| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/15/2008 12:36:32 PM · #1 |
Considering buying one of these two lenses: Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS / Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 >> Looking for walk-around lense and indoor phots. Basic everyday lense.
Any suggestions
Message edited by author 2008-01-15 12:37:30. |
|
|
|
01/15/2008 12:38:57 PM · #2 |
Search the forums for those lenses and you'll find this topic many times. It comes down to speed vs. range and which will be better for what you shoot.
|
|
|
|
01/15/2008 12:46:04 PM · #3 |
yup, what the doc said, but i'll add my opinion:
if you had a 5D, I'd say the 24-105 ... you don't so I'd say the 24-70
The 5D doesn't suffer when you boost the iso to compensate for the loss of a stop of light. |
|
|
|
01/15/2008 01:02:20 PM · #4 |
if it was me and I'm pretty much doing this my self ATM is check out local camera stores and see if you can rent the lens(s) you are interested in and shoot what YOU normally shoot and see which better suits your needs...
I'm actually renting a 70-200 F2.8 (no IS) and a 24-70F2.8 today and its only $25/day for each which IMO is worth the investment rather than spending $1k+ and finding out it wont suit your needs or you don't like it...
-dave
|
|
|
|
01/15/2008 01:52:42 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by brad177:
Considering buying one of these two lenses: Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS / Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 >> Looking for walk-around lense and indoor phots. Basic everyday lense.
Any suggestions |
I went through the same process and went for the 24-105. I love it, and haven't really missed 2.8 that much so far.
BTW, I know it's a bit late now, but for future reference I believe a DPC'r has something to do with this site, where you could have rented both lenses for 7 days for $100 total.
|
|
|
|
01/15/2008 04:41:57 PM · #6 |
get the 24-70mm. you wont realize how slow f4 is until you'be been shooting with the f2.8L. but then again im spoiled by my 50mm f/1.2L
that's why i'm selling my 17-40mm f/4. tooo slow. |
|
|
|
01/15/2008 05:19:34 PM · #7 |
| I have the 24-105 and I miss the f/2.8 sometimes but I don't miss the difference in size. The 24-70 is bigger and heavier. |
|
|
|
01/15/2008 05:21:22 PM · #8 |
| 24 to 70 is a brick but worth it |
|
|
|
01/15/2008 05:36:34 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by AdrlnJunkie11:
.....you wont realize how slow f4 is until you'be been shooting with the f2.8L.
17-40mm f/4. tooo slow. |
If you shoot in alot of dark places like churches and caves.
|
|
|
|
01/16/2008 04:28:45 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by NstiG8tr:
Originally posted by AdrlnJunkie11:
.....you wont realize how slow f4 is until you'be been shooting with the f2.8L.
17-40mm f/4. tooo slow. |
If you shoot in alot of dark places like churches and caves. |
or this crazy time of the day called night... |
|
|
|
01/16/2008 04:34:50 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by AdrlnJunkie11:
Originally posted by NstiG8tr:
Originally posted by AdrlnJunkie11:
.....you wont realize how slow f4 is until you'be been shooting with the f2.8L.
17-40mm f/4. tooo slow. |
If you shoot in alot of dark places like churches and caves. |
or this crazy time of the day called night... |
Then get a tripod if you're not shooting moving stuff. Personally I think a lot of those fast lenses are perfect for professionals who absolutely have to get the shot in difficult lighting (weddings, nighttime nature) but for nighttime landscapes it's all in the tripod imho and saves a fortune...depends on what you shoot....
N
Message edited by author 2008-01-16 16:35:11. |
|
|
|
01/16/2008 06:03:17 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by AdrlnJunkie11:
Originally posted by NstiG8tr:
Originally posted by AdrlnJunkie11:
.....you wont realize how slow f4 is until you'be been shooting with the f2.8L.
17-40mm f/4. tooo slow. |
If you shoot in alot of dark places like churches and caves. |
or this crazy time of the day called night... |
2.8 is one stop slower. I think you are stating things a bit strong. 2.8 is not going to be some magical aperture where all things are possible. If you aren't shooting action, then the IS on the 24-105 may actually be better since it is 3 stops worth.
So if you are planning on shooting nighttime sports, I'd say go with the 2.8 and pray. You probably won't get what you need out of that even...
|
|
|
|
01/16/2008 06:47:40 PM · #13 |
I agree with DrAchoo. Even as a wedding photog, I'm not even going to say the difference of one stop would change my mind one way or the other. Though I'd prefer the faster lens, one stop usually isn't going to get me in or out of trouble in a low light situation.
I say unless you need the lens for serious low light work, ie indoor sports (watch for the shallow DoF though), weddings or candid strip club shoots, the f/4 lens will be just fine if the other specs on it fit your needs.
Frankly the extra 30mm and the IS are probably more convenient than the 1 stop aperture for a walk around lens.
But, what do I know? I shoot primes :-D
Message edited by author 2008-01-16 19:29:45.
|
|
|
|
01/17/2008 11:46:00 AM · #14 |
I am offering 2 for 1 on my rental site. //www.rentphotostuff.com
I have both the 24-105 and the 24-70. Try them side by side, I will only charge you for the more expensive rental and shipping on both. We do 1,2,3,4 week rentals.
Enjoy.
Please let me know ahead of time either from emails through the website or PMs here.
Justin |
|
|
|
01/17/2008 12:48:16 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by AdrlnJunkie11:
Originally posted by NstiG8tr:
Originally posted by AdrlnJunkie11:
.....you wont realize how slow f4 is until you'be been shooting with the f2.8L.
17-40mm f/4. tooo slow. |
If you shoot in alot of dark places like churches and caves. |
or this crazy time of the day called night... |
2.8 is one stop slower. I think you are stating things a bit strong. 2.8 is not going to be some magical aperture where all things are possible. If you aren't shooting action, then the IS on the 24-105 may actually be better since it is 3 stops worth.
So if you are planning on shooting nighttime sports, I'd say go with the 2.8 and pray. You probably won't get what you need out of that even... |
Doesn't the presence of an f/2.8 lens bring the high-precision AF sensor into play? Possibly an advantage there, coupled with the greater amount of light entering the camera if using in lower light. Let's not forget the slightly smaller DOF that one could achieve with a wider aperture (not much, though, I grant you).
|
|
|
|
01/22/2008 01:01:55 PM · #16 |
Still on the fence between the 24-105 and 24-70.
I think I'm leaning towards the 24-70....
|
|
|
|
01/22/2008 09:05:55 PM · #17 |
|
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: 07/31/2025 05:38:53 AM EDT.
