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

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> 24-70 2.8L vs 24-105 4L IS
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 19 of 19, (reverse)
AuthorThread
11/02/2006 08:39:42 AM · #1
So, this coming christmas, I will have enough money to purchase one of these lenses (I'm also lucky enough that wedding stuff pays for my equipment!)

So I have come to this conclusion...

24-70 2.8L - I can take advantage of the super fast AF when needed, low light situations, etc.
24-105 4L IS - Image stabilizer, not as fast as the 2.8, longer focal length.

So, what do you think? My mind is set on one of these two lenses, I just need different opinions!
11/02/2006 08:46:41 AM · #2
pro article here
11/02/2006 08:49:48 AM · #3
Originally posted by jmlelii:

...24-70 2.8L - I can take advantage of the super fast AF when needed, low light situations, etc.
24-105 4L IS - Image stabilizer, not as fast as the 2.8, longer focal length.

So, what do you think? My mind is set on one of these two lenses, I just need different opinions!


Don't you already own one of these?
11/02/2006 08:51:59 AM · #4
I don't have experience with the 24-105 so I can't compare, but I love my 24-70. Built like a tank, compliments the 70-200 nicely, and great at focusing in low-light. The extra reach would be nice to have at times though when there's not time to switch lenses.
11/02/2006 09:25:41 AM · #5
Should I get the Mercedes or the BMW?

I recently bought the 24-70 but considered the 24-105.

I went with the faster lens because IS and the extra little on the telephoto end wasn't worth a full stop to me. Sure, IS is great and gives you an extra stop or two, but it's useless is your subject is moving. I also wanted the F2.8 for shallow DOF portrait work.

However, the 24-105 is a fantastic lens (two friends have it). If you don't need the extra stop or plan to shoot mostly outdoors with it, get it for the extra range and IS!
11/02/2006 10:09:20 AM · #6
Originally posted by LoudDog:

Should I get the Mercedes or the BMW?

I recently bought the 24-70 but considered the 24-105.

I went with the faster lens because IS and the extra little on the telephoto end wasn't worth a full stop to me. Sure, IS is great and gives you an extra stop or two, but it's useless is your subject is moving. I also wanted the F2.8 for shallow DOF portrait work.

However, the 24-105 is a fantastic lens (two friends have it). If you don't need the extra stop or plan to shoot mostly outdoors with it, get it for the extra range and IS!


What he said!
11/02/2006 10:10:27 AM · #7
This question has also been covered...

Here...

...and here.

I ended up going with the 2.8....
11/02/2006 11:18:03 AM · #8
One issue I constantly fight at receptions is low light. Especially when there is action involved - the couple's first dance, for example. And it's not the exposure that's killing me, it's the focus.

Yes, I have the Canon 580EX mounted on a flash bracket and yes it does a fine job of illuminating the couple when I take the picture. But I first have to get them into focus.

That's why I went with the Canon 24-70 2.8L lens. And on Canon cameras, the focus sensor is much more accurate at f/2.8 than at slower apertures.

I would be afraid of how many shots I might miss if I had to start with an f/4 aperture in these low light situations.
11/02/2006 11:42:13 AM · #9
It all boils down to what you want the lens for. You can compensate for the the 1 stop loss by bumping up the ISO. You can't compensate for IS a with faster aperature(F/2.8) I agree with the article that todays digital cameras are pretty much noise free at ISO 400 so 1 stop shouldn't really be that big of a deal. And if it is, get a bigger flash.

If I ever get into wedding photography I might consider the 24-70 but until then I personally have no use for it. I don't like having to get out my 70-200 just because I need a little more reach. The 24-105 saves me a bit on this.

Message edited by author 2006-11-02 11:50:17.
11/02/2006 01:36:06 PM · #10
Originally posted by NstiG8tr:

You can compensate for the the 1 stop loss by bumping up the ISO.


Correct, but with the F2.8 lens you can bump up the ISO too and it will still always be one stop faster then the F4 lens. If you are shooting where you can't use a flash that can be a big difference.

Originally posted by NstiG8tr:

You can't compensate for IS a with faster aperature(F/2.8)


I'd rather have a shutter speed where I don't need IS (thanks to a fast aperture) rather then have to rely on IS, but if you are intentionally shooting low speeds handheld you are correct.

Both are great lens so you can't go wrong with either. They each just do a few things a little better then the other.
11/02/2006 02:59:11 PM · #11
Originally posted by zeuszen:

Originally posted by jmlelii:

...24-70 2.8L - I can take advantage of the super fast AF when needed, low light situations, etc.
24-105 4L IS - Image stabilizer, not as fast as the 2.8, longer focal length.

So, what do you think? My mind is set on one of these two lenses, I just need different opinions!


Don't you already own one of these?


No I dont, I borrow it from a friend.
11/02/2006 03:02:35 PM · #12
I would simply ask yourself whether you shoot more indoor or outdoor (with the possible exception of a sports guy). Indoor - 24-70/2.8 Outdoor - 24-105/4

That my simple 0.02.
11/02/2006 04:37:11 PM · #13
This is truely a tough decision!

11/02/2006 04:42:03 PM · #14
Well if you are shooting weddings then the choice is simple...you can't beat a fast lens...the faster the better.
11/02/2006 04:44:39 PM · #15
ON a 20D when you mount a 2.8 or faster lens extra focusing sensors are enabled that will give you faster and more precise focusing.
IS is nice though...
11/02/2006 05:18:09 PM · #16
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:

ON a 20D when you mount a 2.8 or faster lens extra focusing sensors are enabled that will give you faster and more precise focusing.
IS is nice though...


I guess this wouldnt be as hard if they werent the same damn price!
11/03/2006 12:46:50 AM · #17
I use the 24-105 on the 1Ds2 as an all-purpose walk-around. I think this focal range suits a full-frame camera particularly well.

With a smaller sensor, I'd likely prefer the 24-70. After considering the crop factor, this lens becomes an effective 38.4mm-112mm, which, in my book, would make it a zoom covering a decent normal range, including single/group portrait situations. It's fast and excellent glass, too (I've shot with it).

With a FF, the 24-70mm is rather wide - too wide for a portrait lens, really.
11/03/2006 02:37:15 AM · #18
Originally posted by jmlelii:

Originally posted by Prof_Fate:

ON a 20D when you mount a 2.8 or faster lens extra focusing sensors are enabled that will give you faster and more precise focusing.
IS is nice though...


I guess this wouldnt be as hard if they werent the same damn price!


Just get'em both. What the hell it's only money. You can make more.
11/04/2006 03:03:29 PM · #19
I just went through this same decision. I have a 30D and 20D with the 18-55 kit lens, the 50mm 1.8 II, and the 70-300mm f4-5.6 III USM. My main goal was to replace the kit lens with something that would stay on most of the time. So I looked at pictures I'd taken in the 85-105mm range with my 70-300mm lens. I had quite a few that just wouldn't work with the 24-70 and with my 50mm 1.8 I'm covered for low light and DOF shots. So I chose the 24-105mm lens and have been very happy with the decision. Good Luck.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 12/05/2019 03:30:43 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: 12/05/2019 03:30:43 PM EST.