Canon 24-105mm f/4L at 50mm vs 50mm 1.8

[paddy_curran]

So I have the canon 24-105 f/4L and will be shooting mainly handheld shots on my 7D on my travels for 3 weeks. My question is will I

notice a huge difference at 50mm with the prime (speed isn't an issue) to make it worth carrying around or will the 24-105 be just as good.

Most of my shots will probably be during the day and will be shooting mainly landscapes and buildings and such. Will also be carrying

around my sigma 10-20 for wider shots which is why I would prefer not to need the 50mm if it wasn't going to make a better shot.

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>"(speed isn't an issue)"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I presume that means "lens speed in not an issue" (i.e. you will not require F/1.8 to F/3.5).<br /> <br /> If my interpretation of your question is correct, then I would not take the 50/1.8 as an additional lens:<br />- firstly because I don't think that (if there is) any improved general image quality, it will be a big deal<br />- secondly because for the main purposes you outline <em>"shooting mainly landscapes and buildings"</em> a 50mm on a 7D would not be my choice as a back-up lens (apropos focal length) - perhaps a small lightweight 28 or 35 would be my choice as a lightweight backup main lens for a 7D when travelling</p>

<p>I don’t have the 50/1.8 but I have used a few: I do have the 50/1.4 and also the 24 to 105/4L.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[paddy_curran]

Yes lens speed isn't really an issue. Some shots will also require a shallow depth of field to fit in people but with a

background also and some will just be portrait photography too. I didn't think it would be worth it really but just wanted to

make sure.

[William Michael]

<p>Well I bought the 24 to 105 as a present to myself; it is my only 'luxury lens' in so far as it does not have a useful purpose in my kit other than being my 'lazy and wanting a one lens to fit all my travelling requirements'<br>

I do however mainly use it on 5D Series cameras when I am travelling on holidays - so I forego the tighter FoV (telephoto) that you have, but I do get to carry around a wider (15mm equivalent), whereas you need to carry two lenses to get that wide.<br>

I really like the IS at the wide - mainly because I like chronicling Architectural Interiors, especially Churches.</p>

<p>I have found the 24-105 a very nice FL range for portraiture both on 5D’s and APS-C.<br>

I am not all that fussed on worrying too much about the (slow) F/4 in respect of <strong>Shallow DoF</strong>, per se.<br>

F/4 is fine to use for <em>most</em> situations where you need <strong>Subject Separation</strong> for Portraiture, you just need to get the background, back a bit and ‘separated’, which is usually easy to do either overtly or covertly.<br>

The lens has a reasonable close-up capacity also - though flowers are not really my thing sometimes one or two take my interest. The 24 to 105 lens is quite versatile.<br>

If I had only APS-C Cameras I would have another W/A lens like you have; and that would be a very adequate travel kit for me. I know of a few who use exactly that. </p>

<p>FYI – <a href="/photodb/folder?folder_id=1051323">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=1051323</a></p>

<p>WW<br>

<br>

</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>As with most prime/zoom relationships, the 50/1.8 is veeeeeery slightly sharper than the 24-105 at 50mm, and it has less chromatic aberration, at least looking at the samples tested by slrgear.com. (The sharpness advantage can easily be lost for lack of IS, unless you're shooting from a tripod.) But I don't think the difference is enough better to warrant lugging around an extra lens -- as long as you're carrying the zoom anyway, and assuming speed doesn't matter. Besides that, I think the 50/1.8 has a rather ugly bokeh, while the 24-105 has relatively decent bokeh at that focal length.</p>

<p>Anyway, look for yourself. Go to slrgear.com, look up the two lenses, open their interactive charts, and move the focal length and aperture sliders to compare performance.</p>

[colin carron]

<p>Just as an activity sample, I own both the 50/1.8 and the 24-105/4. I only rarely use the 50mm but the 24-105 gets used a lot. Asking myself why this is, for the 24-105, I come up with the useful zoom range, the IS, the decent image quality, the fast-enough-for-most-purposes max aperture. It is for me a better all-round lens while I only use the 50/1.8 in the unusual circumstances where the faster max aperture is required. </p>

[ed_avis2]

<p>The 50 is small and will fit in a jacket pocket. You might as well take it, and some days during the holiday you might prefer to use it and leave the heavier lenses in the place where you're staying.</p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>The 50mm is definitely sharper but if you're sure you don't need f/1.8 - f/3.5 I would leave it at home. Remember that as the sun starts going down those apertures are VERY useful.</p>

[pmind]

<p>Although the 24-105mm is my favorite travel lens, I'd bring the 50mm as well...it weighs less than 5 ounces. The need for a fast prime is something that I've underestimated in past travels. It may well prove useful when shooting at night, or indoors, or for portraits. As for the bokeh at larger apertures, the 24-105 is definitely not my first choice for a portrait lens, but it is a very versatile lens otherwise. I haven't used the 50mm f/1.8 since version 1, but I remember it not being too bad at larger apertures. Safe travels.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Paul, FAIW, I agree the 24-105 isn't know for great bokeh, but its only bokeh problems occur around 105mm.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Also, remember that when shooting zooms, for best results, you should shoot in Raw and apply Digital Lens Correction in Raw conversion. When you apply DLO, the difference in IQ between primes and zooms pretty much evaporates. Digital Photo Professional, Lightroom, DxO Optics Pro and other Raw converters have DLO modules.</p>

<p>I own the tiny 40/2.8 and hardly ever carry it vs. my 24-105/f4 on my 5D MkIII.</p>

[robert_turner5]

<p>Hi David- Not to hijack the thread, but is there a way to integrate the DLO process for someone who uses Aperture for workflow/file management/PP? Would I have to import tif or jpg files?</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Robert, I'm a DPP and DxO user in the PC world and not familiar with Aperture's DLO capabilities. DPP and DxO correct for geometric distortion, chromatic aberration, vignetting, etc., at every aperture and every focal length. I've never tried to apply DPP to a JPEG, but DxO will apply geometric correction to JPEGs, but not all the other adjustments.</p>

<p>Aperture is a leading program, so I suspect that there's a module you'll be able to install (you need one for each camera/lens combination) to get your DLO. If you can't find it in the documentation, then you might ask in a separate thread. If there is no DLO solution for Aperture, then you should consider if it's worth it to you to add DxO Optics Pro to your workflow. DxO doesn't try to impose a file management scheme on it's users. You could do Raw to TIFF conversion and then transfer to Aperture for file management and final PP. </p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>Paddy, size is also a factor to consider: the compact 50 mm is a nice advantage, coupled with the speed, in some situations.</p>

<p>BTW, and it's nothing personal, I've been such posts for years, but since it bugs me I'm gonna start tearing into them: I hate posts that start with the word "<em>so</em>", lol.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>So,...</p>

[steve_dunn2]

<p>I have the 24-105 and a 50 (though it's not the same one as you; mine is the 1.4), among others, for my 7D. I find myself rarely using the 50, and usually it only comes out if I want the extra speed. The 24-105 has relatively little distortion at 50 and is quite sharp (even more so when using DPP's DLO feature); while I expect a resolution chart would say the 50 is sharper at equal apertures, the results I get from the 24-105 are sharp enough that I don't feel I'm missing anything.</p>

 

<p>The 50/1.8 is small, light, and cheap, so buying and carrying it won't be much of a burden. But I've had the 50/1.4 for over a decade and it's not much bigger or heavier, so I doubt my thoughts about the subject would change if I substituted the 1.8 for the 1.4. If I was in your shoes, I'd probably skip the 50 and just stick with the 24-105 if "speed isn't an issue."</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>The 24-105 is at its best at about 50mm. One of the reasons that I stopped carrying a 50mm prime on landscape shoots is that, as good as it was, it provided no material IQ benefits over the zoom.</p>

[pmind]

<blockquote>

<p>Paul, FAIW, I agree the 24-105 isn't know for great bokeh, but its only bokeh problems occur around 105mm.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sarah, I'm using full frame most of the time, so that is a focal length "neighborhood" I visit often for portraiture. The OP may well have better results using APS-C format. Although it may be redundant, I do stand by my assertion that the 4.6 oz., 50mm f/1.8 wouldn't be a lot more to tote around—even on a long trip.</p>

[mark_schafer1]

<p>With those lenses i would not hesitate and leave the 50mm at home. Todays sensitivity is just amazing, the zoom covers that focal length, and who really shoots wider than f4? <br>

There might be some circumstances, but really. Keep it simple, less equipment frees up hands, bag and the creative process. Now if you'd alsked should i leave my TS or 1.2 something at home, my answer would be the exact opposite...but only if you have a plan on how to use them, otherwise<br>

KISS as they say.<br>

I would bring a Pol filter, btw.</p>

<p>Happy trails...</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Paul, yes, I agree. At 105mm, there are better lenses than the 24-105. My two preferred alternatives are the 70-200/4 IS and the 100/2, both of which I use for portraiture. Of course neither lens does very well 50mm. :-></p>

<p>Our philosophies do differ about carrying around things because they're small and light and wouldn't add much to the burden. I won't carry something I think I won't use, no matter how small and light. My partner is the opposite. She has a huge handbag full of small and light things that don't <em>individually </em>add much to the burden. I think she could kill you with it with one good swing! I'm a lot more selective about what I carry, and perhaps that comes from having arthritis. My camera bag is my handbag. I can carry a 5D, 24-105, basic lens cleaning junk in an emergency plastic bag, wallet, keys, cell phone, pen, business cards, spare battery, spare CF, hand sanitizer, keychain flashlight, albuterol inhaler, and 3' tape measure, still coming at half the bulk and somewhat less weight than what my partner carries in junk.</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<blockquote>

<p>Paul, FAIW, I agree the 24-105 isn't know for great bokeh, but its only bokeh problems occur around 105mm.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This was not my experience with the lens. I found it's 'bokeh problems' occured from 24-70mm when compared to the 24-70/2.8, @70-105mm when compared to the 70-200/4 & 70-200/2.8, @ 50mm when compared to the EF 50/1.8, EF 50/1.4, and Sigma 50/1.4 HSM @ 85mm when compared to the 85/1.8 & Sig 85/1.4, and @ 28mm when compared to the 28/1.8. I would say,overall , in my experience, it's 'bokeh problems' were comparable to the 28-135's</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Marcus, this is the closest thing I can find of mine at f/4 and 50mm with the 24-105 that's on the web and that I can immediately lay my hands on:</p>

<p>http://www.graphic-fusion.com/phcherokeepipecarver.htm</p>

<p>It's actually 67mm, f/5.0. I'm just not seeing harsh bokeh. Neither is it buttery. It seems pretty neutral to me, which I consider a good thing. Buttery bokeh comes at a cost of sharpness, as does harsh bokeh.</p>

<p>Perhaps you consider a neutral bokeh unpleasant, or perhaps you got a klinker of a 24-105?</p>

<p>By contrast, here's the relatively harsh bokeh pattern of a 50/1.8:</p>

<p>

<p>To my eyes, this sharp-ringed bokeh pattern looks awful. That said, the person who took this photo likes the bokeh, and you say you like the 50/1.8's bokeh too. Maybe beauty is in the eye of the beholder. </p>

<p>Here's the 70-200/4 IS at 70mm, f/4:</p>

<p>

<p>Looks pretty neutral, maybe just a tad on the harsh side.</p>

<p>Here's 70-200 f/2.8 IS at 70mm:</p>

<p>

<p>Very buttery. But also not quite as sharp as the /4 IS.</p>

<p>There are all sorts of bokeh examples on flickr, and they can be found with a search like, "bokeh canon 50mm f/1.8." I think the 24-105 gets more than its share of criticism, but I think it's fair to say the bokeh does suffer around 105 mm. In fact it starts to get mildly harsh even at 70.</p>

<p> </p>

[dcstep]

<p>Pixel-Peeper makes it easy to review tons of real life images taken with various lenses. See many pages of 24-105mm shots at:</p>

<p>http://www.pixel-peeper.com/lenses/?lens=29&p=1</p>

[pmind]

<blockquote>

<p>Our philosophies do differ about carrying around things because they're small and light and wouldn't add much to the burden.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sarah, in the interest of full disclosure, I now use (mostly) a Sony NEX-7 when traveling...so our philosophies might be a bit closer than you think!</p>