Quick lense comparison help needed

03/22/2007 10:00:33 AM · #1

OK I'm looking for an all-purpose lense that will be used during weddings and other jobs. Zoom is a requirement. Low light could play a factor.

These two lenses are very close in my eyes. What do you think?

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM on B&H for $1125

OR

Canon EF 24-105 f/4L IS USM on B&H for $1045

The 24-70 is obviously quicker but the 24-105 has more range and with the IS will help some with the low light/camera shake factor. I've heard IS can be the same as 2 f-stops which would make the second lense better. However, I'm skeptical of the IS affecting it that much. Someone please give me some input. I want to buy it for this weekend's wedding I'm shooting. I know I'm cutting it close.

Thanks!

violinist123

Canon EOS-6D

03/22/2007 10:12:39 AM · #2

I tried both at the time and bought the 24-105. The IS is not going to stop motion blur, so if you are shooting low light you are going to need to jack the iso to get a decent shutter speed - bring the noise.

Other than that, it is an excellent lense. Frankly I wouldn't mind owning both. The 24-70 is heavy as hell, but 2.8 is very nice. I've not regretted buying the 24-105.

03/22/2007 10:24:09 AM · #3

Just to muddy the issue... the last couple of weddings I shot, I found myself leaning toward wide angle a LOT. The Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS is in the same price range and hot stuff for low light. You might consider an 85mm f/1.8 prime for longer reach.

Message edited by author 2007-03-22 10:25:56.

idnic

Canon EOS-60D

03/22/2007 10:29:40 AM · #4

Originally posted by scalvert:

Another vote for the 17-55 2.8. Good "all-purpose" lens for fairly close work. Great in low light and enough width to get the whole wedding party in the shot without walking a mile back.

03/22/2007 10:29:42 AM · #5

Originally posted by scalvert:

Thanks for the mud, Scalvert. I have heard awesome things about the 85mm but right now am looking for something more versatile. After the wedding I'm shooting a March of Dimes - Walk America so I need quick length changes.

17-55 vs 24-70...both are 2.8. Yes the 17-55 is slightly cheaper but on the wide end of things I don't think I'd miss those 7mm of range.

I've read the 24-70 performs better than the 24-105 at the 24mm range. I think I'm leaning towards that.

03/22/2007 10:34:30 AM · #6

Originally posted by Kaups:

Yes the 17-55 is slightly cheaper but on the wide end of things I don't think I'd miss those 7mm of range.

The apparent difference is more significant on your camera: 27.2mm vs. 38.4mm. I used a 17-85mmm IS at the last wedding I attended (another option), but a faster, parfocal lens would have been nice. Another thing to consider is that your camera is designed to focus better with lenses that are f/2.8 or faster.

Message edited by author 2007-03-22 10:43:30.

splidge

Canon EOS-40D

03/22/2007 10:39:52 AM · #7

Originally posted by scalvert:

I second the vote for the 17-55. I had AF issues with mine when I got it (didn't focus properly at 17mm) but it went back to Canon and it's fine now. Check the reviews at FM - it has a better score than either of the lenses you mentioned. B&H's website lists it as $999.99. You will almost certainly want something longer as well though, like the 85mm prime or one of the 70-200Ls.

17-55 + 70-200L will cost more in the short term but it gives you a good wide range of coverage - depending on your style you might not need to get a wider lens. If you get the 24-105 or 24-70 you may well find yourself needing something longer AND something shorter, since 24mm (38mm equivalent on a 20D) isn't really wide at all.

splidge

03/22/2007 10:56:45 AM · #8

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Kaups:
Yes the 17-55 is slightly cheaper but on the wide end of things I don't think I'd miss those 7mm of range.

The apparent difference is more significant on your camera: 27.2mm vs. 38.4mm.

Yes OK 11.2mm of range :(
I just would really love a little more zoom capability. My kit goes to 55 now and it is not enough at times.

idnic

Canon EOS-60D

03/22/2007 11:01:47 AM · #9

Originally posted by Kaups:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Kaups:
Yes the 17-55 is slightly cheaper but on the wide end of things I don't think I'd miss those 7mm of range.

The apparent difference is more significant on your camera: 27.2mm vs. 38.4mm.

Yes OK 11.2mm of range :(
I just would really love a little more zoom capability. My kit goes to 55 now and it is not enough at times.

The difference between kit lens and the 17-55 is like the difference between tin and titanium. :)

03/22/2007 11:01:59 AM · #10

[quote] I second the vote for the 17-55. I had AF issues with mine when I got it (didn't focus properly at 17mm) but it went back to Canon and it's fine now. Check the reviews at FM - it has a better score than either of the lenses you mentioned. B&H's website lists it as $999.99. You will almost certainly want something longer as well though, like the 85mm prime or one of the 70-200Ls.

17-55 + 70-200L will cost more in the short term but it gives you a good wide range of coverage - depending on your style you might not need to get a wider lens. If you get the 24-105 or 24-70 you may well find yourself needing something longer AND something shorter, since 24mm (38mm equivalent on a 20D) isn't really wide at all.

splidge [/quote]

I also want to lean away from that 17-55 since it's EF-S and I plan on upgrading to the 5d in the future. Spending $1000 bucks on a lense I might as well have it be compatible with my future camera.

Message edited by author 2007-03-22 11:04:54.

03/22/2007 11:09:11 AM · #11

Originally posted by idnic:

Originally posted by Kaups:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Kaups:
Yes the 17-55 is slightly cheaper but on the wide end of things I don't think I'd miss those 7mm of range.

The apparent difference is more significant on your camera: 27.2mm vs. 38.4mm.

Yes OK 11.2mm of range :(
I just would really love a little more zoom capability. My kit goes to 55 now and it is not enough at times.

The difference between kit lens and the 17-55 is like the difference between tin and titanium. :)

Yes I didn't mean to compare the kit to the 17-55. Night and day, I agree. However, it would be ideal to find an EF lense with more zoom.

splidge

Canon EOS-40D

03/22/2007 11:10:44 AM · #12

Originally posted by scalvert:

I used a 17-85mmm IS at the last wedding I attended (another option), but a faster, parfocal lens would have been nice.

I don't think the 17-55mm is parfocal (I've played with it a lot since I had trouble with mine). If you autofocus at 17mm on something at "infinity" the distance scale reads around 3m rather than infinity. The resulting pictures are sharper than you get (at 17mm) if you manually focus to the infinity mark. If you autofocus the same subject at 55mm then the distance scale reads infinity.

Before mine was fixed, you could get a sharper picture on it by focusing at 55mm, zooming back to 17mm and taking the shot rather than focusing directly at 17mm. But now it's definately sharper if you focus it at the same focal length you use for the shot.

Of course it's possible that my copy is still dodgy, but it seems to take sharp pictures now, and the autofocus yields better results than using the distance scale. This leads me to conclude that it's not parfocal :).

splidge

splidge

Canon EOS-40D

03/22/2007 11:21:33 AM · #13

Originally posted by Kaups:

I also want to lean away from that 17-55 since it's EF-S and I plan on upgrading to the 5d in the future. Spending $1000 bucks on a lense I might as well have it be compatible with my future camera.

An alternative point of view is that you might as well get a lens that works well with your current camera.

If you do get a 5D in future you can always sell the 17-55 along with the 20D. You need to consider how the loss on reselling the lens (which usually isn't too bad - lenses hold their value pretty well) compares to the inconvenience of using a lens designed for a full frame camera on a crop one in the meantime. Don't forget that the 24-105 is the 5D's "kit lens" so you can save money buying them together.

And if you decide when you upgrade to keep the 20D as a backup body, the 17-55 lens will allow you to have a decent backup kit. There isn't much point in having a backup body if you don't have a backup lens...

Of course it's your decision to make :).

splidge

03/22/2007 11:25:18 AM · #14

Originally posted by Kaups:

I hear that a lot, and it strikes me as odd every time. I use both cameras, and really the only advantage to the 5D is resolution and a slight edge on noise- both of which should be addressed when Canon rolls out a 40D. Meanwhile, the 20D gives me a faster frame rate, longer telephoto, less vignetting, and a few more lenses to choose from. My 10-22 EF-S lens is just as wide as a 16-35 on the 5D, and it will still hold much of its value if I decide to sell it later.

03/22/2007 11:31:28 AM · #15

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Kaups:
I also want to lean away from that 17-55 since it's EF-S and I plan on upgrading to the 5d in the future. Spending $1000 bucks on a lense I might as well have it be compatible with my future camera.

I hear that a lot, and it strikes me as odd every time. I use both cameras, and really the only advantage to the 5D is resolution and a slight edge on noise- both of which should be addressed when Canon rolls out a 40D. Meanwhile, the 20D gives me a faster frame rate, longer telephoto, less vignetting, and a few more lenses to choose from. My 10-22 EF-S lens is just as wide as a 16-35 on the 5D, and it will still hold much of its value if I decide to sell it later.

So you're saying the 20d is better than the 5d. Why did they even make the 5d then? :)

I also plan on buyin the 10-22 EF-S but that isn't the issue at hand for me now. I just looked at the last wedding I shot. 24mm won't be too narrow if I do go with the 24-70 f2.8. Taking one step back during formal shots won't bother me at all. Plus I'll have extra range on the high end for the lonnng aisle shots.

Thanks for the continuing ideas everyone. I really appreciate it.

Message edited by author 2007-03-22 11:33:05.

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

03/22/2007 11:34:36 AM · #16

i think you misunderstood him

:)

Originally posted by Kaups:

So you're saying the 20d is better than the 5d.

03/22/2007 11:44:05 AM · #17

Originally posted by Kaups:

So you're saying the 20d is better than the 5d. Why did they even make the 5d then? :)

No, I'm saying 40D could be better than a 5D. The 5D was a big deal when it came out, but new superwide angle lenses reduce the need for full frame. I used to borrow the 5D from the office for wide angle stuff, but not anymore. That big 5D sensor will still give you less noise and shallower DOF, but it won't give you 5fps (good stuff for getting just the right expression or fast-moving subjects).

Message edited by author 2007-03-22 11:47:10.