5D2 Everyday Lens

[xrrr]

Hi all,

I am in the latter stages of planning an upgrade from my 40D to a 5D mark 2 (I know about the rumoured mark 3 - so I *may* yet wait until the spring). But....

I mostly take landscapes, cars (and more recently) people. I make the occasional foray into motorsport and wildlife but not enough to worry about the slower FPS on the 5D and the lack of crop zoom (I can crop!).

I am mostly looking for some help deciding on a replacement for my EF-S 17-55 F/2.8

I am *only* looking at Canon and not Sigma/Tamron so that means for full frame I have a choice of:

• 24-70 f/2.8
• 24-105 f/4

The 2.8 is only slightly more expensive but a lot heavier and less versatile but I have got addicted to the differential focus on the 17-55 f/2.8.

I understand that DoF is more pronounced on a FF body but what would be the real world difference between 40D at f/2.8 and 5D at f/4?

e.g. this shot was taken at f/2.8 on my 40D. Would a 5D with f/4 lens be able to provide nearly as much differential focus? (the phone was pretty much as the minimum focussing distance if I remember rightly)


My New iPhone by xrrr, on Flickr

Samples of DoF on a 5D2 from either lens would be fab!

BTW, I also own:

• 70-200 f/4 IS (with 1.4ex)
• 100mm macro
• 50mm f/1.8 (poss to be replaced with a f/1.4 USM)

So I am currently favouring the 24-105 and then use the 50 prime when I want extreme DOF but would be interested in thoughts and opinions. But only yesterday I was favouring the 24-70...!

[007singh]

On a 5D, I know most people use a 24-70 f2.8 as a walkabout. Its a great lens on that body, and personally, I would take the faster lens over the extra reach. Obviously this depends on what you are shooting most of the time etc, but for me, the perfect package on a Canon full frame is a 24-70 f2.8, and a 70-200 f2.8. It is a shame the 24-70 does not have IS.

In terms of DOF, I dont think the f4 on a full frame will have quite the minimal DOF as the 2.8 on a crop body, but I could be wrong. I have only ever used a 2.8 lens on a full frame, and dont have any shots to compare at f4.

[MartinP]

I recently made the upgrade from 40D to 5D mk ii and faced the same problem of which lens to go for. In the end I went for extra reach of the 24-105mm as I felt the 70mm would be too short for an everyday lens on the full frame sensor.

I wouldn't worry about missing out on shallow DOF with the f/4.0 - below is an example of f/2.8 (Sigma 24-70mm lens) on a 40D and f/4.0 (Canon 24-105mm lens) on the 5D mk ii - the DOF looks pretty much identical to me in the two images


full frame vs cropped.jpg by muddy_defender, on Flickr

The 24 to 105mm lens also has the advantage of image stabilisation, which works amazingly well but is not available on the 24 to 70mm.

Hope that helps.

[xrrr]

Top work Martin. You have done exactly what I was hoping someone would do! Thank you.

I was worrying that if I bought one lens I would wish I bought the other (I will probably still do that anyway). Now I am going to have to head down to Park Cameras and cop a feel with each lens mounted (so to speak). Agree with your comments about the reach and the IS plus the combo of 24-105 on a 5D is very similar in size and weight to the 17-55 on the 40D.

Mind you the DoF on the f/2.8 on full frame would be awesome...!

(great booze pics on Flickr BTW - great lighting)

[markmullen]

I had to choose recently between the same two lenses for a 1D Mk2 I was buying (1.3 crop).

I went for the 24-105 for the extra reach and the IS over one stop on the 24-70 as I thought it would be more useful and don't shoot wide open too often to benefit from the wider aperature.

[LongQ]

Hmm.

Happy to be corrected on this but there are a few variables here that may or may not be important and as far as I can tell nobody has yet mentioned Field of View. If the composition, especially of the 'far' background, is not too important for the type of shot then the comparisons above work fine. But is the general composition of the background, blurred or otherwise IS important then perhaps FoV should be taken into account.

So this may help.

http://www.dofmaster.com/doftable.html


Just enter the focal length you might be using and the camera, hit the calcualte button and see what the table gives you.

However the direct comparison for the two bodies should reall account for FoV differences IF the opening observation is important. Thus, by my understanding, a focal length of 50mm on the 40D needs to be compared with 80mm on the 5D2.

Now if you look at rhe results when focused close to the lens (I used 3ft since the 24-105 will focus to 0.45 mtrs so 3 ft for a tin of beans or a smart phone seems reasonable) there would be very little difference, FoV adjusted by focal length, between f2.8 on a 40D and f4 on a 5D2. Indeed f4 on 5D2 would offer a slightly shallower DoF according to the DoF calculation tool from the same site. Even if you increase the subject distance by a foot or so the DoF effect would not be greatly altered in practical terms for the sort of image idea described.

Does this sound about right?

[RobDickinson]

In every way the 24-105f4IS is comparable to the 17-55.

Its wider, its longer, has IS, has sealing and that f4 on a full frame gives a shallower DOF than 2.8 on a crop.

Theres 1.2 stops of DOF difference between canon crop and full frame.

The one thing that doesnt impress me with the 24-105 is the bokeh, IMO a touch poorer than the 17-55 but its not bad either.

[LongQ]

RobDickinson said:

In every way the 24-105f4IS is comparable to the 17-55.

But Rob, the alternative competition is not the 17-55 in this case ..... typo?

[RobDickinson]

LongQ said:

RobDickinson said:

In every way the 24-105f4IS is comparable to the 17-55.

But Rob, the alternative competition is not the 17-55 in this case ..... typo?

When your moving from a crop camera to a FF camera and looking to replace the 17-55 the 24-105 is a direct replacement with better range/build and a touch shallower DOF.

OK its a stop slower but the 2.5 times larger sensor makes up for that with ISO.

[LongQ]

RobDickinson said:

LongQ said:

RobDickinson said:

In every way the 24-105f4IS is comparable to the 17-55.

But Rob, the alternative competition is not the 17-55 in this case ..... typo?

When your moving from a crop camera to a FF camera and looking to replace the 17-55 the 24-105 is a direct replacement with better range/build and a touch shallower DOF.

OK its a stop slower but the 2.5 times larger sensor makes up for that with ISO.

Ah, OK, now I understand where you are coming from with the comparison.

[xrrr]

RobDickinson said:

LongQ said:

RobDickinson said:

In every way the 24-105f4IS is comparable to the 17-55.

But Rob, the alternative competition is not the 17-55 in this case ..... typo?

When your moving from a crop camera to a FF camera and looking to replace the 17-55 the 24-105 is a direct replacement with better range/build and a touch shallower DOF.

OK its a stop slower but the 2.5 times larger sensor makes up for that with ISO.

Thanks Rob, you have solidified my thinking. I had decided that the FF ISO boost was the way around the one stop slower lens - 3 stop IS helps too. The extra megapixels gets around the lack of crop zoom for when I need it. I am sold. Plus the £250 pound saving between the 105 and the 70 means I can deffo get the 50mm f/1.4 for extreme(ish) bokeh

Now, I just need to get over the £1500 'cost to change' hurdle as I forgot to mention I have an EF-S 10-22 to swap for an EF 17-40 f/4 also!

[RobDickinson]

If it was me I would buy the 24-70! It has dreamy bokeh.

But then your going to have a 50/1.4 for that if you need it.

I still look at the pics I took with the 24-70 and love them, something about it screams quality that I dont think you will get with a 24-105.

[xrrr]

RobDickinson said:

If it was me I would buy the 24-70! It has dreamy bokeh.

But then your going to have a 50/1.4 for that if you need it.

I still look at the pics I took with the 24-70 and love them, something about it screams quality that I dont think you will get with a 24-105.

Damn! Just when I thought I had made a decision! I am going to have to go to a shop with my memory card and try them both out!

[Ammo 7]

I've owned a Sigma 24-70 and when it came to upgrading I went for the Canon 24-105 f4 as the extra reach and image stabilization were more important to me. I also own a 17-40 f4 and a 70-200 f4 IS. All my lenses are f4 as I often shoot between f5.6 and f11, rarely fully open although they perform very well fully open. The f4s are also lighter than the 2.8 equivalents if you are lugging them around all day. I have a 50mm f1.4 for when I don't want to lug a zoom around.

The 70-200 f4 IS is amazing on the 5D2. The others I could sell and replace with primes perhaps, I wouldn't miss them, but the 70-200 is a keeper.