PDA

View Full Version : Which lens would you choose? - serious Canon geek question



Skywatcher
23-03-2010, 05:47 PM
Both are L lenses

1. 24-70 L USM f 2.8

or

2. 24-105 L USM IS f 4.0

I have read loads of reviews and it really isn't a straightforward as it might seem - purists may well say F2.8 is always better - which I understand and allows a LOT more light in but I doubt you'd actually take many photos at 2.8

The other thing is the second one ( as well as being 300 less!) Has IS which means you can hand hold it in the lower light conditions - it obviously also has a better range of zoom as well.

Both being L lenses they should optically be very very good

Normally I would have gone with the top 1. but having seen 2. I'm confused :unsure:

What I don't want to do is shell out for 2. and then regret it later and end up buying 1 at a later date

So is F2.8 everything and am I making too much of the IS? - infact for a grand I am amazed the frst one doesn't have IS

Britchick
23-03-2010, 05:58 PM
what do you want to do with it and are you planning to get a full frame camera in the future?

Skywatcher
23-03-2010, 06:02 PM
Simply at the moment I want to add to the quality of the range of lenses I have at the moment the 100-400 is just fantastic but 100mm is too long for most day to day shots/landscapes, group shots etc so I need a shorter range

the 18-55 is ok for this and the 50mm 1.8 prime is ok as well but I stil like the ability to zoom, I found taking shots at the sheep place witha prime lens quite a challenge.

I will also be using it on my astrotrac to take widefield space shots and need thebetter glass to eliminate chromatic abberation

for that the 2.8 would be better

keith
23-03-2010, 06:04 PM
oh dude, the conversation on these two lenses could go on for months :lol:

very very briefly

if you NEED 2.8, then you have only one choice :yes: IS cannot fully compensate for 2.8 because, although it gives you the capability to show with a smaller aperture or higher speed, this is no good if you're in poor light and the subject is moving. So IS is really good for static or slow subjects in lower light.

The 2.8 lens SHOULD have IS in my opinion, but it's a mid zoom, not a very long lens and IS adds weight and cost, so the pros who it's been aimed at can generally do without IS. (I'd like it though :lol: )

Generally the opinion is that the 24-70 2.8 is the better lens and the 24-105f4IS is when you can't afford the former.

HOWEVER, I once owned the 24-70 2.8 and found it completely unremarkable in every way :/ was it a well built L Lens yep, did it ever give that certain "look" that say the 70-200f2.8 or even the 100-400 gives? never did for me no.

The 24-105 f4IS is a MUCH better range lens for walking around with. It's cheaper, has IS and 70-105 makes it a very usable zoom. Along with the great ISO capabilities of modern cams, you can often make up for the lack of 2.8 by upping the iso.

So which one do you buy? hmmmm :lol:

Well, if you want good value, keep it on your camera, walk around lens, the 24-105 is the bargain.

If you were doing weddings and general photography, especially in low light, the 24-70 2.8 is a sweet choice.

There's no CLEAR Cut choice though, it really does depend on your use.

keith
23-03-2010, 06:04 PM
what do you want to do with it and are you planning to get a full frame camera in the future?

they're both full frame so that shouldnt matter :yes: they'll both be fine

Britchick
23-03-2010, 06:09 PM
see i find it's the lack of light that scuppers me. I think if it were me i'd go for the 24-70- i'm a sucker for wide apertures! Still don't know if i will buy another zoom as i like prime lenses. From what i can gather with the 24-70 you either love it or you hate it!

the other one is a lot lighter- might be better for going out and about. :unsure:

Britchick
23-03-2010, 06:12 PM
they're both full frame so that shouldnt matter :yes: they'll both be fine

i was just reading that with the 24-105 there was distortion on a full frame camera, i'm guessing that's quite common then?

shame as this lens is the same price that the 24-70 was just over a year ago

keith
23-03-2010, 06:17 PM
i was just reading that with the 24-105 there was distortion on a full frame camera, i'm guessing that's quite common then?


I'd ignore that :yes: every lens has SOME distortion around the sides when you're using the full image circle. The 1.6x crop cameras get away with it because they only use the very centre of the lenses.

The 24-105 is generally considered top quality for full frame and indeed was offered as a kit lens with the 5d

I suspect sir skywatcher will want the 24-70 :) but hmmm I do think it's over rated. I think the 16-35 is a better lens. Even wider

Britchick
23-03-2010, 06:19 PM
did you see that lens announced the other day that was 0.5 or something? what would you do with that?

Skywatcher
23-03-2010, 08:25 PM
Yeah you certainly notice 'edge effect' when doing astrophotography where you are looking for pin sharp points of light across a field and I have spent hundred on 'field flatteners' to try and eliminate this in some of my shots - on the astrotrac shots I posted the other day you can see that at the edges of the frames the stars are always distorted.

the 70-300mm lens I used gave the most gawdawful vignetting when used on long exposures as well.

I am really torn on this, but contrary to what Sir Keith of photography says above I am actually leaning towards the 24-105 ; greater range IS and 300 (or more!!) cheaper which lets face it is not an insignificant amount and it doesn't sound like you are getting 300 less lens for the difference. I have read many threads on this very debate on a few photography threads and the people who go solely for the 2.8 seem to be the sort who would never consider opening their minds and larger aperture is always best.

Keith experience with the 24-70 is really interesting I would hope that I would notice a big improvement over the 18-55 for a lens that in some shops is going for nearly 1,200!!

F4 is still pretty good for the astro work as well TBH I usually shoot with the scope at f 6.8 ( and that is with a focal reducer) - you just compensate by upping the exposure times but the limiting factor is usually something like the amount of light pollution rather than the limits of the camera lens in that situation.

16-35 I will look at but it does give me rather a 'hole' in my options id then have 16-35 and 100-400 Although 16 would be great for a good milky way shot

:mental:

this carpe dieming is getting pricey :lol:

Britchick
23-03-2010, 08:33 PM
I have read many threads on this very debate on a few photography threads and the people who go solely for the 2.8 seem to be the sort who would never consider opening their minds and larger aperture is always best.







are you talking about me with the 2.8 :unsure: :lol:

I will look forward to your reviews!

keith
23-03-2010, 08:35 PM
I have read many threads on this very debate on a few photography threads and the people who go solely for the 2.8 seem to be the sort who would never consider opening their minds and larger aperture is always best.

This is my personal feeling too. ok for wedding photographers I see why they have it, although 24-70 is the range that EVERYONE has (18-55 on all those guests kit lenses etc) so I wouldn't use it for that reason alone.

It's one of those snobby lenses that everyone is told they need and then sits around because it's expensive, heavy and limited


Keith experience with the 24-70 is really interesting I would hope that I would notice a big improvement over the 18-55 for a lens that in some shops is going for nearly 1,200!!

oh it's better than the 18-55 optically for sure :yes: but next to my 70-200 f2.8 it was flat and boring. In fact to tell the truth, I took it back, told a little white lie and had it swapped out for another one. That one was exactly the same and convinced me there was nothing wrong with it, it just wasnt as WOW as the price suggests.



16-35 I will look at but it does give me rather a 'hole' in my options id then have 16-35 and 100-400 Although 16 would be great for a good milky way shot


Don't get sucked into thinking you have to cover everything from 24-1000mm :lol: seriously don't. I mean, why would you anyway? I've never ever been somewhere and thought AHARHGHHGHG no I only have 35mm and 100mm and I desperately need 50. You can walk forward/back for framing, you can crop the image, you can use a cheapy prime 50 in the middle and so on.

Skywatcher
23-03-2010, 09:09 PM
:lol Julie no I don't mean you at all - We have the same debate on the Astro thread whenever someone new comes on wanting to buy a scope the same people always reply with the same tired old argument that size of aperture is paramount ( I always imagine their thread read in a rather adenoidal tone) and I always point out that a huge lightbucket can be outperformed by a smaller scope with better optics or a tighter mirror- but they never shift.

Seriously I am tending at the moment towards the cheaper I will keep looking and will then almost certainly bottle it and buy a 100mm macro :lol:

keith
23-03-2010, 09:14 PM
Seriously I am tending at the moment towards the cheaper I will keep looking

have a look at the 16-35 before you do :yes: I've no idea how it performs for astro but in normal use it's interesting :)

Out of the 24-70 and 24-105 if you asked me which was better value, of most use etc., 24-105 for sure.

Britchick
23-03-2010, 09:16 PM
Chris there is always going to be another lens................ :lol:

josh.p.
23-03-2010, 10:18 PM
Can you hear that wooooooosssh sound? That's this whole thread going RIGGGHHHT over my head :yes:

Skywatcher
23-03-2010, 10:32 PM
:lol: in my mind the 24-105 saving over the 2.8 is paying for the non l macro

keith
23-03-2010, 10:34 PM
:lol: in my mind the 24-105 saving over the 2.8 is paying for the non l macro

True enough and as your official tech.enabler, I can help you out there ;)

Skywatcher
24-03-2010, 08:02 AM
:lol: I feel 'groomed'

I hope the bag I bought is going to be big enough to take the 24-105 the 100-400 and the body :unsure:

but then if I get the macro I'll want to take that and the tripods and the astrotrac


:mental:

Britchick
24-03-2010, 08:05 AM
Pmsl! Tbh I dont think any one bag will be big enough for all the lenses you plan to buy! And then there'll be another camera ;)

Skywatcher
24-03-2010, 08:24 AM
:dozey: no no other camera for a looong time or divorce papers will be filed

Skywatcher
24-03-2010, 08:26 PM
The 24-105 has been ordered from an eBay store for 200 less than it is currently on sale for at Amazon :D thanks for the advice guys

keith
24-03-2010, 08:27 PM
:wiggle::thumbsup::yes:

Skywatcher
24-03-2010, 08:29 PM
Now just got to work out how to take a photo of a wolf jumping over a gate without faking it and I get my money back ;)

keith
24-03-2010, 08:29 PM
Now just got to work out how to take a photo of a wolf jumping over a gate without faking it and I get my money back ;)

:lol: yeah indeed, quite a scandal that :yes:

Britchick
24-03-2010, 08:46 PM
huh?


when will it be there? :unsure: can't wait for you to try it out and show me the results. I was going to buy a prime but may look at that one. Sounds like a good price :thumbsup:

Skywatcher
24-03-2010, 09:12 PM
I got the paypal e-mail at the same time as the one saying it had already been shipped - royal mail - overnight so should get tomorrow :thumbsup:

was the huh? about the wolf? it was the winner of the Wildlife photographer of the year contest - it was a beautiful shot of a wolf jumping a gate - called storybook wolf or something - anyway it turns out it was a tame trained wolf and the chap was disqualified and his career ended - my mate went to the show at the Natural history museum and there is just a hole where the photo should be with a plaque stating the 'in order to uphold the integrity...

Britchick
24-03-2010, 09:30 PM
oh yeah! i remember reading an article about someone being disqualified for hiring an animal but didn't know it was a wolf.

I am so jealous! in a nice way of course!