Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Canon 24-70L 2.8, or Canon EF 24-105mm f4 L IS?

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

Leave a Comment
    • «
    • 1
    • »
    backbeat
    backbeat  8134 forum posts United Kingdom1 Constructive Critique Points
    22 Dec 2009 - 10:05 PM

    I managed to get my first L glass a couple of months ago..a 70-200 L 2.8 IS, which is fabulous and exceeded all expectations..

    well now i want a companion to keep it company, but am stuck between getting a 24-70 2.8, or a 24-105L f4 IS.

    i know the 24-70 is faster, but the IS on the 24-105 should equal things up on the low-light front and has that bit of extra zoom..

    any advise??

    Thanks

    Phil

    Sponsored Links
    Sponsored Links 
    22 Dec 2009 - 10:05 PM

    Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

    da_nige
    da_nige  101153 forum posts Scotland
    22 Dec 2009 - 10:29 PM

    I've had both and prefer the 24-70. I still own it but got rid of the 24-105. I found the 24-70 sharper with better bokeh.

    Yeah I lose the IS but then I never really needed it anyway. The only time I needed it was indoors at weddings and then I'd be using flash anyway.

    Lotta discussion all over the internet about these two. It really comes down to personal choice.

    Neil

    Overread
    Overread  63746 forum posts England18 Constructive Critique Points
    22 Dec 2009 - 10:32 PM

    Remember that the IS will only even things up in so far as handholding is concerned - it won't affect subject motion blur if you can't get your shutter speed up.

    For myself the 24-105mm is the lens on the to get list for me - for a walkaround generalist lens it has the longer focal length range as well as the IS which is a good bonus. Shooting inside I am generally able to use flash so subject motion blur is not a major concern.

    The 24-70mm is the lens for if you know that you will end up shooting in dimmer conditions without flash support and thus need the additional light gathering of a wider max aperture.

    arhb
    arhb e2 Member 72116 forum postsarhb vcard United Kingdom67 Constructive Critique Points
    22 Dec 2009 - 11:45 PM

    I already own the 24-70mm F2.8 sigma, which is a very good lens, and I also have the 70-200F4L IS, covering the focal range between 24mm and 200mm very well.
    Having read beteen the lines of many a forum topics regarding the 24-70mm and the 24-105mm canon L lenses, I will in time be getting the 24-70mm F2.8L, which will possibly also have IS by the time I get one : )

    backbeat
    backbeat  8134 forum posts United Kingdom1 Constructive Critique Points
    23 Dec 2009 - 9:15 AM

    ok, thanks all...there are obviously other threads about the same subject..i'll try and dig them out

    phil

    imagegrill
    23 Dec 2009 - 11:27 AM

    The 24-70 is too short for a walkabout lens (IMO) and weighs more.


    Quote: I wish Canon would solve this by making a 24-105mm F2.8L with IS

    How much would this weigh though? Would I check it out though - hell yeah Wink

    User_Removed
    23 Dec 2009 - 11:34 AM

    To be honest, for a 'walkabout' lens, is IS really that important on a lens of that sort of length fitted to a modern digital SLR (with the high ISO capabilities that most now have). I've never really understood the need Smile

    Carabosse
    Carabosse e2 Member 1139385 forum postsCarabosse vcard England269 Constructive Critique Points
    23 Dec 2009 - 5:36 PM

    IS is like certain car gadgets - once upon a time it was exceptional, now it is 'must have'.

    The 24-70L IS is due out some time in 2010 if the rumour mill is correct.

    DuncanDisorderly

    Yes - IS is important on a walkabout lens unless you want to work with the widest aperture all the time, especially towards the long end of the lens.

    As for high ISO on modern cameras, good point.
    On my 5DII I use Auto ISO and Aperture priority unless I have reason not to.
    This tends to start upping the ISO when the shutter speed drops too far to hand-held without IS.
    1/fstop is only a rule of thumb, it is not guarantee of a sharp shot.
    Having IS means that a much higher percentage of shots are going to be critically sharp.

    Compared to the 24-70, the 24-105 it has more reach, has IS and weighs less; for a walkabout lens all these are important!
    I spent time and effort getting the lens properly set up and the IQ is now not far of the 70-200 f4 IS. Even the well known IQ trouble spots such as corners when 24mm@f4 are actually very tolerable.

    I've just acquired a 24mm TS-E, it blows the 24-105 away in every respect, but it is not a walkabout lens.

    NeilS
    NeilS e2 Member 7823 forum postsNeilS vcard United Kingdom
    23 Dec 2009 - 5:52 PM

    Another point to consider is that when you need to shoot with a wide aperture is f2.8 actually fast enough, because if it isn't and you have to use quicker primes to get a faster aperture, then the 24-105 f4 probably makes more sense.

    I originally had the 24-70 and it isn't know as the brick for nothing, its a heavy beast, I changed to the 24-105 and wouldn't go back, but then again, I normally shoot medium/long primes, and the 24-105 is one of my walkabout lenses.

    User_Removed
    23 Dec 2009 - 5:53 PM


    Quote: Yes - IS is important on a walkabout lens unless you want to work with the widest aperture all the time, especially towards the long end of the lens.


    In my opinion, too many people shoot at apertures that are really far too small for good subject isolation (the gallery is full of them). For some reason, it seems that some snappers feel that when they shoot a duck on a pond, we want to see what the picnicers on the opposite of the pond are having for lunch as well Grin

    On a 24-70 or 24-120-ish lens, you really don't need to worry about anything sub f/8 imo. I don't think I have ever shot anything with an aperture smaller than that on any lens Grin

    An unnecessarily small aperture is obviously going to reduce the shutter speed etc etc and you then start introducing issues like freezing subject movement (which IS has no bearing on).

    Also bear in mind that IS does affect AF acquisition speed as well.

    Image stabilisation (Is/VR whatever) is a fantastic tool in the armoury but unfortunately, it's become one of those functions that has become accepted as 'always switched on' rather than 'switched on when required' Smile

    DuncanDisorderly

    LOL - I thought that was my least contentious point Smile
    I do actually agree with you, but my point is about choice. DoF is a creative decision. Teaching people to be creative, now there is a challenge......

    Carabosse
    Carabosse e2 Member 1139385 forum postsCarabosse vcard England269 Constructive Critique Points
    24 Dec 2009 - 12:31 PM

    As I use a DSLR capable of good high ISO performance, I would choose the 24-105L every time over the 24-70L. The wider aperture of the lens with the shorter zoom range is pretty much irrelevant to me. But the range makes the 24-105L a much more useful lens.

    However, the slight distortion at the 24mm end which the 24-105 produces could be a problem for some - although it is easily corrected in imaging software. (I do also have the 17-40L, which takes care of the wider ranges.)

    Last Modified By Carabosse at 24 Dec 2009 - 12:34 PM
    • «
    • 1
    • »

    Add a Comment

    You must be a member to leave a comment

    Username:
    Password:
    Remember me:
    Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.