70L f2.8.<br>

Now is there that big a difference in the<br>

70-200L f2.8 IS<br>

and the<br>

70-200L f2.8 IS II</p>

[john_bellenis]

<p>@ Mark: Hi, I'm willing to put the differences I saw down to sample variation, but there was indeed a definite difference in the edges at 24mm, at anything wider than f8, between the two lenses I tested. The vignetting and distortion were more obvious and were a bigger factor in my decision though.</p>

<p>@ Mitchell: The difference in between excellent and excellent+ I think! I have the Mk I version and it delivers superb results so I would never think of "upgrading" - although I'm sure the MkII is a teeny bit better. Whether or not you would see any perceptible difference in real life shooing, I can't say.</p>