24-105 L vs 24-70 L - advice please
Discussion
I have the canon 24-70 L - but dont like using it outside of my studio. In fact, it doesnt have quite enough zoom when inside my studio either. Bloody good lens, but from what Ive learnt so far, Im sure its not the right lens for me.
Im satisfied that both lenses produce the same quality images, or near as damnit (from listening to you lot). So...
24- 70 min focussing distance is 0.38m
24-105 min focussing distance is 0.45m
Will the extra zoom on the 105 allow subjects to fill more of the frame when shooting in macro mode, even though the min focussing distance is slightly greater? Im assuming the answer is yes as the min focusing distance is just under 10cm. Im talking about shooting strawberry sized objects by the way.
Im finding it very nearly impossible to shoot STOCK with my 24-70 when outside when Im not in a studio environment. I need more light, pinsharp images, and Im hoping IS will provide the answer, as I cant shoot much above 400-500 ISO. Will shooting at F4 with IS in low light allow me to get sharper images than shooting at F2.8 without IS?
In every respect, the 105 seems like the lens for me, but in mortal fear of making the wrong choice, Im holding back from purchasing the 105.
Dont suggest renting one, it will take me weeks to decide which is better. Id rather buy both, and sell the one Im least happy with, these are just my last minute questions before I decide whether or not to take the plunge.
In summary, I need bigger macro images and more light. Not fussed about loosing F2.8 as most of my shots are macro shots, taken at F16. And the 24-70 isnt a great stock lens (due to my low ISO requirements) when walking around due to the lack of IS. How good is IS? Will it give me the extra light im after and still allow me to take pin sharp images if used properly?
Im satisfied that both lenses produce the same quality images, or near as damnit (from listening to you lot). So...
24- 70 min focussing distance is 0.38m
24-105 min focussing distance is 0.45m
Will the extra zoom on the 105 allow subjects to fill more of the frame when shooting in macro mode, even though the min focussing distance is slightly greater? Im assuming the answer is yes as the min focusing distance is just under 10cm. Im talking about shooting strawberry sized objects by the way.
Im finding it very nearly impossible to shoot STOCK with my 24-70 when outside when Im not in a studio environment. I need more light, pinsharp images, and Im hoping IS will provide the answer, as I cant shoot much above 400-500 ISO. Will shooting at F4 with IS in low light allow me to get sharper images than shooting at F2.8 without IS?
In every respect, the 105 seems like the lens for me, but in mortal fear of making the wrong choice, Im holding back from purchasing the 105.
Dont suggest renting one, it will take me weeks to decide which is better. Id rather buy both, and sell the one Im least happy with, these are just my last minute questions before I decide whether or not to take the plunge.
In summary, I need bigger macro images and more light. Not fussed about loosing F2.8 as most of my shots are macro shots, taken at F16. And the 24-70 isnt a great stock lens (due to my low ISO requirements) when walking around due to the lack of IS. How good is IS? Will it give me the extra light im after and still allow me to take pin sharp images if used properly?
Edited by UKBob on Friday 9th March 17:45
Obviously the advantage of 24-70 is f2.8, and if you don't need it, there's no question about it. I'm very happy with my 24-105. However, a strawberry will not fill the frame with this lens. It looks like a dedicated macro lens may be a better choice for you.
BTW, its IS is fantastic.
BTW, its IS is fantastic.
Edited by Gemm on Friday 9th March 17:53
Gemm said:
Obviously the advantage of 24-70 is f2.8, and if you don't need it, there's no question about it. I'm very happy with my 24-105. However, a strawberry will not fill the frame with this lens. It looks like a dedicated macro lens may be a better choice for you.
BTW, its IS is fantastic.
I'll buy a dedicated macro lens for sure, and a whole host of others... I do a lot of macro shooting now (without a macro lens) and was just wondering which lens would allow me to get in closest. I dont know enough to figure it out. BTW, its IS is fantastic.
re: IS, does it:
1) "help prevent images from becoming too soft"?
or
2) "ensure that images stay Pin-Sharp!"?
...if you see what I mean?
IS sounds great, but anything less than "very sharp" just wont cut the mustard for me.
I've got the 24-105 and I really like it, I did some (unscientific) comparison shots with my 70-200 f2.8 L and I concluded that it wasn't quite as sharp as that, but you would have to be looking at a poster sized picture to notice the difference, and there wasn't that much in it..
I always wondered if I would have preferred the 24-70 with the f2.8, but I'm not unhappy with what I have at all.
Aparently there was a recal on the first 1000 where the design was changed slightly but mine is a recent one so not affected. It's unlikely you'd find one if buying second hand but just a thought.
I think the IS is a nice feature but I'd prefer the extra stop personally. A 24-104 f2.8 non is would have been my ideal lens.
Gareth.
I always wondered if I would have preferred the 24-70 with the f2.8, but I'm not unhappy with what I have at all.
Aparently there was a recal on the first 1000 where the design was changed slightly but mine is a recent one so not affected. It's unlikely you'd find one if buying second hand but just a thought.
I think the IS is a nice feature but I'd prefer the extra stop personally. A 24-104 f2.8 non is would have been my ideal lens.
Gareth.
Edited by gf350 on Friday 9th March 18:16
IS only grants you 1, maybe 2 stops at most.
So you can shoot f/16 as if you were shooting f/11. Sort of. Figure out whatever shutter speed f/11 is outdoors for "normal" exposure and if you're happy with your handheld technique for pulling off sharp shots at that speed then great, go for it.
Personally I don't think you can achieve the level of sharpness that you want, with the depths of field that you want, without a tripod.
So you can shoot f/16 as if you were shooting f/11. Sort of. Figure out whatever shutter speed f/11 is outdoors for "normal" exposure and if you're happy with your handheld technique for pulling off sharp shots at that speed then great, go for it.
Personally I don't think you can achieve the level of sharpness that you want, with the depths of field that you want, without a tripod.
I've got the Tamron 90mm F2.8 macro and it's as good as all the write-ups. Will give 1:1, well under £300 and also doubles-up as a good lens for "candid" portraits. Being a prime, it definitely involves a lot more setting up and adjustment which can be a bit tiresome. I do quite a bit of macro work and I find it complements my 24-70 F2.8 (albeit a Sigma!) very well.
Edited by Ed_P on Friday 9th March 18:44
UKBob said:
I'll buy a dedicated macro lens for sure, and a whole host of others... I do a lot of macro shooting now (without a macro lens) and was just wondering which lens would allow me to get in closest. I dont know enough to figure it out.
Ok, the magnification of 24-105 = x0.23 and 24-70 = x0.29, so 24-70 is just slightly better, but considering the macro lenses do x1, it isn't a huge difference.
UKBob said:
re: IS, does it:
1) "help prevent images from becoming too soft"?
or
2) "ensure that images stay Pin-Sharp!"?
...if you see what I mean?
IS sounds great, but anything less than "very sharp" just wont cut the mustard for me.
1) It helps getting sharper images with slower shutter speed. The best example of my use of this lens is probably the low light landscape. I can just select 2-3 stops slower shutter speed, e.g. allowing me to use f8 instead of f4, or you can use it in darker environment. I've used it with extremely slow shutter speed without getting camera shake.
2) I believe this really depends on the user and how he/she select the setting. You can never ensure the sharp image as other aspects will be involved.
matthew_h said:
Haven't we had this thread before?
Last time I was questioning the optical quality iirc - ie there really isnt much between the two. Id made up my mind to get one tomorrow, but after reading about barrel distortion and crappy bokeh on the 105, ive been thrown back into the libran throes of indecision
UKBob said:
can anyone tell me whether the 105 would allow me to get closer to small subjects when in macro mode, with the "slightly further away" extra 7cm focusing distance?
This is about as close as it will go.
This is just a quick snapshot of the first thing that came to hand so I know its rubbish.
Was using a 24-105L @105 350d 1/400, f7.1.
Not cropped obviously, although the quality might be poor as I let photobucket resize it.
thanks 350
I found this text on luminous landscape:
Macro
The 24-70 mm lens has a slight edge in image size, giving a 0.29 magnification, while the 24-105 mm manages 0.23. This doesn't sound much different but actually I was quite surprised at the difference in practice. I was very gratified, though, with the IS when working close-up with the 24-105 mm. (Which reminds me - Canon, how about a 100 mm macro lens with IS?).
So what does that text above in bold mean then? See the other text below, the two sentences have left me 
_____________________________________________________________
Other Factors
For action photography, where speed is important, the full extra stop of the 24-70 mm f2.8 lens clearly gives it the edge. The IS of the new lens may give you up to three stops in hand-holding, but that doesn’t help you freeze motion.
And f2.8 gives a noticeably brighter viewfinder image.
On the other hand, the IS does give you those extra stops for low light or extended depth of field.
Finally, the new lens gives you a 50% larger image at its 105 mm long end. While I didn’t compare its resolution with any other lens at that focal length, I have no doubt it would hold up very well.
And the text in bold in the paragraph above?
Im probably being thick, but for macro work, if the 24-70 produces a slightly larger image, yet the 105 gives a 50% larger image... which comment refered to the lens, whilst zoomed in?
My question still being: When shooting an apple sized object, which lens (when zoomed in at 70 vs 105, in macro mode) will allow more of a small subject to fill the frame?
I found this text on luminous landscape:
Macro
The 24-70 mm lens has a slight edge in image size, giving a 0.29 magnification, while the 24-105 mm manages 0.23. This doesn't sound much different but actually I was quite surprised at the difference in practice. I was very gratified, though, with the IS when working close-up with the 24-105 mm. (Which reminds me - Canon, how about a 100 mm macro lens with IS?).
So what does that text above in bold mean then? See the other text below, the two sentences have left me
_____________________________________________________________
Other Factors
For action photography, where speed is important, the full extra stop of the 24-70 mm f2.8 lens clearly gives it the edge. The IS of the new lens may give you up to three stops in hand-holding, but that doesn’t help you freeze motion.
And f2.8 gives a noticeably brighter viewfinder image.
On the other hand, the IS does give you those extra stops for low light or extended depth of field.
Finally, the new lens gives you a 50% larger image at its 105 mm long end. While I didn’t compare its resolution with any other lens at that focal length, I have no doubt it would hold up very well.
And the text in bold in the paragraph above?
Im probably being thick, but for macro work, if the 24-70 produces a slightly larger image, yet the 105 gives a 50% larger image... which comment refered to the lens, whilst zoomed in?
My question still being: When shooting an apple sized object, which lens (when zoomed in at 70 vs 105, in macro mode) will allow more of a small subject to fill the frame?
Edited by UKBob on Saturday 10th March 08:33
Gemm said:
Gemm said:
Ok, the magnification of 24-105 = x0.23 and 24-70 = x0.29, so 24-70 is just slightly better, but considering the macro lenses do x1, it isn't a huge difference.
Do you read my post at all??
That's exactly what I said before. 
I highlighted two statments from the same review. That one, and this one:
the new lens (105) gives you a 50% larger image at its 105 mm long end.
I still dont know which statment means what exactly, does the 105 give you a 50% larger image in macro mode, taking into account the further away minimum focussing distance? Or are they referring to non-macro shooting?
Hehe, it does sound a bit confusing but I think it's saying you get larger images due to longer focal length (non-macro), but 24-70 gives more magnification due to closer minimum focusing distance (when shot at closest focus distance). Does it make sense?
Edited by Gemm on Saturday 10th March 14:36
Cheers Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff