which lens

[UKBob]

I just cant decide between these two lenses

Canon EF 24-70mm f2.8L USM
and the
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM

Sharpness colour and speed are important, Id thought Id rather have a faster lens than the added focal length, and I was just about to order the 24-70 when I started debating the 24-105 all over again.

I... just... cant... decide

Does anyone have both? Or either? Or want one over the other? I think I just need to use someone as a sounding board... help!

[poah]

I would rather have the 24-105 IS, then add 10-22 and 100-400 L

[UKBob]

poah said:

I would rather have the 24-105 IS, then add 10-22 and 100-400 L

Three phone calls later, Im leaning towards the 24-70 again

[GetCarter]

I wanna know why your ad on PH points to your profile - with no link from there to your website. (?)

Confused of Cumbria

>> Edited by GetCarter on Tuesday 25th April 16:29

[marctwo]

I'd rather have the 24-70mm f2.8L out of these two. The IS is not going to help you when the subject moves, only a faster shutter will do that. Depends what you are going to be mostly shooting I guess.

If it were me, I'd wait for the EF-S 17-55mm f2.8.

[fergusd]

Buy both . . .

Fd

[UKBob]

marctwo said:

I'd rather have the 24-70mm f2.8L out of these two. The IS is not going to help you when the subject moves, only a faster shutter will do that.

Yup, im sure you're right. Everyone I spoke to said roughly the same thing, the 2.8 does seem worth having, I get it tomorrow

Gui from Park Cameras is possibly the most helpful/knowlegable/friendly chap you could ever hope to serve you, highly recommended.

GetCarter said:

I wanna know why your ad on PH points to your profile - with no link from there to your website. (?) Confused of Cumbria

Hmmm

I designed my companies website myself, long ago, in the days before I gave up design and hired people who are far better than I ever was. I turned to sales, we got busy, and each year we failed to find the time to design a new better web site, and left the old sloppy copy as it was, with the intention of doing a better new site sooner rather than later.

My ads link to my profile because they have to link somewhere. The ad itself was designed purely with the intention of leaving the thought in the minds of PHers that I offer web design and related services, hence the style of banner. Silly, grabbing, and not very corporate/serious

I am planning another similar 7 page animated design, which will work and look much the same as the current site looks now, with one big difference... The new site will contain photo realistic 3D environments and animations, and will blow the old site out of the water. Not bothered to update the old site, as the new one is in the pipeline, hence the link to my profile.

Im launching another web design brand (an evil web design company ) on the 6th June 2006, which should be fun. Praps later this year we'll find time to redesign the old site.

[poah]

on a 1.6x crop camera the 24-70 while can produce stunningly sharpe images is not a great focal lenght not really wide enough and not long enough.

the 24-105 has IS a greater focal length and will produce more less DOF at f4 105mm than 24-70 f2.8 @ 70mm. its also a big heavy beast. having f2.8 is not everything and you have to question what the lens is getting used for. for low light stuff I use by 17-85 at f5.6 @ 1/10s and up on manual and let the flash do the rest. no need for f2.8 and the IS helps with the slow shutter speed.

[ThatPhilBrettGuy]

I'd have F2.8 or faster on every lense I own if I could. It really does suck in a lot more photons. Only issue is managing the DOF, which on my 120-300 F2.8 is at times, minimal. A by minimal read just about nothing!

What the 50mm F1.0L's like to use is anyones guess...

[V6GTO]

In your shoes, Bob, I'd go for the 24-105 for the greater range and the 580EX flash unit (a stunning piece of kit, which you'll need anyway no matter how many lenses you get) to help when things get dim.

Martin.

>> Edited by V6GTO on Tuesday 25th April 21:19

[poah]

did you ever get one martin. bristol obviously choose not to honour their cheap online price.

[Bacardi]

ThatPhilBrettGuy said:

What the 50mm F1.0L's like to use is anyones guess...

Hi Phil, I don't believe they make the 50 1.0 anymore. I can tell you the 85 1.2 has the DOF of a Rizla.... which is nice.

Rob, all zooms are compromises and the greater the range of zoom, the more you compromise. Usually with distortion in the form of pincushioning at one end and barrel at the other (this may not be obvious, depending what you shoot). You will also compromise on sharpness in the edge/corner wide open (one reason they limit the 24-105 to f4). Weren't you thinking of the 70-200 at one point? In which case the 24-70 will fit nicely.

You are already looking down a tube of Smarties so the more light you can get in, the nicer it will be. If you only want to bother with two lenses (and don't mind sacrificing ultimate quality for convenience and compromise), get the 17-40 and the 35-300... job done .

>> Edited by Bacardi on Tuesday 25th April 21:46

[tertius]

At the risk of missing the point entirely why not get this Sigma 18-50 F2.8 DG EX

F2.8 throughout the range, very nice useable range, and imo a great lens - it lives on my 350D, and only £300.

[robdickinson]

Bacardi said:

ThatPhilBrettGuy said: What the 50mm F1.0L's like to use is anyones guess... Hi Phil, I don't believe they make the 50 1.0 anymore.

Think they only ever made one production run in the 80's and still havnt sold all of them off, slow focusing and expense I think. Made with lead glass which is why they wouldnt make anymore even if they wanted to.

[UKBob]

poah said:

on a 1.6x crop camera the 24-70 is not a great focal lenght not really wide enough and not long enough.

Bacardi said:

Rob, all zooms are compromises and the greater the range of zoom, the more you compromise.

Before I bought my 30d I spent hours pouring over reviews, and decided the 70-200 IS and 24-70 would make a killer combo, but I think Poah might be right.

[UKBob]

robdickinson said:

Bacardi said: ThatPhilBrettGuy said: What the 50mm F1.0L's like to use is anyones guess... Hi Phil, I don't believe they make the 50 1.0 anymore. Think they only ever made one production run in the 80's and still havnt sold all of them off, slow focusing and expense I think. Made with lead glass which is why they wouldnt make anymore even if they wanted to.

I heard today that faster lenses were made. They weighed a tonne and cost the earth, almost literally.

[robdickinson]

Fastest was an f0.98 or something especialy created for a movie, I think canon have made one faster than the f1.0 50mm to but not sure, was along time ago.

[UKBob]

robdickinson said:

Fastest was an f0.98 or something especialy created for a movie, I think canon have made one faster than the f1.0 50mm to but not sure, was along time ago.

I should remember as I was only told today, but iirc it was faster than that. And cost a few hundred grand. The chap also mentioned hollywood, praps its the same one.

[robdickinson]

Ah my mistake it was f0.7 :O

Used by Kubrik in clockwoerk orange, was an ex NASA lens adapted for the job.

www.visual-memory.co.uk/sk/ac/len/page1.htm

[_dobbo_]

Even taking into account the crop factor, 105mm is not that much longer than 70mm - nothing that you can't recover by cropping the image in post processing, and as long as you aren't planning on printing at A2 size, you wont lose any quality.

Only you can answer which is best as only you know what type of shooting you want to do.

If I'm at a party I don't like having a huge flash ontop of my camera, so I need faster glass - but if having a flash on wont bother you then the 24-105 is probably a better choice. You can add the 50mm f/1.8 for those times you want something fast with no flash.

Personally I've just hocked a kidney to buy a 28-70 and thus far the focal length has proven to be great.

I'd buy the f/2.8 because you are paying for better glass and quality rather than for IS. Which should mean you get better images.