Amazon Kindle Unlimited Offer: 1-Month For FREE!

Lens comparison


Graywolf 13 1.0k United Kingdom
13 Nov 2007 10:54AM
I would be interested to hear any comments, comparisons between the new Canon 24 - 70 f2.8 L USM

and the Canon 24 - 105 f4 L IS USM which appears to be cheaper

Both are L grade yet the 24 - 105 is noticeably cheaper WITH Is

Is it just the extra stop that makes the difference. What about image quality.
richard00 14 504 1
13 Nov 2007 10:59AM
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?
FLI=0&API=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=101&Camera=9&LensComp=355
looboss 14 3.1k 7 United Kingdom
13 Nov 2007 11:27AM
Richard, the link wont work as you have a capital H in the http part

better put a link like so, so it dont go off the page Smile

LINK HERE!
JohnHorne 16 1.0k
13 Nov 2007 1:38PM
This is a question which comes up regularly. Have a look at these forum discussions, which also include links to comparision reviews:
- first
- second
justin c 17 5.1k 36 England
13 Nov 2007 6:28PM
They both produce the goods regarding image quality. A forum search will reveal lots of opinions on both models and the advantages and disadvantages of one over the other.

Justin
elowes 16 2.8k United Kingdom
13 Nov 2007 9:42PM
The digital picture reviews should be approached with a little caution as to when they were updated.

Personally I really rate my 24-105 but recently have began to wish for f2.8 rather than the image stabilising.

Don't get me wrong, the 24-105 has that bit more range which I find useful and for many handheld shots the IS is fine. Just wish it were 2.8 for those time when shooting with a wider aperture would be more useful. However, I can do without it so I am told!
magnus 16 661 5 United Arab Emirates
14 Nov 2007 4:13AM

Quote:The digital picture reviews should be approached with a little caution as to when they were updated


Does that really matter as long as the lenses compared are the current models?
geoffash26 17 2.5k United Kingdom
14 Nov 2007 7:44AM
I have a 24-70 2.8 and recently did some comparison shots at my local shop as I was toying with the idea of it being a more versatile lens on a 4 week trip to SA

My findings on the sharpness side 24-70 slightly better especially wide open. contrast on the 2.8 was also noticeably better so at the end of the day I won't be changing at the moment as 2.8 v 4 is a big advantage especially for weddings as IS doesn't stop motion (give option for higher shutter speed) I'll carry the extra lens for reach
HTH
Geoff
Graywolf 13 1.0k United Kingdom
14 Nov 2007 8:30AM
Thanks everyone, I've studied quite a bit of the information on the various links and read what people say. As far as my needs go I think it comes down max aperture against reach and at the moment reach is winning over aperture, with the IS being an added bonus.
mattw 17 5.2k 10 United Kingdom
14 Nov 2007 8:49AM
The two lenses are different tools for different jobs.

The 24-70 is more expensive and heavier, but it 1 stop faster.

The 24-105 is cheaper, lighter and has IS, but is 1 stop slower. This lens also has the extra reach.

So think about the price, the weight (will you be carrying it around all day), and think about if the extra stop is important.

As you may have read - the 12-105 does suffer from vignetting at the wide end. It can be quite apparent especially at wide apertures, but nothing a touch of 'lens correction' in photoshop cannot fix.

Most reviews I have seen have suggested that optical performance - apart from the vignetting issue - is pretty even across both lenses.
User_Removed 15 4.9k England
14 Nov 2007 1:32PM

Quote:As you may have read - the 12-105 does suffer from vignetting at the wide end. It can be quite apparent especially at wide apertures, but nothing a touch of 'lens correction' in photoshop cannot fix.

Only on FF haven't noticed it on my 30D
Col
Graywolf 13 1.0k United Kingdom
15 Nov 2007 9:17PM
Yes I read about the Vignetting but it seemed correctable. Hadn't read that it was only a problem on FF but that does make sense. I've actually gone for the 24 - 105. The reason being that I have a Sigma 18 - 50 and it doesn't give me the reach I want.

The reviews of the other two have all been very positive for both lenses. I can hang on to the 18 - 50 for a bit to see how I get on with the 105 and keep it for the f.28 if I need it and if i find I'm not using it that much, sell it on.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.