PDA

View Full Version : any reason to get 24-70 2.8L over fancy new 24-105 f4L?



blamkin
06-12-2006, 08:08 AM
According to luminousLanscape:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/28-105.shtml

The only reason to go for the 2.8 lens is the extra F stop, and it's slightly better for "macro" work (not 1:1) than the 24-105.

Other than those reasons, the 24-105 is the better choice, correct?

Anyone wish they hadn't switched from the 2.8 to the f4 lens?

Some other criteria I've missed?

Thanks as always.

cwphoto
06-12-2006, 08:30 AM
The 24-70mm should be sharper up to say f/5.6 by my reckoning.

I don't really see them as competitors. For general photography the 24-105mm is the way to go and it's much broader in it's appeal.

I see the 24-70mm as a much more focused tool, which it carries off 95% splendidly.

Heck, I'd have both in a heartbeat if it weren't for some other glaring holes in my line-up and somewhat limited funds.

blamkin
06-12-2006, 08:38 AM
Great description thanks, I agree with the 24-105 being more of a walkaround lens.

What do you think 24-70 is mainly used for? Portraits?

I'm asking because I'm leaning towards that one. I also found a pretty great deal on it and it's $150 less than the 105.

noyjimi
06-12-2006, 11:57 AM
What do you think 24-70 is mainly used for? Portraits?

Indoor events like weddings, photojournalism, among other things.

The 24-70 is quite heavy. Some say that its hood design is ingenious. Relative to the 24-70, the 24-105 is weaker with more distortion on the wide end and with vignetting.

timmciglobal
06-12-2006, 11:57 AM
Here is my take...

The 24-105 doesn't have as nice a bokeh or as much seperation from background is the main differance.

F2.8 would of been nice on the 24-105.

Tim

DonSchap
06-12-2006, 12:24 PM
Zooms are not known for their 'portrait' capability. They are designed for 'flexible framing', when you are on the run and need to be mobile. Usually, no tripod and going "handheld".

You would usually buy a "prime" (fixed focal length) for portraits, mainly because the portrait is mainly taken indoors and you should have as much light gathering capability as you can for ambient (lamp or candle) or studio lighting. Also, when framing a subject, you tend to move the camera to the correct distance, on a tripod, and leave it there. You can also hang a remote shutter release cord off it and work with your subject without having to run back and forth to the camera to reframe and focus.

Personally, when I do digital studio shots or portraits, I get the biggest monitor I can... hook it to the camera and make it visible to the subject, so they and I can judge the shot and they can assist me in acheiving that "look" they are searching for.

The most affordable primes are:

EF 50mm f/1.8 II (the "Nifty Fifty") $68 <- a cheap, sharp lens that returns every dollar spent on it in short order. Truly a bargain with bang for the buck!
EF 28 f2.8 (has questionable sharpness) $170

The standard primes that are usually selected for portrait shooting are:

28mm f/1.8 USM (group/family shots) $450 (~45mm on an APS-C Sensor)
50mm f/1.4 USM $300 (~80mm on an APS-C Sensor)
85mm f/1.8 USM $315 (~135mm on an APS-C Sensor)
100mm f/2 USM $375 (~160mm on an APS-C Sensor)

All four of these offer low light and the most flexibility of the primes, without spending a lot of money.

But should you have too much money, you could always look at:

35mm f/1.4L USM $1300 (~56mm on an APS-C Sensor)
85mm f/1.2L II USM $2400 (~135mm on an APS-C Sensor)

The 85mm f/1.2L is a definite portrait lens... designed with that in mind.

12900

What do you get with it, over the 85mm f/1.8? A lighter wallet, for one thing. :rolleyes:

I hope this helps in your understanding. :D

aparmley
06-12-2006, 01:16 PM
Heck, I'd have both in a heartbeat if it weren't for . . . and somewhat limited funds.

Thats what happens after you buy a 300 2.8 IS and a 180 macro! ;)

pagnamenta
06-12-2006, 01:47 PM
I had the same trouble when deciding on which lens to buy: Canon 24-70 f/2.8 or 24-105 f/4. I bought the 24-70 and love it. I definately needed the f 2.8 because I shoot indoor sports with poor light (basketball, badminton, wresting, gymnastics). It really depends on what you will be shooting. If you are shooting outdoors, the f/4 will suffice. Which ever lens you go with, you will be happy.

cwphoto
06-12-2006, 05:46 PM
But should you have too much money, you could always look at:

35mm f/1.4L USM $1300
85mm f/1.2L II USM $2400

These are portrait lenses... designed with that in mind.

I hope this helps in your understanding. :D

35 f/1.4 is a portrait lens? Now I've heard everything!:D

cwphoto
06-12-2006, 05:47 PM
Thats what happens after you buy a 300 2.8 IS and a 180 macro! ;)

Thanks for reminding me.:(

Interesting disposition there Andy.

PS. Aus 3-1 over Japan! Cahill is a legend!

Vich
06-12-2006, 10:47 PM
The answer was pretty well covered today.

Only comment I'd like to add is that, in general, the less a zoom zooms, the less the engineers have to worry about (or are capable of fixing within the constraints of physics) maintaining all the various "good lens characteristics" throughout the entire zoom range, throughout the entire supported aperture range.

IS is very nice to have, but not having that element that is "constantly in motion" (and when parked possibly off-center ever so slightly) would simply have to add up to, potentially, a more exact image. Real world of hand holding, IS should prevail, but max potential, wouldn't fixed just have to be the winner?

Oh, and DonSchnap - I'd like to get myself a Canon 85L so I can resell it to you for a $300 profit. Seriously; you put so much effort into your post - you weren't trying to stretch the truth a little were you? I know $2400 and $2100 are eqully beyond reach for most of us for a single prime, but still that's $300!

timmciglobal
06-12-2006, 10:58 PM
The problem is vich the 24-70 F2.8 isn't a sharper lens.

Least not from tests I've seen @ F4.

F2.8 comes at a price, and honestly the degree of sharpness is overdone, 50% view on a 8 megapixel shot is damn big print, 14X21 inches or so...

Tim

cwphoto
06-12-2006, 11:01 PM
The problem is vich the 24-70 F2.8 isn't a sharper lens.

Least not from tests I've seen @ F4.

F2.8 comes at a price, and honestly the degree of sharpness is overdone, 50% view on a 8 megapixel shot is damn big print, 14X21 inches or so...

Tim

So you reckon the 24-105 wide-open is just as sharp as the 24-70 1-stop down?

In the immortal words of Darryl Kerrigan: "tell 'em they're dreamin'"...

timmciglobal
06-12-2006, 11:19 PM
Well...

Photozone.de

MTF @ 24 mm F4 for 24-70

1787/1634

MTF @ 40 mm F4 for 24-70

1897/1762

MTF @ 24 mm F4 for 24-105

1972/1727

MTF @ 40 mm F4 for 24-105

1944/1769


From luminous-landscape:

"At 24 mm the 70-105 mm lens is definitely better at the edges at f4 and f5.6. This finding is slightly surprising to me as f4 is the maximum aperture for the 24-105 mm lens, whereas the 24-70 mm is stopped down by one stop."

From the-digital-picture.com:

"I found the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens to be at least as sharp as or slightly sharper than the 24-70 L at similar apertures (including f/4)"

Tim

cwphoto
06-12-2006, 11:21 PM
Well...

Photozone.de

MTF @ 24 mm F4 for 24-70

1787/1634

MTF @ 40 mm F4 for 24-70

1897/1762

MTF @ 24 mm F4 for 24-105

1972/1727

MTF @ 40 mm F4 for 24-105

1944/1769


From luminous-landscape:

"At 24 mm the 70-105 mm lens is definitely better at the edges at f4 and f5.6. This finding is slightly surprising to me as f4 is the maximum aperture for the 24-105 mm lens, whereas the 24-70 mm is stopped down by one stop."

Tim

...and the other FLs?

timmciglobal
06-12-2006, 11:30 PM
70 mm @ F4 24-70

1871/1725

70 mm @ f4 24-105

1839/1660

by F5.6 it rockets past the 24-70 though, 1987/1801 where 24-70 is at 1856/1739



Tim

cwphoto
06-12-2006, 11:34 PM
Meaning what?

I don't get you...

I thought question was 24-70 vs 24-105, the fact is the 24-70 is not the "Sharpest lens" vs the 24-105, copy differences withstanding.

Tim

Tim, I note the findings by LL - I just choose not to believe them based on my own personal (albeit; non-scientific) experience.

Was asking about FLs other than 24 & 40, like 50, 60 or 70.

timmciglobal
06-12-2006, 11:36 PM
I posted the 70 and what basis do you form that personal opinion on?

I've honestly seen no one saying that the 24-105 is less sharp then the 24-70, in fact most agree its = if not sharper and it's AF is about = if not a bit faster in >0.5 EV.

Tim

cwphoto
06-12-2006, 11:49 PM
I posted the 70 and what basis do you form that personal opinion on?

Have you used a 24-105?

Honestly, because I've done side by sides with the 24-70 in store before I decided on 24-105 and it was sharper, especially @ f2.8 where the 24-70 was almost a bit soft (though we're talking pixel peeping here not "actually" soft)

Tim

Yeah I used a colleague's 24-105 at a wedding we were both shooting (two weddings actually).

I really like the lens but to my eyes the 24-70 got the nod at f/4 - hardly scientific I know but most of my work is done outside laboratories.

The 24-105 was an early release however and could have been less than par optically, but that is my experience. Take it for what you will.

timmciglobal
06-13-2006, 12:10 AM
Could be ye old copy variation too.

The Qc on these things just isn't up to digital standards. I think canons still on QC of people printing 8x10's to test not viewing 40X30 on 21" monitors.

Tim

Vich
06-13-2006, 12:23 AM
Could be ye old copy variation too.

The Qc on these things just isn't up to digital standards. I think canons still on QC of people printing 8x10's to test not viewing 40X30 on 21" monitors.

Tim
I was just thinking precisely that.

I've heard several people complaining about soft 24-70L's, yet the predominate feeling is that it's very sharp.

My own experience with the 24-105L was a contrast problem (manifested as a faint haze over everything). They fixed it, I suppose, because all my shooting this weekend (3 events, 400 shots) I don't think I got a single hazy photo, and in really trying (sun in frame), got a tiny bit and the barest little sploch of CA, flare, whatever you call that little rainbow.

Perhaps LL had a poor 24-70 and supurb 24-105.

Your point about f2.8 costing some sacrafice is noted. All that extra light to control in the narrower shots does add complexity. All reports on the 70-200 f4.0 vs f2.8 - the f4.0 didn't loose any IQ (and possibly gained a tiny bit).

CW's point I think is that wide open is wide open. So a f2.8 would naturally have the advantage there (so one would think).

timmciglobal
06-13-2006, 12:37 AM
CW's point I think was that the 24-70 stoped down beats a lens "wide open" which is normal logic but untrue in case of 24-105.

As far as the F2.8, I said it in this thread, F2.8 is F2.8. The F4 isn't going to work well in low light without a flash, the shutter times are just too slow. There is an entire argument if F2.8 is "That much better" (Since 1/3 sec @ F4 vs 1/6th at F2.8 isn't going to help any really) but if its 1/30th vs 1/60th to stop people moving I'll take the 1/60th.

Tim

Rhys
06-13-2006, 07:35 AM
I see no need for a 24-105. The 24-70 seems a better bet. If you're going to go all zooms then the 24-70 intersects nicely with a 70-200. With the 24-105 although you're reducing the number of times you have to change lenses, the loss of a stop can be critical. Also the longer the zoom range, the more distortion there is liable to be. If I were to buy only two zooms then it'd be the 24-70 and 70-200. Even on a cropped camera, 24 is wide enough (35mm approx) to be very useful. On a full frame camera, it's as wide as you can go without distortion. I bet it's a lovely price.

blamkin
06-13-2006, 10:17 AM
I see no need for a 24-105....

Pretty much what I'm thinking.


I bet it's a lovely price.

$1099 plus rebate.

blamkin
06-13-2006, 10:43 AM
..and before I offend anyone...

I think most of us have to decide between these lenses. I'm not positive I'd have 'em both if I could, but if funds were unlimited, maybe.

All of us have to deal with build variances, and it seems many of you who find issues simply send the lens back with a description of what's wrong.

The 105 is lighter, has longer focal range, IS, and is more expensive by 10% or so.

The 70 should work better in less light (which I believe I have hiking in forests), and honestly I don't believe that the 105 is better at F4 than the 2.8 lens is. Makes no sense. I'd send mine back.

I personally want to have all 2.8 glass, from the 16-35, 24-70, to 70-200... and I feel IS will be great on the 200 when I have it.

I've seen soft, non-contrasty, not-so-great pix from both lenses -- the luminousLandscape article I posted seems to contradict itself a lot about which lens is better..

"The 24-70 mm lens is the distortion winner."
"(Vignetting) The 24-70 mm lens is again the winner."
"(resolution) If there has to be a winner here, itís the 24-105 mm lens on account of higher contrast. "
"(macro) The 24-70 mm lens has a slight edge in image size"
"the full extra stop of the 24-70 mm f2.8 lens clearly gives it the edge"
"f2.8 gives a noticeably brighter viewfinder image"

I think this is the real reason he likes the lens:

"On the other hand, weight and size are issues that interest me, my neck and my back! And as I age, I find IS increasingly valuable even at modest focal lengths. So for me, the new lens is a no-brainer, especially when I donít have to accept any less resolution, Ė and I get an extra 35 mm of reach!"

Great, so be it. I hope those of you who have the 105 really love them.

I hope I love whichever lens I pick, but I'm leaning towards the 70.

timmciglobal
06-13-2006, 11:15 AM
Again, as I posted on fredmiranda:

They arn't the same lens. It's like comparisong the 85L to the 85 1.8. They may both share the same focal length but they are very different beasts. The 85L is going to win in color/contrast/sharpness and it can go wider in apature. the 85 1.8 is going to win (by a far margin) in AF speed and utility. Does this make the 85L a bad choice or the 851.8 the right choice? No. It makes them different lenses. The 24-70 and 24-105 arn't the same lens. F2.8 is not F4. IS is not F2.8. There are benefits to each which the other can't match F2.8 bokeh and shutter speeds for the 24-70, IS handholdability >1/shutter speed and reach on the 24-105.

Tim

blamkin
06-13-2006, 11:39 AM
Well said.

"better" in my context means, better fit for the purpose, not better quality or attributes.

noyjimi
06-13-2006, 12:21 PM
Do you need the length? 24-105
Do you need f/2.8? 24-70
Do you need some $ left over? 24-70 or other lens
Do you want IS? 24-105
Do you want a lighter lens? 24-105
Do you want a great lens? either
Do you want "perfection?" go primes

Do you want f/2.8, IS and wide on a cropper? 17-55

Do you want great photos? Stop thinking, buy it and start shooting :D

Vich
06-13-2006, 01:26 PM
Do you need the length? 24-105
Do you need f/2.8? 24-70
Do you need some $ left over? 24-70 or other lens
Do you want IS? 24-105
Do you want a lighter lens? 24-105
Do you want a great lens? either
Do you want "perfection?" go primes

Do you want f/2.8, IS and wide on a cropper? 17-55

Do you want great photos? Stop thinking, buy it and start shooting :D
Ahhh Men brother!

I did a portriat shoot at a beach Sunday. Took about 40 shots with 24-105L, then another 30 with the 50 f1.4 prime at f1.4, f1.6, f2.0, and f4.0.

I varied the 24-105 between f4.0 and f8, but mostly f4.0.

As is often the case with 50mm shooting I moved around a lot.

I realize this is just testimony to my poor technique :o , but only about 5 of the 50mm f1.4 shots are acceptably in focus (no, they weren't just the f4.0 shots). None were as in-focus as the 24-105's. Nearly ALL of the 24-105L ones were razor sharp. Both were just returned from Canon repair Friday.

I've never been a fan of IS but it can sure save the shit for a spoiled hand-held shooter like me.

noyjimi
06-13-2006, 01:43 PM
I've never been a fan of IS but it can sure save the shit for a spoiled hand-held shooter like me.
Same here Vich :) My hand is so unsteady that I try to use the 1/(focal length x 2 or more) rule when I can, LOL.

You know what they say though - the diff between a good photog and great photog is a tripod. :D [well, in my case, need more than just a tripod to go from average to decent :p]

DonSchap
06-14-2006, 01:03 PM
set up in a studio, on a tripod, coordinate the light, get a remote shutter release and... eliminate the guy behind the camera! Problem solved.

J/K - If you are going to hold it... then "IS"

If you are tripod ready... who cares? Flip a coin. ;)

Oh yeah... BTW, which one of you guys was beatin' on this dead horse, over here?