|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/07/2011 12:29:14 PM · #1 |
Hello I'm going to go buy a Canon 5d mark ii tomorrow and I have the choice of the
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM or the
EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
Just want to know if I can get some feed back on what lens is the better lens.. |
|
|
|
04/07/2011 12:33:58 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by JonoTucker:
Hello I'm going to go buy a Canon 5d mark ii tomorrow and I have the choice of the
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM or the
EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
Just want to know if I can get some feed back on what lens is the better lens.. |
I may be in the minority here, but I have found myself using my 24-70 less and less nowadays. Even though 24-105 is a slower lens, it is a lot more versatile one, especially for travelling where you don't want to carry too many lenses with you. If you do studio work, it doesn't really matter anyway. The only advantage 24-70 has over 24-105 is in low light. Just for the record, 24-70 is my least favorite lens ever :) |
|
|
|
04/07/2011 12:36:50 PM · #3 |
Consensus is 24-105mm has a slight edge. It's lighter, it has better contrast, and it performs very well wide open, which the 24-70 does not. So most of the time you have to run the 24-70 at f/4 anyhow. 24-105 has IS also, which is a real plus. They're both fine lenses, however.
R. |
|
|
|
04/07/2011 12:38:27 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by nightpixels:
Originally posted by JonoTucker:
Hello I'm going to go buy a Canon 5d mark ii tomorrow and I have the choice of the
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM or the
EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
Just want to know if I can get some feed back on what lens is the better lens.. |
I may be in the minority here, but I have found myself using my 24-70 less and less nowadays. Even though 24-105 is a slower lens, it is a lot more versatile one, especially for travelling where you don't want to carry too many lenses with you. If you do studio work, it doesn't really matter anyway. The only advantage 24-70 has over 24-105 is in low light. Just for the record, 24-70 is my least favorite lens ever :) |
Thanks alot! for the reply I think I will go with what you say and get the 24-105mm. |
|
|
|
04/07/2011 12:39:17 PM · #5 |
| thanks for taking the time to give me some feedback guys |
|
|
|
04/07/2011 01:29:54 PM · #6 |
| It all depends on your circumstances - if you make some cash from your photography then the 24-70 f2.8 is a bit of a workhorse and will serve you well - if however you are more like a serious hobbyist then the 24-105 should be fine. |
|
|
|
04/07/2011 06:00:17 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Consensus is 24-105mm has a slight edge. It's lighter, it has better contrast, and it performs very well wide open, which the 24-70 does not. So most of the time you have to run the 24-70 at f/4 anyhow. 24-105 has IS also, which is a real plus. They're both fine lenses, however.
R. |
I'm going to have to disagree with Robert here for the most part... the 24-105 is definitely smaller and lighter, but that's where our agreement ends.
If contrast is better on the 24-105, it can't be significantly so; the 24-70 is excellent in that regard.
My copy of the 24-70 performs beautifully wide open, with only some very minor softness at the longest setting. I'm a stickler for optical performance, and I don't hesitate to shoot it wide open. At equivalent apertures, I'd put the 24-70 up against the 24-105 head to head any day.
There's one more aspect to optical performance that no one has mentioned, so I will - distortion. Both lenses have some, particularly at the wide end, however the 24-70 is significantly better than the 24-105 in this regard. It's not a biggie, it's easily correctable in post, but still...
The 24-70 does have a 1-stop advantage in low light. More importantly, f/2.8 means more accurate and potentially faster AF, because the cross-type sensors take advantage of it. That is a potentially big advantage, depending on how often you shoot in low light. In my opinion, IS gives little practical advantage at focal lengths wider than about 50mm. Think about it, you need at 1/50s or faster for people anyhow; IS does not do anything for subject motion. At 1/50, you should be able to hand-hold the 24-70, and it's easier to get 1/50 because it is one stop brighter. An f/4 IS lens has no advantage over an f/2.8 non-IS lens at WA when people are involved as subjects.
Message edited by author 2011-04-07 18:01:29. |
|
|
|
04/07/2011 09:56:45 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Consensus is 24-105mm has a slight edge. It's lighter, it has better contrast, and it performs very well wide open, which the 24-70 does not. So most of the time you have to run the 24-70 at f/4 anyhow. 24-105 has IS also, which is a real plus. They're both fine lenses, however.
R. |
I'm going to have to disagree with Robert here for the most part... the 24-105 is definitely smaller and lighter, but that's where our agreement ends.
If contrast is better on the 24-105, it can't be significantly so; the 24-70 is excellent in that regard.
My copy of the 24-70 performs beautifully wide open, with only some very minor softness at the longest setting. I'm a stickler for optical performance, and I don't hesitate to shoot it wide open. At equivalent apertures, I'd put the 24-70 up against the 24-105 head to head any day.
There's one more aspect to optical performance that no one has mentioned, so I will - distortion. Both lenses have some, particularly at the wide end, however the 24-70 is significantly better than the 24-105 in this regard. It's not a biggie, it's easily correctable in post, but still...
The 24-70 does have a 1-stop advantage in low light. More importantly, f/2.8 means more accurate and potentially faster AF, because the cross-type sensors take advantage of it. That is a potentially big advantage, depending on how often you shoot in low light. In my opinion, IS gives little practical advantage at focal lengths wider than about 50mm. Think about it, you need at 1/50s or faster for people anyhow; IS does not do anything for subject motion. At 1/50, you should be able to hand-hold the 24-70, and it's easier to get 1/50 because it is one stop brighter. An f/4 IS lens has no advantage over an f/2.8 non-IS lens at WA when people are involved as subjects. |
+1 I agree with this statement 100% I had both lenses and the 24-105 was used about 5 times before I sold it. The 24-70 was a mainstay until I switched over to Nikon. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/20/2025 01:44:43 AM  |
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: 08/20/2025 01:44:43 AM EDT.
|
