Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 28

Thread: Which lens would you choose? - serious Canon geek question

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    10,689
    Post Thanks / Like
    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

    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

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    15,479
    Post Thanks / Like
    what do you want to do with it and are you planning to get a full frame camera in the future?














  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    10,689
    Post Thanks / Like
    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

  4. #4
    Administrator keith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    20,872
    Post Thanks / Like
    oh dude, the conversation on these two lenses could go on for months

    very very briefly

    if you NEED 2.8, then you have only one choice 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 )

    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

    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.
    Disney information? Try our online guidebook at http://wdisneysecrets.com
    Get your own Disney Countdown at http://toys.wdisneysecrets.com









  5. #5
    Administrator keith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    20,872
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by britchick, post: 198150
    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 they'll both be fine
    Disney information? Try our online guidebook at http://wdisneysecrets.com
    Get your own Disney Countdown at http://toys.wdisneysecrets.com









  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    15,479
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.














  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    15,479
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith, post: 198157
    they're both full frame so that shouldnt matter 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














  8. #8
    Administrator keith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    20,872
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by britchick, post: 198159
    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 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
    Disney information? Try our online guidebook at http://wdisneysecrets.com
    Get your own Disney Countdown at http://toys.wdisneysecrets.com









  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    15,479
    Post Thanks / Like
    did you see that lens announced the other day that was 0.5 or something? what would you do with that?














  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    10,689
    Post Thanks / Like
    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



    this carpe dieming is getting pricey

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •