DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> F/2.8 or F4 IS
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 23 of 23, (reverse)
AuthorThread
12/29/2005 10:49:17 PM · #1
Hello Everyone,

Have a question. Looking to make a purchase of a new lens. Just not sure which one, the two choices are:

Canon EF 24-70mm F/2.8L USM
Canon EF 24-105mm F/4L IS USM

They are both L glass, and cost is about the same. I guess my question is should I go with the F/4L with IS, or with the F/2.8 and no IS? It's a big investment and wanted some advice.

thanks,
rui


12/29/2005 10:50:31 PM · #2
get the 2.8 and never look back.
12/29/2005 10:51:42 PM · #3
what kind of work are you going to shot?
12/29/2005 10:52:18 PM · #4
2.8 is what I would take. How do you shoot where do you shoot
12/29/2005 10:59:13 PM · #5
Me personally, I shoot most of my stuff outside, so I'm going with the 24-105mm f4 IS. At least that's what I'm saving for right now... The zoom range is just about perfect for my "walk around" needs too.

If you shoot mostly inside then I'd lean more towards the f2.8.

But...if what you shoot inside stands STILL, then the IS is supposed to be able to make up more than the difference between f4 and f2.8... The key word is "supposed" to... I know the IS on my 100-400mm L lens works very nice...

So I guess I'm not much help! Ha. Basically look at what and where you usually shoot. That should help.

Doug
12/29/2005 11:04:13 PM · #6
I keep hearing the 24-105 suffers from distortion and vignetting both, and many say it has a weird color cast also and some CA. The vignetting probably isn't an issue on the 20D. Sample comments (from Fred Miranda)

Horrible vignetting, throughout the zoom range.
Horrible distortions, it has barrel distortion from 24 to 35mm, pincussion to 50mm, and barrel again to 105mm. The barrel distiortion is most visible at 24 and 105mm. What I hate most is the pincussion, that's really in the most usable range (35-50), and it cannot be corrected without loosing detail.


The 24-70. on the other hand, is universally regarded as a superior performer. Still, for the matter of that, I have tested the 24-70 against the Tamron 28-75, and I see no difference sufficient to worry about. And the Tammy is a third the price...

R.
12/29/2005 11:05:57 PM · #7
What lens do you use most now? Why? what are you looking to replace?
You have the 17-85 IS and a 28-80. The 24-70 will blow the 28-80 away, but you kind of have overlapping ranges here. I don't know of anyone usein ghte 24-105 - there was some kind of recall on it. IS can run your batteries down and won't help with a moving subject.

You could get the 17-40 4L and tamron SP 28-75 2.8 for $1000 and have $250 or so left over! Both are excellent glass so you are not forgoing performance at all.

Then get either the canon 70-200 4L or sigma 70-200 2.8 (525/700 respectively) and you're pretty well covered with nice glass.

12/29/2005 11:06:46 PM · #8
i'd like to add that the F4 lens also suffers from poor light transmition. It's really more like an F4.5 lens.
12/29/2005 11:07:15 PM · #9
Originally posted by dswebb:

Me personally, I shoot most of my stuff outside, so I'm going with the 24-105mm f4 IS. At least that's what I'm saving for right now... The zoom range is just about perfect for my "walk around" needs too.

If you shoot mostly inside then I'd lean more towards the f2.8.

But...if what you shoot inside stands STILL, then the IS is supposed to be able to make up more than the difference between f4 and f2.8... The key word is "supposed" to... I know the IS on my 100-400mm L lens works very nice...

So I guess I'm not much help! Ha. Basically look at what and where you usually shoot. That should help.

Doug


check out the tamron SP24-135. Fantastic lens - the only thing you might want is IS, but i don't want the extra cost and complexity.
12/29/2005 11:57:58 PM · #10
There are several "bad" reviews of the 24-105 L on fredmiranda and elsewhere, but there are just as many or more "glowing" reviews. So it seems like you either love it or hate it.

Most of the "bad" stuff I've heard seems to relate to full frame sensors. Which I don't have to worry about. :-)

But it does seem a little "weird"...this love/hate relationship it has going. I think there just needs to be more experience with it, to sort out the good from the bad. I won't mind trying one out. :-) Eventually. :-(

Doug
12/30/2005 03:38:13 AM · #11
I wanted the 24-105L but I went with the 24-70 instead, because the 24-105 was out of stock at that time.

I think I made the right choice, the 24-70 has been used 80% @ f2.8, so the 24-105 might not have made those shots as well.

I'd say go with the 24-70, since you have the 20D it will be like 38-112 on fullframe
12/30/2005 10:08:51 AM · #12
Thanks for all the responses. As far as what I like to shoot, I guess its probably 80% outside shots, and 20% inside. Also I was looking to sell my 17-85 IS. The 28-80 I will probably keep it for my film camera. Hmmmm only if money was not a problem. Again thanks for the input. I will look around and see if the IS issue has been resolved. Selling the 17-85 IS I will also loose the 17-40mm range. Just another thing to add to the confusion.

rui
12/30/2005 10:11:04 AM · #13
24-70 2.8L, no doubt about it.

June
12/30/2005 11:27:51 AM · #14
Originally posted by dpaull:

get the 2.8 and never look back.


Me agree :-)
12/30/2005 11:44:21 AM · #15
24-105. But personally I'm trying to cut down on the # of lenses I need to walk around with. This lens seems like a perfect outdoor walkaround and fits very nicely into a collection with 10-22 and 100-400.

I've seen the glowing reviews on the 24-105. Not so many of the stinker reviews. You probably will have slightly more distortion because you have a longer range. That's natural. But you gain an extra 30% reach for it and the glowing reviews seem to think the distortion is minor.

You can check out some reviews on Luminous Landscapes. Actually you can see a review comparing the two very lenses you are looking for here.

Message edited by author 2005-12-30 11:45:49.
12/30/2005 11:49:56 AM · #16
Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and Canon 70-200 f/4L (my two favorite lenses) gets you the best of both worlds for less than either of the lenses you were looking at. Use the Tamron for indoors and walkaround and the Canon for outside.
12/30/2005 11:51:05 AM · #17
I will more than likely be selling my 28-70 2.8 to get the 24-105. I like the "IS", and usually stop down to at least 5.6 for DOF anyway. The "IS" will let me shoot at slower shutter speeds.
12/30/2005 11:52:42 AM · #18
me too

Originally posted by pitsaman:

Originally posted by dpaull:

get the 2.8 and never look back.


Me agree :-)
12/30/2005 11:54:42 AM · #19
I have the 24-70 2.8 and think it is a great lense. If you were in canada I'd suggest you come try it to see if you like it. I have no regrets. I had considered selling it for $1000can because I was just as happy with the 17-85 IS in certain conditions.
12/30/2005 12:15:50 PM · #20
Originally posted by notonline:

I have the 24-70 2.8 and think it is a great lense. If you were in canada I'd suggest you come try it to see if you like it.


You live in Canada? What street?

Aww, man, that's always been one of my favorite Canadian jokes (my favorite is a bit dirtier). I crack myself up.
12/30/2005 12:21:20 PM · #21
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by notonline:

I have the 24-70 2.8 and think it is a great lense. If you were in canada I'd suggest you come try it to see if you like it.


You live in Canada? What street?

Aww, man, that's always been one of my favorite Canadian jokes (my favorite is a bit dirtier). I crack myself up.


lol just around the corner from that big tree right next to the other igloo.
12/30/2005 10:08:59 PM · #22
2.8 YOU WILL LOVE IT .
12/30/2005 10:27:17 PM · #23
2.8...the 24-70 lives on my 1D II. I might have considered the 24-105 had it existed when I bought my 24-70...but it's a good thing (for me) that it did not when I bought the 24-70 since I've come to realize later on that IS does not make up for fast glass. Would I like to have IS on the 24-70 f/2.8? You betcha...but given the choice now between the f/4 24-105 IS and the f/2.8 24-70 I'd still go with the 24-70.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/19/2019 05:21:08 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2019 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 08/19/2019 05:21:08 PM EDT.