should i go for IS or Non IS lense canon
Discussion
ok chaps, just bought a 5D MK 2 after a few posts on here and I cannot make my mind up over the lens choice, do i go for the 28-70 f2,8 L non IS or the 28-105 L F4 IS, Both are L lenses is there anything to choose in terms of quality between the two ?. What would you go for and why ??
Edited by hiltonig on Monday 21st December 22:10
24-70 is heavier and bigger, better for low light when things are moving, better for shallow DOF and better for Bokeh (quality of out of focus areas).
24-105 is better when subjects arnt moving (inlow light), more reach, lighter and smaller and distorts less.
Both have good points/bad points.
The 24-70 is runoured to be replaced soon with an IS version.
24-105 is better when subjects arnt moving (inlow light), more reach, lighter and smaller and distorts less.
Both have good points/bad points.
The 24-70 is runoured to be replaced soon with an IS version.
RobDickinson said:
24-70 is .... better for shallow DOF ......
Not sure about this. DoF is shallower at 105mm/f4 than 70mm/f2.8. I asked myself exactly the same question before and went for 24-105 as the longer focal length and IS would have more advantage for my use. (and I was right). You just have to list all the pros and cons and think which would be more benefit to you.
Stupid Question Mode on...
Andy M said:
One other thing; the IS will be extremely useful for shooting HD movies where camera shake is very pronounced.
Generally speaking is this true? Does an IS/VR/anti-shake/stupid-lens-manufacturers-acronym lens really work when you set it up with video enabled SLR? I assumed that they'd only be good for still shots on the basis that you don't really notice a "smoothed" effect in the viewfinder even when they're whirring away (in my limited experience).I went with the 24-105 for my walkabout as the extra reach was more use to me than the extra stop. To my mind a 24-70 only makes sense if you are also planning to carry a 70-200 everywhere and either have 2 bodies or don't mind regular swapping. This is probably not much of a factor if you are mostly shooting things that are posed or staged though.
RobDickinson said:
Gemm said:
RobDickinson said:
24-70 is .... better for shallow DOF ......
Not sure about this. DoF is shallower at 105mm/f4 than 70mm/f2.8. 
Edited by Gemm on Tuesday 22 December 19:50
To me the general issue is not IS vs non-IS, but longer reach vs larger aperture. The decision then depends on what you plan to use the lens for.
The next issue is that as a newbie you probably don't know what you plan to use the lens for - in which case I'd suggest you go for the longer reach (and then you get the IS as a bonus). You can worry about fast lenses later if you need to.
The next issue is that as a newbie you probably don't know what you plan to use the lens for - in which case I'd suggest you go for the longer reach (and then you get the IS as a bonus). You can worry about fast lenses later if you need to.
As a pro press photographer, I would agree with Simpo Two in that you should ask yourself: Not IS vs non-IS, but longer reach vs larger aperture.
If I was given the choice of only taking one of the two lenses out as an only lens for the day, I would still pick the 24-70 for the wider aperture over the extra little bit of reach any day.
I can see why people might be mis-lead into thinking that the extra reach would be the better lens and you could get around the restriction of the F4 with the IS. But to be honest if you need wide aperture, I would go for that anytime over IS.
That is my view as a Pro Press Photographer for National newspaper, working in a 101 different situations.
If I was given the choice of only taking one of the two lenses out as an only lens for the day, I would still pick the 24-70 for the wider aperture over the extra little bit of reach any day.
I can see why people might be mis-lead into thinking that the extra reach would be the better lens and you could get around the restriction of the F4 with the IS. But to be honest if you need wide aperture, I would go for that anytime over IS.
That is my view as a Pro Press Photographer for National newspaper, working in a 101 different situations.
yes is I think I will go for the larger aperature but it was the questions is the image quality of the non is V is the same ? This is my first serious slr for a while as I have been used to a lecia M8 with the fast prime lenses and this is a jump into digital slr with zooms. just one thing how does the IS work on these lenses ??
How IS works: http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/tech/room/index...
Both the 24-70 and 24-105 are very sharp. Unless pixel peeping you'll probably find no difference, if you are the 24-70 will have the edge.
Modern IS can get you 4 stops at the long end, so depending on what you're shooting (which you still haven't answered) it could be worth more than the 1 stop the 24-70 gives you.
Both the 24-70 and 24-105 are very sharp. Unless pixel peeping you'll probably find no difference, if you are the 24-70 will have the edge.
Modern IS can get you 4 stops at the long end, so depending on what you're shooting (which you still haven't answered) it could be worth more than the 1 stop the 24-70 gives you.
hiltonig said:
well I shoot mostly landscapes and cars ( not moving )cheers for the info
You might want to read this then:http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-E...
Snapper7 said:
As a pro I would go for the 24-70 f2.8 lens out of the two you mention. I use the 24-70 all the time and rate it highly. I would not look at the f4 personally.
mirrors what I (a non-pro) feel too. The f4 is a great lense but I just dont feel the love with it. I stick the 85 1.8 over the 24-105 (on image quality) obviously not as flexibleSaying that, used the 24 last night at a gig, great lense but only used at 24 (its weakest point) as all the zoom stuff I stuck on the 200 for
IS is over rated too, especially with shorter focal ranges
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff