CANON 24mm-70mmL F2.8 or 24mm-105mmL F4.0 IS

[GOMUS]

I am plan to upgrade my kit lens with a better lens. for your info, I have a wide angle lens 10-22mm EFS and 50mm 1.8II to my 350D I am now deciding to replace my kit lens, which the quality is able to satisfy my requirements.

after reading the following reviews of both lens,

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx

both are equally good quality lens, i have tough time to decide which lens to go. let me share my thought, maybe you can enlighten me. I have two events coming: wedding day + KK mountain trek. 24-70mm F2.8 and my old 10-22mm lens can be suifficient to take the wedding day photo, with the assist of 70-105 from the (24-105) i may extend my capture of detail from a distance. During the trekking, it may able to capture flora or animal from a distance.

24-105mm without large aperture: but IS may able to balance the lose. Look like I am leading to 24-105mm F4. Anyone who wish to show his/her opinion on that?

[Stoned]

70-105 is way too short for any wildlife work. If you're getting it for that, it's not recommended. It is however, a rather useful range for events and that is a good reason to get the 24-105.

For your given situation, I am more inclined towards the 24-105.

[GOMUS]

Originally Posted by Stoned 70-105 is way too short for any wildlife work. If you're getting it for that, it's not recommended. It is however, a rather useful range for events and that is a good reason to get the 24-105. For your given situation, I am more inclined towards the 24-105.

thanks stoned!

the attractive part of 24-70mm with F2.8, will it be part of your consideration?

once you have F4.0, the bokeh effect may not as strong, but I can use 50mm 1.8 for such work. I never try IS before, so not sure how effective it is.

[kre]

I personally would prefer the 24-70 because of the larger aperture. It can come into use often in an event. Photos on a trek would be better to have a longer telephoto lens (70-200). However, the 105 would definitely have a longer reach during an event but might get too long.

The 50's bokeh is good but I think the color, contrast and sharpness cannot beat the L lens.

Ultimately, think of your budget and your needs more carefully if you are gonna buy. Haha.

[GOMUS]

Originally Posted by kre I personally would prefer the 24-70 because of the larger aperture. It can come into use often in an event. Photos on a trek would be better to have a longer telephoto lens (70-200). However, the 105 would definitely have a longer reach during an event but might get too long. The 50's bokeh is good but I think the color, contrast and sharpness cannot beat the L lens. Ultimately, think of your budget and your needs more carefully if you are gonna buy. Haha.

maybe i should also plan for my future lens.

if i have budget for 'L', it will be excellent, if not i may need to go for consumer lens for time being after above lens. after the above, 70-200mm will be my target, i think it wont happen months later. between these few months, i can only have 10-22mm, 24-70mm lens for my shooting. maybe it is suifficient.

I hate telephoto lens, they are very solid and heavy. it is not comfortable for travelling. I have Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 before, when I shootting with my SLR. wish Canon will have a 'L' cover from 24mm - 200mm, wow it will be a dream for all.

[GOMUS]

wow, there is such a 'L' lens from 28-300mm , oh my goodness~..

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx

with a retail price of 4,800. Oh~~

[Stoned]

Originally Posted by GOMUS thanks stoned! the attractive part of 24-70mm with F2.8, will it be part of your consideration? once you have F4.0, the bokeh effect may not as strong, but I can use 50mm 1.8 for such work. I never try IS before, so not sure how effective it is.

For my usage, I would get the 24-70/2.8 because I do quite a bit of low light work. There is no such thing as a "bokeh effect" but rather more shallow Depth of Field. Frankly, there isn't a large difference in DOF for the 24-70 range from f2.8 to f4 unless you are shooting subjects that are 1m or closer to you. F2.8 isn't particularly bright either so for serious low light work I would recommend that you get a lens with aperture f2 or wider. Notables would be the 135/2L and the 85/1.8.

I've never used IS before, so I can't help you there. I've never needed it though. Get a monopod, poor man's IS and just as effective. What's more, it works for all your lenses.

[GOMUS]

http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=147240

there is useful info from above thread. just read. for those interested too.

[GOMUS]

Originally Posted by Stoned For my usage, I would get the 24-70/2.8 because I do quite a bit of low light work. There is no such thing as a "bokeh effect" but rather more shallow Depth of Field. Frankly, there isn't a large difference in DOF for the 24-70 range from f2.8 to f4 unless you are shooting subjects that are 1m or closer to you. F2.8 isn't particularly bright either so for serious low light work I would recommend that you get a lens with aperture f2 or wider. Notables would be the 135/2L and the 85/1.8. I've never used IS before, so I can't help you there. I've never needed it though. Get a monopod, poor man's IS and just as effective. What's more, it works for all your lenses.

all are valueable comment:
1) get F1.8 prime len for 'bokeh'
2) get a monopod! it works for all my lenses~

Pls give more comments: I will summary in a table for all users reference:


24-70mmL F2.8 USM
1. heavier
2. bokeh effect: go for prime lens rather!
3. better for capture moving object (faster len), under low light

24-105mmL F4.0 USM IS
1. lighter
2. advantage to have additional focal length 70-105mm
3. bokeh effect: go for prime lens rather!
4. better to stable hand shake, rather than controlling the moving object

[JediForce4ever]

I would go for the 10-22mm, 24-70mm and the 70-200mm.Just perfect for all focal length from 10-200mm.

[clie]

IS is good. But I would much prefer a f/2.8 over f/4.0 IS any day, especially if you tend to shoot more under low light environment and your subjects have a tendency not to keep still.

[GOMUS]

24-70mmL F2.8 USM (Price $2,300)
1. heavier 950g
2. less coverage in terms of focal length
3. sharpness: It is very sharp for a zoom lens. Expect some softness at f/2.8 - Stopping down a stop or so yields very good sharpness. (This is why
4. bokeh effect: ( we are comparing F2.8 & F4.0) if really want a blurring effect, go for prime lens rather!
3. better for capture moving object (faster len), under low light
4. Recommended Shooting: Indoor Event (including Outdoor Event), due to F2.8. Someone thinks that if really for indoor event, arctifial light, such as flash will probably take into consideration, unless we wish to keep in a nature light conditionwith higher ISO.)


24-105mmL F4.0 USM IS (Price very close to 24-70mmL, refer to http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=131801 for latest update)
1. lighter 670g
2. advantage to have additional focal length 70-105mm
3. sharpness: Overall Excellent. Only at F4 (near and including 105mm) where slight softness. Stopped down 1/3 stop to f/4.5 brings the very sharp description back at 105mm.
Full frame users will see slight softness in the extreme corners.
4. Distortion - It shows some barrel distortion from 24mm until disappearing near 40mm. Slight pincushion distortion shows from 105mm until going away by 80mm or so.
5. bokeh effect: go for prime lens rather!
6. IS good for unstable hand, but cannot freeze the moving object
7. Recommended Shooting: Outdoor/landscaping Event

[BluePaws]

Both these lenses are walkaround lenses for events. I say forget about the IS so that you will not grow dependent on it. Go for the 24-70 and learn to shoot without IS. You won't feel that you need IS once you're used to 24-70.

IS comes in really handy for the long 70-200 lens though. its really heavy and long so not many people can really handhold it well. in this case, you'll want to get an IS lens.

for travel, the 70-200/f4 is a great choice for the light weight.

[NorthernLights]

Originally Posted by kre I personally would prefer the 24-70 because of the larger aperture. It can come into use often in an event. Photos on a trek would be better to have a longer telephoto lens (70-200). However, the 105 would definitely have a longer reach during an event but might get too long. The 50's bokeh is good but I think the color, contrast and sharpness cannot beat the L lens. Ultimately, think of your budget and your needs more carefully if you are gonna buy. Haha.

Ho Ho...diagreed here. I have the 50f1.8 and it gives very good contrast and sharp pictures!

It is certainly better than my 17-40 f4 'L'.

How can a zoom ever beat a prime? Zooms do the job and get the shot but I get primes because of quality and even a $130 50 f1.8 gives better pics than an 'L' wide or standard zoom any time.

[shadowmoses]

Well since u say u're doing a wedding soon, i would def recommend the 24-70 bc of the f2.8.

for weddings u need action stopping shutter speeds which IS is not going to help. also the longer tele end is of no benefit in a wedding. used with ur 350D 70mm will yield 112 mm already more than enough. If u need longer u're better off getting a 70-200, pref 2.8 also. 24-70 can also give u decent portrait shots of the bride. there's practically no time to change lens during a wedding so the u need a 1 lens that can do everything! ur 50mm is not going to make a flattering portrait lens dude.

As for your mountain trek, just use ur 10-22 lar!

[light]

Originally Posted by kre I personally would prefer the 24-70 because of the larger aperture. It can come into use often in an event. Photos on a trek would be better to have a longer telephoto lens (70-200). However, the 105 would definitely have a longer reach during an event but might get too long. The 50's bokeh is good but I think the color, contrast and sharpness cannot beat the L lens. Ultimately, think of your budget and your needs more carefully if you are gonna buy. Haha.

I disagree that the L lens beat 50mm prime's contrast and sharpness.
Check this out..
50mm f1.4 is
Check this weblink out
http://www.fredmiranda.com/24-70/

For wedding, 24-70mm f2.8 is a good choice, can consider 17-40mm f4 for wider angle especially for wedding dinner.

[monsoon]

this is question seen in every foto forum....
for pic quality, choose 24-70, for convenience, choose 24-105, and the best, final solution is:

buy them both and then sell the one u dont want to keep.

[GOMUS]

Originally Posted by light I disagree that the L lens beat 50mm prime's contrast and sharpness. Check this out.. 50mm f1.4 is Check this weblink out http://www.fredmiranda.com/24-70/ For wedding, 24-70mm f2.8 is a good choice, can consider 17-40mm f4 for wider angle especially for wedding dinner.

ok. let's read another review: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx

I quote, " I also prefer the color I get from the Canon 24-70 L and the Canon 50 f/1.4 over the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Lens, but the 50 f/1.8 is not bad. Colors produced by the 50 f1.8 at wide apertures seem a little more washed out than the two Canon lenses I referred to above."

to compare in focal length of 50mm: (in the sequence of "best to better")
CANON EF 50mm F1.4
CANON 24-70L
CANON EF 50mm F1.8 (Remember this is a budget lens, only $120++)

[GOMUS]

Originally Posted by shadowmoses Well since u say u're doing a wedding soon, i would def recommend the 24-70 bc of the f2.8. for weddings u need action stopping shutter speeds which IS is not going to help. also the longer tele end is of no benefit in a wedding. used with ur 350D 70mm will yield 112 mm already more than enough. If u need longer u're better off getting a 70-200, pref 2.8 also. 24-70 can also give u decent portrait shots of the bride. there's practically no time to change lens during a wedding so the u need a 1 lens that can do everything! ur 50mm is not going to make a flattering portrait lens dude. As for your mountain trek, just use ur 10-22 lar!

That's is one of my worries. Wedding is one event, once a blue mon~. After the wedding, this len will be my walkaround lens. The reason I will go for 24-105mm is the weight and the focal length, which will be useful.

[Bug]

I dont think there is a perfect answer to this. Each lens has a different function; as you can see from the diverse opinions, you may just have to decide what is most important to you.

Similar debate on this link: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/341230/5

Hope it helps.