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

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Opinions - f/4L IS lens or f/2.8L lens?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 18 of 18, (reverse)
AuthorThread
09/29/2006 09:29:23 AM · #1
I am looking purchase a nice all around lens and am trying to decide between the

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM lens

and the

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM lens

As an all around lens it will be used in a variet of situations from bright sunlight to indoor and low light photography. Just wondering what everyone's opinion might be as to which would be the better lens: the longer focal length and IS of the f/4 or the overall speed of the f/2.8? There is only a $20 difference between the two...

Thanks,

~chuck
09/29/2006 09:33:41 AM · #2
Great bokeh or not as great bokeh is about what it boils down to. I tried both a couple weeks ago and decided on the 24-105. The IS makes it great for low light (hand hold at 1/15s with no problem). The 2.8 is one hell of a heavy lense. I couldn't see lugging that monster around all the time and I do like to carry all my lenses with me at once. Optical quality is the same for both.

Either way, you will have a great lense. Just depends on what you want to do with it.
09/29/2006 09:34:13 AM · #3
As long as you wont be doing any low light sports photography I think you would be better off with more reach and IS especially for the price difference. Knowing how I shoot and what I shoot. 2.8 is important. But I use my lens in that range for night dirt track racing, so 2.8 is important to me. If I didnt do sports photography I'd go with longer reach and IS.

MattO
09/29/2006 09:35:00 AM · #4
I'd probably go with the 24-70, on the basis that 105 is not really quite telephoto enough to be that useful, so you'll need another lens for that side anyway ;)
09/29/2006 09:41:20 AM · #5
there have been issues wiht the IS lens mentioned here. I suppose it's new and under warranty so it may not matter.
I tried it and was not impressed, but that's me I suppose.
teh 24-70 is a great lens, but in a range I find somewhat pointless for a 1.6 crop camera - not wide enough and not long enough.

I might then ask what lenses you have now and what you feel you need you don't have?

You could get the tamron 24-135 3.5-5.6 SP AND the tamron 28-75 2.8 SP AND have money left over for a Tokina 12-24 F4 (for speed over super wide) or Sigma 10-20 3.5-5.6 (for wide over speed).

Yes, I know the canon's are L glass and you probably got the fever...but the ones i mention are gonna give you great images also.
09/29/2006 09:58:41 AM · #6
Thanks for everyone's input!

Prof_Fate, I just recently sold my Digital Rebel Kit including the 18-55mm kit lens which leaves me with:

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM
Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM

I am currently using the Canon EOS 30D and would like to fill the gap I currently have between 22mm and 100mm...I'll do some more research on the Tamron but you are correct...I gots the fevuh...
09/29/2006 10:25:46 AM · #7
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:

the 24-70 is a great lens, but in a range I find somewhat pointless for a 1.6 crop camera - not wide enough and not long enough.


That is what has been bugging me a great deal. I have a 28-135mm and that is a nice range - but I would like a little bit longer and higher quality. The IS component of the non-L lens I have is a great asset BTW. But 24-70 seems would not have enough length for my everyday use. 105mm maybe... just maybe.

Message edited by author 2006-09-29 10:26:47.
09/29/2006 10:39:45 AM · #8
I have the 24-105 IS and think it's great. But like some one else has already said, it depends on what you need and do. Outside or anywhere there is plenty of light it's awesome, but it struggles in low light. I figure use a flash, that's why they make them. I bought it instead of the 24-70 because I didn't want to have to get out my 70-200 when 70 wasn't far enough. I wanted that little extra bit of overlap.
As far as issues with it like Chris implies, I think F/4 is the only issue with it and it's easily worked around by bumping up the ISO or using a flash. Other than that, I've had no problems with it. It's great walk-around lens.

Message edited by author 2006-09-29 10:40:50.
09/29/2006 11:01:25 AM · #9
24 - 70
how can James Nachtwey be wrong?
09/29/2006 11:07:34 AM · #10
James Nachtwey
09/29/2006 11:08:35 AM · #11
This thread also compares these two lenses.
09/29/2006 11:10:06 AM · #12
I recently had the same choice and I went with the 24-70. I wanted a good general zoom for low light and walkaround use.

IS is great in low light only if your subject is not moving. Thus I'd much rather have the extra stop over the IS in low light because I found in most low light photo ops my subject won't stay still very long!

If you are buying it as a walkaround lens and most of your shooting is in good light, get the 24-105 IS. If you intend to use it for low light, get the 24-70 F2.8.

Also note, the 24-70 f2.8 makes a nice portrait lens as well. F4 doesn't blur the background as nicely.
09/29/2006 11:11:35 AM · #13
You can't go wrong with the 24-70. It's my all-around lens and yes, it is a bit heavy, but you get used to it (along with building muscle LOL)

09/29/2006 11:18:02 AM · #14
It seems like both lenses have their champions. I use the 24-105 for 98% of my photography. Use a flash for indoor. The IS really can help you down to about 1/15th if you are steady with your hands. Of course it doesn't freeze what you are shooting, just your hands.
09/29/2006 11:41:40 AM · #15
I will also say this. If I ever decided to get a 24-70(highly unlikely) I'd save myself $900 and get the Tamron. I'm only gonna buy one more $1000+ lens, the 100-400L, but that's gonna be awhile. I'm not really a 3rd party lens guy but by looking at the results from the Tamron by so many owners around here, you can't go wrong.
09/29/2006 11:49:34 AM · #16
Heheh I was just reading reviews on the 100-400...
09/29/2006 12:13:09 PM · #17
FredMiranda rates the 24-70mm at 9, the 24-105 at 8.7. That's pretty close.

I own the the 24-105 (with the 1Ds2 and f/f sensor), but haven't used it enough to offer my own opinion. The 24-70, though, I have used (with a 10D) and thought it incredibly good. Yes, it's heavy, but what the hell, a 1200mm is heavier.

The 105 makes an ideal walk-around lens when paired with a full-frame sensor, such as the 1Ds series and the 5D. On a camera with a 1.6 crop, I'd probably choose the 24-70mm, as a matter of personal preference.

Anything wide will distort at the widest end with full-framed cameras and would be best used without a filter (vignetting).


09/29/2006 03:31:44 PM · #18
Thanks for everyone's opinions!

I am still undecided but will hopefully be able to let you know which one I chose shortly. Hell, maybe I'll even enter another challenge or two...
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/28/2020 11:20:34 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 © 2001-2020 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: 03/28/2020 11:20:34 PM EDT.