24-70 f2.8 or 24-105 f4...
Discussion
I'm starting to get to the point where I want decent glass to walk around with, and I need something a little wider than my nifty fifty at home so it really comes down to one of the above.
I'm swaying towards the f2.8 lens as I do like my depth of field, but I'm wondering if I'd miss much at the long end? In an ideal world, I'd eventually complement my collection with the 100mm f2.8 macro, and something cheaper (non L glass) for the 100-200 range.
Having rented the 24-105 I realise either lens would far out perform me, so it's straight down to speed vs range.
I guess you can usually step closer, but you can't make the sun brighter
Edited by jon- on Monday 22 June 12:39
I don't think anyone can call it, just down to personal choice. Have a look here...
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/328501/0
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/328501/0
I did go through the same dilemma and chose 24-105 in the end. Having IS was more important than f2.8 for my use. But if you need f2.8 for getting faster shutter speed, then there's no substitute. But as for DoF, did I read somewhere that DoF at 105mm f4 and 70mm f2.8 is quite similar or even less?
Edited by Gemm on Monday 22 June 14:33
I'd go for faster glass everytime. The DOF at wide open with the 24-70 is very useful. I often use mine for close up product photography, which it works well with.
I did think of getting the 24-105, which is smaller, and I could leave the 70-200 at home most of the time. But I don't really nead another lense. And I know I would regret that I didn't take the faster glass out with me.
What body is this on? When first got my 24-70, I was still using film bodies, and had a 1.6 crop DLSR body to play with while waiting for a 1D. I found I didn't use it very much, as it was too long most of the time. On a 1.3 crop or FF, it is perfect.
I did think of getting the 24-105, which is smaller, and I could leave the 70-200 at home most of the time. But I don't really nead another lense. And I know I would regret that I didn't take the faster glass out with me.
What body is this on? When first got my 24-70, I was still using film bodies, and had a 1.6 crop DLSR body to play with while waiting for a 1D. I found I didn't use it very much, as it was too long most of the time. On a 1.3 crop or FF, it is perfect.
smack said:
I'd go for faster glass everytime. The DOF at wide open with the 24-70 is very useful. I often use mine for close up product photography, which it works well with.
I did think of getting the 24-105, which is smaller, and I could leave the 70-200 at home most of the time. But I don't really nead another lense. And I know I would regret that I didn't take the faster glass out with me.
What body is this on? When first got my 24-70, I was still using film bodies, and had a 1.6 crop DLSR body to play with while waiting for a 1D. I found I didn't use it very much, as it was too long most of the time. On a 1.3 crop or FF, it is perfect.
Currently a 400d, but progressing to 50d or 5d mkII depending on how business goes. In THEORY, the IS should be worth the stop (4->2.8) and as gemm pointed out, the bokeh at 105 f4 should be around the same as 70 f2.8.I did think of getting the 24-105, which is smaller, and I could leave the 70-200 at home most of the time. But I don't really nead another lense. And I know I would regret that I didn't take the faster glass out with me.
What body is this on? When first got my 24-70, I was still using film bodies, and had a 1.6 crop DLSR body to play with while waiting for a 1D. I found I didn't use it very much, as it was too long most of the time. On a 1.3 crop or FF, it is perfect.
Decisions, decisions. I guess I need to find out which lens needs to be stopped down more to avoid wide open distortion, though both being L glass I'd imagine they were comparable.
Interesting comparison here
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/2...
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/2...
the site said:
The new 24-105mm performs very well, and surprisingly so wide open at f/4, making it a quite usable aperture.
<snip>
And, as Bill rightly points out, the addition of up to three stops of hand-holdability, along with the extra focal length at the long end (from 70mm to 105mm), is more than adequate compensation for the one stop maximum speed reduction and slightly dimmer viewfinder.
<snip>
And, as Bill rightly points out, the addition of up to three stops of hand-holdability, along with the extra focal length at the long end (from 70mm to 105mm), is more than adequate compensation for the one stop maximum speed reduction and slightly dimmer viewfinder.
I owned the 24-105L (which I bought for £499 at Focus on Imaging '07) which was great on my 5D, but as soon as I bought a 1Ds3 I sold the 105 for a 24-70L due to the greater quality of the 70 (corner sharpness, vignetting & bokeh).
The 70 is the better lens, but it's also bloody heavy (compared to the 105) and with the lens hood attached is pretty damn large as well.
The 70 is the better lens, but it's also bloody heavy (compared to the 105) and with the lens hood attached is pretty damn large as well.
jon- said:
Currently a 400d, but progressing to 50d or 5d mkII depending on how business goes. In THEORY, the IS should be worth the stop (4->2.8) and as gemm pointed out, the bokeh at 105 f4 should be around the same as 70 f2.8.
Decisions, decisions. I guess I need to find out which lens needs to be stopped down more to avoid wide open distortion, though both being L glass I'd imagine they were comparable.
IS is NOT a substitute for a fast lens if you are wanting to freeze things - say sports. But if you are taking shots in a church, then it is perfect.Decisions, decisions. I guess I need to find out which lens needs to be stopped down more to avoid wide open distortion, though both being L glass I'd imagine they were comparable.
The thing with the 24-70 is it is sharp wide open, (unlike the 16-35 which is a hit and miss affair depending on the individual lens), and doesn't suffer from vignetting, and low barrel distortion wide open. One reason you don't see many go up on the 2nd hand market - everyone keeps theirs.
But, it is a heavy/fat lump (and strong, mine has bashed into many things over the years), and putting it on a light body it is very nose heavy and unbalanced. Stick it on a 1V/1D, and the heavy base of the larger body cancels that out and it is fine. So on that front, the 24-105 makes sense, being more compact, and a jack of all trades with being longer and IS.
If I didn't have a 24-70 70-200 combination, I would be tempted by the 24-105. If you change your mind, you can always sell it, as it is L-glass, it will be easy to shift and not cost you much in ownership.
But personally, I thought, do I REALLY need another zoom lens that does the same as what I have got, just lighter.... And spunked my money on another (more costly than the lens) Mountain Bike!
jon- said:
Interesting comparison here
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/2...
I remember reading that when the lens first came out (every review, they moan about using gloves with kit....) Good review, which hits the key points. Do you want speed, or trade it off with lighter lens and more reach.http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/2...
the site said:
The new 24-105mm performs very well, and surprisingly so wide open at f/4, making it a quite usable aperture.
<snip>
And, as Bill rightly points out, the addition of up to three stops of hand-holdability, along with the extra focal length at the long end (from 70mm to 105mm), is more than adequate compensation for the one stop maximum speed reduction and slightly dimmer viewfinder.
<snip>
And, as Bill rightly points out, the addition of up to three stops of hand-holdability, along with the extra focal length at the long end (from 70mm to 105mm), is more than adequate compensation for the one stop maximum speed reduction and slightly dimmer viewfinder.
Interestingly they talk of the macro ability of the lenses, which I have used quite a bit over the years for close up work, and the results have been good.
jon- said:
The age old question of speed VS range.
It purely comes down to what you want to shoot. The speed argument won for me as a 2.8 for sport and all-round shooting rather than the extra length was for more important for me. You can always put a 1.4 extender on if you need to if you haven't got something like a 70-200 too or you can't be bothered to carry it!The fact that I got my 24-70 for £625 brand-new helped with the decision too
[edited as having words missing didn't help with readability!]
Edited by cirks on Tuesday 23 June 13:31
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff