HOME
enart.jsqf.com
welcome to my space
Subscribe to RSS FeedHelp me pick between 2 canon L zooms...
EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
Vs.
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
Gah. So expensive, but I think I've convinced my mother to go for it (don't laugh, I'm 18 and it's my graduation present)
So far I'm leaning towards the 24-105 because it has the IS, a bigger range, and I don't think I would need the extra f stops for anything other than a hand holdable shutter speed, which the IS should cover, no? (I've never used an IS lens)
The idea of being able to switch from very wide angle to portrait range is pretty incredible...I'm leaning heavy towards the 24-105, but the other lens is fairly similar, is there any reason to consider it?
For those who didn't see my other thread, this lens will be my primary lens for general picture taking, to compliment a 70-200 f/4 L that I can borrow most of the time. This includes everything from portraits, to long exposures at night, to hiking, street, and nature photography. The lens will be on a (film) Canon Rebel Ti.
Longer zoom range imposes design compromises that have impact on the IQ and performance, f/4 vs f/2.8 being one of the hints.
For a digital crop 1.6x camera, the 70mm is pretty good for a portait lens and f/2. is considered essential for bluring the background.
EF-S lenses work with only digital - and even then, it's not all digital bodies.
Longer zoom range imposes design compromises that have impact on the IQ and performance, f/4 vs f/2.8 being one of the hints.
For a digital crop 1.6x camera, the 70mm is pretty good for a portait lens and f/2. is considered essential for bluring the background.
I'm assuming that 24-70/4 that you meant f2.8 and f/2 (which I believe you mean f2.8) is not essential for bluring the background.
I don't know.. this sounds like general statement(s) that might or might not necessarily be true. Shorter focal length range doesn't automatically qualify it as a better lens. Neither does a faster aperture automatically qualify it as a better lens.
Those are loose statements that could bring dissappointment if thats what guides your purchase decision.
1st generation IS from Canon offered 2 stops more - so my 300f4L IS which would normally need 1/300th to get a sharp image can now be handheld at around 1/80th to get sharp ressults.
Canon upgraded the IS to a 2nd generation some years ago and both my 70-200 f2.8L IS and my 24-105f4L IS offer 3 stops of image stabalisation.
So my 70-200 @ 200mm can be shot handheld at 1/25th sec and still maintains very sharp results. In reality if you take your time you can shoot even slower.
More recently Canon made a new version of the 70-200. The f4L IS has 4 stops IS!!! So at 200mm you can now shoot at around 1/15th sec which is really quite amazing for such a long lens.
Be aware though that IS does not stop motion. Shooting at slow shutter speeds may still give a blurry subject if it's moving faster than the shutter speed can stop.
IS is great, it really does help you to get sharp shots when shooting hand held and slower shutter speeds. However, those slow shutter speeds won't freeze subject movement...so even if the shot would be free from camera shake at 1/15...any movement by the subject will cause blur. The bigger aperture will give you a faster shutter speed, which will help freeze both types of movement.
Neither of these Ls are soft!! Probably from people who are shooting RAW and don't realise all digital files require a small amount of sharpening!
Both of these Ls are supersharp! and build quality is excellent. I love all my Ls
Just my current thinking, though I'm interested in how this thread plays out since I'm trying to decide on a long-term lens-buying plan at the moment.
I too was faced with the same decision and in the end the 24-105 reigned better for my needs. I was fortunate enough to borrow a 24-70 for a few hours at a family get together. During my decision process, I realized that these two lenses have different intentions. I like to think the 24-70mm as a fast sports car and the 24-105mm as an extremely capable utility vehicle. As such, their purpose and how they are used are fairly different. The one thing that I am certain is that neither is perfect and both have excellent IQ. Its just a matter of deciding which one best fits your needs.
24-70 has that fast f2.8 aperture at an increased weight and shorter focal length.
24-105 has IS, lighter weight, longer focal length at a sacrifice of a slower max aperture.
For me... I was looking for a great walk around, do everything lens. This is why the 24-105mm lens reigned supreme. It is lighter and easier to pack. The 24-70mm range felt too narrow for general use. The extra 1 stop of the 24-70mm was nice in low-light but IS was a welcomed feature in all sorts of situations. I also have a set of fast primes at my disposal so the extra ONE stop the 24-70mm gave me was not all that important. I almost always have my 50mm f1.4 packed and ready to go once I go indoors... and thats a couple stops faster.
So there you have it.... One of the best general use lenses from Canon=24-105mm F4 IS USM. One fast zoom with a history of good reports = 24-70mm f2.8 USM.
Judging from you post above, it looks like you are looking for a utility vehicle of a lens. I would recommend the 24-105mm F4 IS USM but throw in the 50mm f1.4 (or f1.8) prime in your bag as well.
If you notice from the posts above (and in other threads on the internet) people with the 24-70mm lens will always rave about one thing: low light use. Now its up to you to decide if thats important enough to outweigh the 24-105mm.
It's a tremendous lens and rarely off my camera.
As has already been pointed out IS purely for reducing camera shake - as soon as your light levels drop and the subject is moving f2.8 becomes a huge advantage over f4
Images can be soft but only when its user error!!!
The 24-70 is super sharp as is my 70-200 L.
Never heard of quality control problems with Canon lenses although i appreciate that now and again they'll produce a dud.
I can't really advise to go for one or the other since i've only used one of them. However i can say that if you go for the 24-70 you won't be disappointed.
:thumbup:
So far I did not regret it. the 24-105 is the lens I have on the camera when I do not know what I will encounter next. And it did help me getting a picture of that little critter once in a while which would have been gone by the time I had my tele lens screwed onto the camera.
IS does help on the long end of the zoom.
of course distortion is evident at 24mm and at 105 ... but for 105 it most of the time does not matter for me, and at 24mm, if it is an architecture shot. I tend to use my 17-40 anyway since it has less distortion.
If you shoot MOVING subjects in low light the 24-70 will be the better lens but not by much. If you shoot static subjects in low light then the IS will be a huge benefit.
The lesser weight, extra range, IS and superb IQ of the 24-105 was my preferred lens but I was also influenced by the fact I also have the excellent Tamron 28-75 f2.8 as a backup.
Tough choice.
If you shoot MOVING subjects in low light the 24-70 will be the better lens but not by much. If you shoot static subjects in low light then the IS will be a huge benefit.
The lesser weight, extra range, IS and superb IQ of the 24-105 was my preferred lens but I was also influenced by the fact I also have the excellent Tamron 28-75 f2.8 as a backup.
Tough choice.
I'll say. Thanks for the imput everyone, very useful advice so far. I'm almost thinking about looking into the tamrons, just because I've heard such horrible things about canon quality control. On the fredmiranda reviews, both get reviews consistently that say that both of those Ls are soft....
#If you have any other info about this subject , Please add it free.# |
