| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/02/2006 11:54:17 AM · #1 |
Hi
I've been looking at different lenses and it seems the battle for first spot is between these two lenses.
they both have great reviews so it's hard to decide. They also both come with a hefty price tag, so I do'nt want to choose the wrong lens.
I have a DSLR so the 1.6 crop on a 24mm is a bit too much, I wish there was an 18-75 L lense, but oh well..
Anyway.. I want the lens as an all purpose one.. I want it to be my main lens for doing pretty much most things I want to do.
I like the 24-70 because of the f2.8
Then again, the 24-105 has that extra reach that is nice (I do own a 70-300 though, so it's only a matter of swapping lenses.. though the lens that I have (DO) I'm sure it's not as sharp as any of these two L lenses... I'm a bit dissapointed with the sharpness of the DO lens)
well.. could anybody give me some personal experiences with these lenses? Can anybody recommend something (maybe even other than these?)
I took a look at the Tamrom 28-75? (but it's a 28 and it's also a lot slower than the USM canon lenses)
I haven't heard much on the IS on either of both lenses.. is one better than the other? are they both the same IS? (I believe there are now IS 1 2 or 3 right?)
Thanks for the feedback :)
Javier |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 11:57:00 AM · #2 |
never owned either lens ... but i can say the difference between 2.8 and 4 is bigger than you might think
i'd buy the 2.8 |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 12:03:13 PM · #3 |
Do you want to swap lenses?
Do you need the speed?
My solution was a Sigma 18-50 2.8 EX for the indoor/low light/wide angle bit. Very nice lens.
My outdoors work i wanted more reach, and like you ahve found there is not much out there so I chose one of the best lenses made - Tamron SP24-135 3.5-5.6. See the FredMiranda reviews - this cusker outscores most L glass!
Only downside is not a consant ap 2.8 lens...but for outdoor work and studio work I don't need 2.8 as most shots are 5.6-11 range. I love being able to get to 135mm and macro and not switching lenses - keeps things lighter and the sensor cleaner.
Sigma has announced a new 17-70 f2.8-4.5 some info here that seems interesting.
The canon 24-105 was recalled...not sure the issues but for that price I would not be too happy. For me, 24 works outdoors most of the time, but 75 or 80 is not enough.
I may someday move to L glass, but not all of it is the cat's meow, and the money saved by buying a third part pro lens is too substantial to ignore. Canon does not have the market cornered on the best glass, although their marketing would have you think so.
Check out the Fred Miranda.com reviews section.
the tamron 24-135 is so sharp you can cut yourself on the images LOL
  
I have a Tamron SP70-210 2.8 and it is sharp too. The SP lenses are their pro line. 6 year warranty too.
 
Message edited by author 2006-02-02 12:08:23.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 12:08:19 PM · #4 |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 12:12:37 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by hopper:
never owned either lens ... but i can say the difference between 2.8 and 4 is bigger than you might think
i'd buy the 2.8 |
I have the 24-70 that you are asking about... All I can say is that it is a big, heavy lens that works great. I hardly ever take it off my Camera... This means that it is my all purpose lens. I personally do not need the extra range and when I do I change lenses... Everyone that I know that has the 24-70 is very happy with it... And as Hopper said the 2.8 is bigger then you might think... |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 12:17:11 PM · #6 |
| All I can say is that I would take a bigger aperture over IS any and every time and if I had to throw all my lenses away except one, I would keep the 24-70. Have no experience with the 24-105 and I am not even remotely interested in that lens. |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 12:23:25 PM · #7 |
| If money is the problem Sigma 24-60 F2.8 EX is a great alternative for three times more expensive Canon. |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 12:40:23 PM · #8 |
You asked about the IS on both lenses. Please don't forget that the 24-70 does not have IS. I thought about the 24-105L IS to replace my 28-135 IS, but went with a second-hand 24-70 and don't miss the additional reach at all. The wider aperture is a very good thing to have. More opportunities in lower light (don't let anyone tell you that you can increase your ISO setting to compensate for the loss of light entering the camera, you can increase your ISO with the 2.8 lens and get even faster shutter speeds) and more accurate autofocus (using a 2.8 lens enables the high-precision AF sensors, if I remember correctly).
Ultimately it's your choice, although I would say that the IS is not so terribly useful at shorter focal lengths. Now if there were a 24-105 f2.8 L IS ....
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 12:45:18 PM · #9 |
I opted for the Tamron SP 28-75mm 2.8 XR Di (IF) over the $200 more Canon and I have no regrets what-so-ever. Plenty fast, plenty sharp.
For my wides I have the Tamy's brother a Tamron SP 17-35mm 2.8-4 XR Di in my kit. Both are fantastic lens.
The 28-75 is on the camera most of the time as my walk-about lens.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 12:59:35 PM · #10 |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 03:31:04 PM · #11 |
Thanks.. this has been most informative..
I wasn't aware of the Sigma lens.. I'll defenitelly keep my eyes open for it.. looks like what I'm looking for..
actually, what I'm looking for is a 18-135 f2.8 L :)
Anyway...This got me thinking about IS now..
Would you rather have a f2.8 with no IS than a f4 with the latest IS (which according to Canon can go down up to 3 stops)
I know there is a big difference between a 2.8 and a 4 when it comes to bluring your background, etc.. but still.. would you go with a 2.8?
J |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 03:37:34 PM · #12 |
I plan on getting rid of my 28-70 L for the 24-105 IS. I find IS to be a greater value than that one stop is.
In tricky situations often times it's your camrea shake that blurs the photo, not the motion of the subject.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 04:44:14 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
I plan on getting rid of my 28-70 L for the 24-105 IS. I find IS to be a greater value than that one stop is.
In tricky situations often times it's your camrea shake that blurs the photo, not the motion of the subject. |
At the long end I'd tend to agree. If you're "average" and get good results at the 1/focal length rule, then you're limited (with your cam) to about 1/125, and IS could gain you between 1 and 2 stops. At 1/60, shooting a posed shot, subject motion should not be a big concern. At 1/30, you might be pushing the limit. So at the long end, you might have a 1-stop advantage with the 24-105 vs. the 24-70.
At the short end, however, the situation is reversed, and subject motion (assuming a person as the subject) will be a concern before IS will help you at all. So at the wide end, the 24-70 has a 1-stop advantage, IMO. At 50mm, it might be a wash.
The 24-105 has proven itself to be a darn sharp lens, my only dig on it is the somewhat higher distortion. It's a great lens, no doubt, but in the final analysis I'm keeping my 24-70. If I had a 28-70, and wanted the extra 4mm on the wide end, I honestly don't know which way I'd go right now.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 04:47:37 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
I plan on getting rid of my 28-70 L for the 24-105 IS. I find IS to be a greater value than that one stop is.
In tricky situations often times it's your camrea shake that blurs the photo, not the motion of the subject. |
At the long end I'd tend to agree. If you're "average" and get good results at the 1/focal length rule, then you're limited (with your cam) to about 1/125, and IS could gain you between 1 and 2 stops. At 1/60, shooting a posed shot, subject motion should not be a big concern. At 1/30, you might be pushing the limit. So at the long end, you might have a 1-stop advantage with the 24-105 vs. the 24-70.
At the short end, however, the situation is reversed, and subject motion (assuming a person as the subject) will be a concern before IS will help you at all. So at the wide end, the 24-70 has a 1-stop advantage, IMO. At 50mm, it might be a wash.
The 24-105 has proven itself to be a darn sharp lens, my only dig on it is the somewhat higher distortion. It's a great lens, no doubt, but in the final analysis I'm keeping my 24-70. If I had a 28-70, and wanted the extra 4mm on the wide end, I honestly don't know which way I'd go right now. |
Even at the wdie end having IS to help with camrea shake is a godsend. Especially when your in a hurry uinder fleeting light.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 05:02:13 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Even at the wdie end having IS to help with camrea shake is a godsend. Especially when your in a hurry uinder fleeting light. |
Agreed, there are circumstances where the IS will still be beneficial at the wide end. If you're in a situation where you've got a static subject and your meter reads 1/8 @ f/4, you'd better hope you've got IS, even at 24mm, or find something to brace against.
In the above situation, you'd have a somewhat more difficult time getting the shot with the 24-70/2.8 vs. the 24-105/4 IS. For most of my subjects, though, 1/8s is not an option, and if it is, I can usually brace or use a tripod. Your usage may bring other demands, since you shoot professionally, and I don't at this point. I have to hand it to Canon, though, they really did a great job with the 24-105.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/22/2025 11:55:45 PM EDT.
