| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/21/2010 11:38:30 AM · #1 |
| If you have bought a Canon 24-205 f4 is usm did you later think OMG I should have spend the extra couple hundred and bought the Canon 24-70 f2.8 is usm instead? |
|
|
|
04/21/2010 11:59:59 AM · #2 |
Originally posted by tomgm36:
If you have bought a Canon 24-205 f4 is usm did you later think OMG I should have spend the extra couple hundred and bought the Canon 24-70 f2.8 is usm instead? |
there is no 24-70IS model.
Matt |
|
|
|
04/21/2010 12:05:00 PM · #3 |
but there is a 17-55 f2.8 IS
really boils down to if you want the 105mm reach and what you are actually shooting if you need the extra stop or not |
|
|
|
04/21/2010 12:05:26 PM · #4 |
| I think it's coming soon, and probably at an insane price too. |
|
|
|
04/21/2010 12:35:09 PM · #5 |
For the most part [not every case ok I get that] I don't get the raging debates about f2.8 vs f4 normal range type lenses now days - especially this 24-105 vs 24-70 one (tele primes are a different dynamic)..... Most of us can run "ISO" speeds (amplification I guess I should say) FAR higher then even a few years ago. It just seems like an old debate from the past to me..... It's just a stop which is not that big a deal now....
If you want a fast lens for blur or whatever word you want to call it, then why not get a fast lens instead of an f2.8 lens - I know that probably means a prime not a zoom. |
|
|
|
04/21/2010 12:40:44 PM · #6 |
| I got rid of 24-70mm and got 25-105mm instead. I am very happy with it. |
|
|
|
04/21/2010 12:55:26 PM · #7 |
I would be happy with your purchase. You have the extra reach to 105, plus it is stabilized! The Is alone, will make up for the slower lens. I personally don't shoot much at f2.8. Although on my 70 - 200 f2.8, it has been great for low light manual focusing. I use a Canon 5D, which has trouble focusing in very low light. So compared to my 100 - 300 f4.5 - 5.6, way easier to focus manually through the view finder.
|
|
|
|
04/21/2010 01:08:38 PM · #8 |
I'm probably in the minority, but no one could convince me to trade my 24-70/2.8 for a 24-105/4. It is true that neither lens really makes the grade as a truly *fast* lens. For that, I have the 24/1.4, the 50/1.4 and (Zeiss Biotar) 75/1.5 primes. So if I have fast primes, why do I cling to the 24-70, when the 24-105 offers more range in a smaller, lighter package and I'm not needing the speed?
First, the 24-70 has lower distortion at the wide end. That's not a deal-breaker, it can be corrected in post, and (we'll see about this) it might actually be possible to do it semi-automatically in CS5.
Second, there's still the speed. Yes, we all have so much more flexibility with ISO than we used, to, but that doesn't change the fact that, for a given situation, the 24-70 has a full stop advantage. That's not peanuts. It's great to have constant f/2.8 in a zoom.
Third, and perhaps most importantly, you have more DoF control and more accurate AF (cross-type sensors)with an f/2.8 lens on most all Canon bodies.
Folks will argue that the 24-105 has IS, which I consider to be of some use at the longer end, but of little use to me at the wide end. Most of the time, I'm more worried about subject movement below 1/50s. If a version of the 24-70 with IS ever comes to market, I probably would not upgrade. |
|
|
|
04/21/2010 01:13:27 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by robs:
Most of us can run "ISO" speeds (amplification I guess I should say) FAR higher then even a few years ago. It just seems like an old debate from the past to me..... It's just a stop which is not that big a deal now....
|
IMHO the big shift is in the amount of light the lens lets in, so it gives more information for the camera to work with. It hits focus faster. It renders colors more clearly. You are right ISO is not a huge deal now a days, but its still a pretty big deal. Shooting indoors, noise is still the biggest issue, and that fact that I can shoot at 3200 does not mean I can get anything usable above 800. |
|
|
|
04/21/2010 01:23:43 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
I'm probably in the minority, but no one could convince me to trade my 24-70/2.8 for a 24-105/4. |
I'm in the minority too then. DOF and shutter speed the big reasons. ISO helps but you can't easily replace that extra stop. Also, IS is mostly useless under 100mm and is useless when you are shooting something moving.
the 24-105 is a great lens and if you are doing mostly outdoors shooting it might be the better choice, but for what i wanted it was no contest in the end. |
|
|
|
04/21/2010 01:31:29 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Shooting indoors, noise is still the biggest issue, and that fact that I can shoot at 3200 does not mean I can get anything usable above 800. |
Yeah don't disagree but why is 1 single stop a big deal?? If you have 3200 and want 800 (and presumably bounded by aperture & shutter) then 1 stop is not enough anyway :-)
Canon's are supposed to focus better with a max ap of 2.8 is one advantage for sure. |
|
|
|
04/23/2010 11:15:01 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
I'm probably in the minority, but no one could convince me to trade my 24-70/2.8 for a 24-105/4. |
No way I'd ever trade mine either.
Matt |
|
|
|
04/24/2010 01:31:41 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by robs:
If you want a fast lens for blur or whatever word you want to call it, then why not get a fast lens instead of an f2.8 lens - I know that probably means a prime not a zoom. |
At 200 mm, f/2.8 is more than wide enough for great bokeh / "blur".
|
|
|
|
04/24/2010 03:10:26 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by tomgm36:
If you have bought a Canon 24-205 f4 is usm did you later think OMG I should have spend the extra couple hundred and bought the Canon 24-70 f2.8 is usm instead? |
I've owned both at different times on different bodies. I loved the 24-105 for its versatile reach and IS. I loved the 24-70 for its fast aperture (and as was mentioned, this can help focus speed). It seems to have better resell value because it isn't the uber-popular 5D kit lens.
Bottom line: both are excellent lenses. Go with the 24-105 if you favor a little versatility, the 24-70 if you want the very best in focus and low-light performance. |
|
|
|
04/24/2010 11:50:40 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by geoffb:
Originally posted by robs:
If you want a fast lens for blur or whatever word you want to call it, then why not get a fast lens instead of an f2.8 lens - I know that probably means a prime not a zoom. |
At 200 mm, f/2.8 is more than wide enough for great bokeh / "blur". |
Yeah but did you see that part just before the bit you quoted... a 200f2.8 is kinda of a tele prime to me :-) Besides... given distance and min focus distance you can blur an f8 lens easily enough as well.
normal range type lenses now days - especially this 24-105 vs 24-70 one (tele primes are a different dynamic)
My point was that a normal focal length f2.8 is hardly "fast" - for some the 24-70f2.8 is the right lens and enough reason and that's great they found that right point but most over blow that difference and ignore the other larger differences based on the holy wars over this compare... The 105 vs 70 or IS vs non-IS should be more important differences to most of us because each has an advantage over the other and you need to fit into what you want. |
|
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: 08/08/2025 03:15:34 AM EDT.
