Which Standard Zoom Lens?

[emily_jacob]

<p>I am looking at buying a new standard zoom lens. I currently am shooting with a Rebel XS, but am planning on buying the 6D when it comes out in December. I have been looking at my different options for a standard lens to shoot with. I have tried the Canon 24-70 (the mark I, not the newest II), Tamron 24-70, and the Canon 24-105. I'm kind of leaning towards the Tamron 24-70, I like the f/2.8 and that it has vibration reduction. I have not tried the new Canon 24-70 mark II, but it's $1,000 more than the Tamron, and I don't think I want to spend more than $1,500. I was just wondering what other people's thoughts were on these lenses, or if there was a different one you liked. Thanks!</p>

[mikeperrotta]

<p>I've used both the Canon 24-70 and the 24-105 with a 5D2 and I prefer the 24-70 for its slightly better image quality and speed. It is heavier, though, and the 24-105 has IS, which somewhat makes up for the slower speed. Also, it is lighter and makes a nice walk around lens. I think you can't go wrong with either. I have no experience with the Tamron, though. Hope this helps. <br>

-Mike</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>I would go for the 24-105 simply because it has more reach than the 24-70.</p>

[jaydesi]

<p>Will you miss the reach of the 24-105 if you get a 24-70, or will the extra stop of f/2.8 be more useful to you? That would be the deciding factor for me, as I've found the IQ of both Canon lenses to be fine. I have no experience with the Tamron, but wouldn't think it would be too far off.</p>

[emily_jacob]

<p>I think I would prefer the f/2.8 over the reach of the 24-105. I currently have a 55-250, so if I really need to zoom in on something, I can use that. This is why I'm kind of leaning towards the Tamron, since the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 is $1,000 more. I could get the Canon 24-70mm f/4, but, for the same price as the Tamron, I may as well get a faster f-stop.</p>

[matttonkin]

<blockquote>

<p>I currently have a 55-250, so if I really need to zoom in on something, I can use that.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Once you get the 6D you won't be able to use your 55-250 on it so you will be lacking on the telephoto end. Something to consider.</p>

[jake_cole]

<p>You should probably say something about how you intend to use the lens, otherwise there is no real reason to recommend one over the other besides technical specifications, compatibility, and price.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Unless you plan to go full frame I would also look at the 17-55 F2.8. I shoot full frame but have a 7D body. I have the 24-70 MkI (I have had it for many years) but I find I rarely put it on the 7D as the 38-112 effective focal length is not a great one for me. I find that I use my 16-35 F2.8 II as a standard zoom on the 7D. If I only planned to shoot APS-C I am sure that the 17-55 F2.8 IS would appeal. While I have never used this lens it is well reviewed and regarded by those who do use it. In terms of the 24-70 vs 24-105 I would suggest the 24-70 F2.8. My reason for this is that with an F4 lens on an APS-C body it is harder to have good subject background separation due to the longer DOF of the slower lens.</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>I am looking at buying a new standard zoom lens. I currently am shooting with a Rebel XS, but am planning on buying the 6D when it comes out in December. . . <strong><em>I was just wondering what other people's thoughts were on these lenses, or if there was a different one you liked.</em></strong></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I have used the EF24-70 (both versions) and also the new Tamron 24-70/2.8 and I recently bought a EF24-105/4IS.<br>

I would buy NONE of these lenses for use as my “standard lens” for my APS-C sensor cameras, as none is wide enough - YMMV.<br>

I would buy the EF-S 17 to 55F/2.8 IS USM, if I only had APS-C Format Cameras. I have used this lens and it is a cracker piece of glass.<br>

I also use a 16 to 35/2.8MkII as my “standard zoom” on my APS-C cameras – BUT I am not suggesting you buy that lens if you only keep an APS-C Kit.</p>

<p>Also I agree with Philip’s point about the faster glass being more useful for Shallow DoF Control on an APS-C Camera - and (if I had to choose), I would choose a 24 to 70/2.8 over a 24 to 105/4. The shallow DoF control being one reason: also I value Lens Speed over IS in that FL range for lens Speed's ability to stop action, rather than the IS's ability to stop camera shake. I understand it is only one stop and rarely significant, but when at the limit - for me it is, significant. </p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p>

[wgpinc]

<p>Buy a lens for what you have right now. Get the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 non VC lens ($450) and use it until you get the full frame camera. You will find it very sharp with great color quality. Any of the 24 to XXX lenses are not as well suited for a standard zoom with the APS-C. When you get the full frame either sell the APS-C outfit or keep it as a backup because it produces excellent quality images. Take a look at the Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 lens at a much smaller price and lighter weight for full frame. Any of the lenses you listed will probably be very satisfactory for you when you go full time. Good luck!</p>

[William Michael]

<p>EJ: Please ignore and disregard the irrelevant portions of my previous post on this thread.<br />I misread the OP and glossed over the “6D” computing it as ‘buying a 60D’.</p>

<p>Therefore:<br />Tamron 24 to 70 VR<br />What I did like - the VR in the Tamron; but I didn’t like the zoom turret and its movement, it was not smooth. Also the Tamron was a little lacking at F/2.8 in IQ, compared to the original EF24 to 70/2.8. I would not buy the Tamron for my use, primarily for those two reasons.</p>

<p>24 to 70 (original)<br />For my uses - a very fine lens. Most adequate at F/2.8 and I would use it at that aperture.</p>

<p>24 to 70 MkII<br />Again for my uses a very fine lens. I would use this lens at F/2.8. The Lens Hood of the original version is more useful than the lens hood on the MkII: that is enough for me to buy the original over the MkII version and save a truckload of money – YMMV. You might however have difficulty in finding a new copy, of the original version.</p>

<p>24 to 105/4IS<br />A very handy “everyday lens” (read “Standard Zoom Lens”) on a FF camera which has “capable ISO” to around ISO1600~3200. I bought this lens after about two years thinking about it. Used it on my 5D for 8 weeks, photographing across Italy and France. I took two other lenses and a set of extension tubes. Of the 8000 images I made, all but a about 200 were made with the zoom and all the FL range from 24 to 105 was used. IS was very useful and its capacity extended to 1/8second often and quite confidently, (but I have made shots at 1/8s without IS also – but not as confidently, going into the shot.)<br />At 24 there is a little vignette – not to bothersome.</p>

<p>There are seventy six million 24 to 70 vs. 24 to 105 threads in this forum if you have a rainy weekend and nothing to do – mine is but a cursory and personal summary.</p>

<p>It’s my opinion that Subject Matter & Lighting Conditions are really the fundamental issues for consideration to predicate one’s choice.<br />Although I did NOT take a Flash Unit on my journey and I intended to shoot often in low light and I did choose to take a camera with (by today’s standards) limited High ISO capacity, I found that F/4 combined with IS was more than adequate (and I had a very fast 35 for very low light Portraiture).</p>

<p>On the other hand, my purchase of the 24 to 105 was a “bonus” for me, as I tend to use fast Primes (or the 16 to 35/2.8) as my “standard lens”</p>

<p>So for your uses – anyone’s uses – I think it still comes down to sorting the priority of Movement Stopping (i.e. a fast aperture) or the value of Image Stabilization at the cost of a few mm of telephoto.<br />If I only had ONE ZOOM Lens to choose AND wanted it as my “Standard Zoom Lens” on a 6D, I would choose the EF24 to 70/2.8L (the original), becasue as I wrote previously -<br>

<em>“I value Lens Speed over IS in that FL range for lens Speed's ability to stop action, rather than the IS's ability to stop camera shake. I understand it is only one stop and rarely significant, but when at the limit - for me it is, significant.”</em></p>

<p>WW</p>

[tudor_apmadoc]

My vote would be for the 24-105. I used it for 7 years as my walk around lens, switched recently to the new 24-70 II. I

really have missed the extra reach of the 105.

 

In terms of sharpness, if you look at the various lens test, most lenses, are their sharpest, not wide open but at f 5.6 or

even f 8. There goes some of the advantage do the 24-70. IS make well make up some more

 

Bottom line, I would recommend the 24-105.

[Marcus Ian]

<p>I would say there is one critical decision you need to make. Do you <em>need</em> a lens capable of shooting at f2.8? If not, then the the 24-105 is an obvious choice, and I'm sure you'll find it adequate.<br>

If you <em>do</em> need f2.8 (even occasionally), then given your budget restrictions, I'd probably recommend the Tamron 24-70/2.8 USD VC. It is generally considered to be on par <em>or better</em> then the 24-70/2.8 L optically speaking - but these guys have so much variation (and are a bit 'sensitive' - to rough treatment) that a 'good' copy is incredibly good, and 'bad' copy is quite bad. But the Tammy is not quite as good as the 24-70/2.8L II (which is also much more robust).</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>William's comparative analysis covers most of what you need to know about the differences between the EF 24-70 I and II and the 24-105. I'd just like to add that, in addition to its shallower DOF capability, the bokeh of the 24-70's is better than that of the 24-105. So if you're planning on doing alot of portraiture, one of f/2.8 lenses would be your best bet. For general walkabout use, the 24-105, with its extra reach and IS, would be superior.</p>

[emily_jacob]

<p>Wow, thanks for all of the information! I should have mentioned to begin with, I will primarily be using for landscape. That being said, the 24-105 would be better for that, but do I buy the cheaper mark I or upgrade to mark II. I hate to spend $2,300 on a lens, being that it's primarily a hobby, but I would like to expand my photography more than just a hobby. It's really a tough decision. I don't want to buy anything just to use with my APS-C, because I'm buying the 6D, no matter what. I don't need anything right now, I'm just trying to plan ahead and figure out what I will need to spend and do the research before I buy. I also didn't realize my 55-250mm won't work with the FF, I thought it would work with both, so that sucks.</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>"I will primarily be using for landscape. That being said, the 24-<strong>105</strong> would be better for that, but do I buy the cheaper mark I or upgrade to mark II."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am confused. There is only ONE version of the 24 to 105.</p>

<p>If however that was a typo and you meant the EF24 to <strong>70, </strong>then my vote would be to buy the ORIGINAL version of this lens, as I do not see the extra value for price in the MkII version and I prefer the advantage of the better functionality of the lens hood of the original, as I've already outlined.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[tom_elessar]

<p>William W regarding the 24-70:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br />Again for my uses a very fine lens. I would use this lens at F/2.8. The Lens Hood of the original version is more useful than the lens hood on the MkII: that is enough for me to buy the original over the MkII version and save a truckload of money – YMMV. You might however have difficulty in finding a new copy, of the original version.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Take a look at this <a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/09/canon-24-70-f2-8-ii-resolution-tests">Lensrentals.com</a> post, and especially links to the reliability tests of the mk 1. As detailed elsewhere on the Lensrentals blog, the newest Canon lenses and bodies appear to have superior AF when mated with each other. On the other hand, the new lens is $2,300, and you better want that sucker pretty damn bad. <br>

If the main purpose is a landscape lens, I'd probably prefer the 24 - 105—for IS and price. </p>

[emily_jacob]

<p>Yep, I confused myself and wrote the wrong one, 24-70mm is what I meant, so ignore what I put earlier. That's what I get for working and surfing the internet at the same time.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Some people didn't seem to read that you're buying a 6D.</p>

<p>I use the 24-105mm f/4L IS on my 5D MkIII and previously on my 5D2. It is a great standard lens; however, I do recommend that use a Digital Lens Optimizer software in your Raw conversion, to correct for the geometric errors, CA, vignetting, etc. that you get with all wide to medium zooms. Digital Photo Professional includes DLO, you can add it into Lightroom and DxO Optics Pro has been featuring it for years. The improvement is major.</p>