-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
24-70L f2.8 or 24-105L f4 for 20D
- Thread starter Garystella
- Start date
Garystella
Member
Well, thanks to all for great advice, I am more on 24-105 now. I think the 24-70 is too bulky and heavy for a walk-around lens, am I right?
M
misha
Guest
That's very subjective. Some don't mind at all. But it's certainly heavier tahn the 24-105.
--
Misha
excal
Veteran Member
I was all set to trade my 24-70 for 24-105, but I've reconsidered on a couple of reasons.
For 24-70 range, the f2.8 gives better DoF control, better AF and better low-light ability.
I think the 24-70 will be sharper and although I don't know this for sure, my experience leads me to believe it must be. I think also less vignetting at f4 (FF).
I also have the 17-85 EFS and this will be sold asap and replaced by the 24-105/4 IS. So then I will have both and I will struggle to know which to take out!
Decisions decisions!
Excal
Excal
For 24-70 range, the f2.8 gives better DoF control, better AF and better low-light ability.
I think the 24-70 will be sharper and although I don't know this for sure, my experience leads me to believe it must be. I think also less vignetting at f4 (FF).
I also have the 17-85 EFS and this will be sold asap and replaced by the 24-105/4 IS. So then I will have both and I will struggle to know which to take out!
Decisions decisions!Excal
--
Excal
Rends
Senior Member
Since you have a 20D and you're looking for the ideal "Walkaround" lens, have you considered the EF-S 17-85 IS? It's also not as heavy as any of the "L" lens you're interested in. EF 24-105 IS was designed to compliment the new FF 5D. The EF-S 17-85 IS is designed to compliment the camera you have. Think about it.
--
'You see, but you do not observe' Arthur Conan Doyle
--
'You see, but you do not observe' Arthur Conan Doyle
Garystella
Member
Hi Rends,Since you have a 20D and you're looking for the ideal "Walkaround"
lens, have you considered the EF-S 17-85 IS? It's also not as
heavy as any of the "L" lens you're interested in. EF 24-105 IS
was designed to compliment the new FF 5D. The EF-S 17-85 IS is
designed to compliment the camera you have. Think about it.
--
'You see, but you do not observe' Arthur Conan Doyle
I am interested in L series lens only, for long term used.
Robert Holloway
Senior Member
The old buy both solution 
Love it!
Rob
Love it!
Rob
For 24-70 range, the f2.8 gives better DoF control, better AF and
better low-light ability.
I think the 24-70 will be sharper and although I don't know this
for sure, my experience leads me to believe it must be. I think
also less vignetting at f4 (FF).
I also have the 17-85 EFS and this will be sold asap and replaced
by the 24-105/4 IS. So then I will have both and I will struggle
to know which to take out!
Excal
--
Excal
Vance Zachary
Veteran Member
It certainly is a decision that each person looking for an L zoom in this focal length range has to consider.
You get one added stop of wide open depth of field. For some, that one stop can be crucial for selective focus. Because of the lack of image stabilization, the 24-70L isn't as good of a lens for handholding
I have used both lenses and a good copy of the 24-105L is as sharp as a good copy of the 24-70L. I have not noticed more vignetting on my 20D. The 24-105L may have a tad more distortion at 24mm. Otherwise the two lenses are pretty interchangeable image quality wise.
Be careful. They are two lenses design for different users and purposes. You may be tempted to keep them both.I also have the 17-85 EFS and this will be sold asap and replaced
by the 24-105/4 IS. So then I will have both and I will struggle
to know which to take out!
--
Vance Zachary
http://www.pbase.com/photoworkszach
http://www.photoworksbyzachary.com
Rends
Senior Member
Well then, if the weight is an issue, it's possible that it's too much lens for you.
--
'You see, but you do not observe' Arthur Conan Doyle
--
'You see, but you do not observe' Arthur Conan Doyle
Albert Wiersch
Forum Enthusiast
I went through the same debate a few months ago, and discussed my dilemma in http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=15070469 .
I eventually decided that there were more benefits associated with the 24-105 than simply one stop worth of light.
Specifically:
1. Longer reach (and overlap with my 70-200/4L).
2. Lighter weight.
3. Smaller size.
4. Cheaper cost.
5. Image stabilisation.
The 24-105's hood isn't obnoxiously large like the 24-70's hood, and it doesn't have that silly reverse zoom setup.
Some people find f/2.8 to be an overriding force in their choice, but I'm predominantly an outdoor scenic shooter, so f/2.8 isn't as useful to me, as I need a longer DOF.
J.
When shooting landscapes, you need a longer depth of field in order to bring distant subject matter into focus. Using f/2.8 will severely narrow your depth of field.
Even with a f/4 lens, for landscape shots, you'll be stopping down.
J.
Jeff Varszegi
Senior Member
It is only slightly larger and heavier than the 24-105L (about half a pound heavier) and comparable in size to the 28-135 IS, if that helps. I'm not singing the praises of the 24-70 just because I have one; I just think it's sort of silly when people make it out to be a ginormous lens, especially compared to another that's only a little smaller.
Some reports of softness on the 24-105, together with extreme scarcity for this holiday season, were the main reasons I bought the 24-70. I think that the 24-105 sounds like a fine lens if it is everything it's cracked up to be here, but not everyone on fredmiranda.com seems to love it so much on first glance. I view the better focus (which of course I can't compare with the 24-105L I don't have) and the f/2.8 as bonuses. I don't think my lens is any worse now that the 24-105 is out, and it was cheaper at the time.
I mostly take people pictures, especially baby pictures. I wanted something with extremely reliable focusing. I got that in my lens. I do wind up taking a fair number of shots below f/4. If I had bought the 24-105L I am sure I would have made do just fine, though.
Some reports of softness on the 24-105, together with extreme scarcity for this holiday season, were the main reasons I bought the 24-70. I think that the 24-105 sounds like a fine lens if it is everything it's cracked up to be here, but not everyone on fredmiranda.com seems to love it so much on first glance. I view the better focus (which of course I can't compare with the 24-105L I don't have) and the f/2.8 as bonuses. I don't think my lens is any worse now that the 24-105 is out, and it was cheaper at the time.
I mostly take people pictures, especially baby pictures. I wanted something with extremely reliable focusing. I got that in my lens. I do wind up taking a fair number of shots below f/4. If I had bought the 24-105L I am sure I would have made do just fine, though.
dchao
Veteran Member
Yes, JAP is right. For landscape, your want to shoot f/5.6 - f/11 for best sharpness and max DOF. Also, f/8 is usually the sweet spot for most lenses. Because you are stopping down, camera shake becomes more of a problem and IS really helps here.
For portraits, you want the max aperture and shallow DOF to separate your model from the background. So the out-of-focus background area (bokeh) is very important, generally speaking, a f/2.8 lens can produce better bokeh than a f/4.0 lens. IS is less important here, as IS cannot freeze movement from people.
For portraits, you want the max aperture and shallow DOF to separate your model from the background. So the out-of-focus background area (bokeh) is very important, generally speaking, a f/2.8 lens can produce better bokeh than a f/4.0 lens. IS is less important here, as IS cannot freeze movement from people.
Rends
Senior Member
Good point. I use f/22 for my landscape shots. This is primarily because I want everything sharp. Just like those landscape photos you see in calendars.
--
'You see, but you do not observe' Arthur Conan Doyle
--
'You see, but you do not observe' Arthur Conan Doyle
Rends
Senior Member
I also read the fredmiranda reviews. Believe me, I'm not about to sell or give up my EF 24-70 f/2.8L for the EF 24-105 anytime soon. The people who did sell their 24-70L now regretting what they did.
--
'You see, but you do not observe' Arthur Conan Doyle
--
'You see, but you do not observe' Arthur Conan Doyle
dchao
Veteran Member
Rends,
Actually, f/22 is not as sharp as f/11, as f/22 is approaching the diffraction limit of your lens.
If you want to read more about "diffraction limit" it's here:
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm
So you want to use f/8 - f/11 but how do you obtain the max DOF? A common solution is to use hyperfocal distance. Here, you can find out more about hyperfocal distance, and how to calculate it:
http://www.dofmaster.com/hyperfocal.html
This is what I do, I print out a Hyperfocal Chart and carry it in my camera bag. After a while, you can do it without the chart.
Actually, f/22 is not as sharp as f/11, as f/22 is approaching the diffraction limit of your lens.
If you want to read more about "diffraction limit" it's here:
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm
So you want to use f/8 - f/11 but how do you obtain the max DOF? A common solution is to use hyperfocal distance. Here, you can find out more about hyperfocal distance, and how to calculate it:
http://www.dofmaster.com/hyperfocal.html
This is what I do, I print out a Hyperfocal Chart and carry it in my camera bag. After a while, you can do it without the chart.
Good point. I use f/22 for my landscape shots. This is primarily
because I want everything sharp. Just like those landscape photos
you see in calendars.
--
'You see, but you do not observe' Arthur Conan Doyle
Robert Holloway
Senior Member
But.................
Of course I understand DOF, apertures for landscapes etc.
Both lenses can do f8
I would invariably use a tripod or monopod for landscapes anyway. Though in daylight it's not hard to get f8 at more than 125th so it's a non issue anyway.
Does IS really become useful for landscapes I wonder?
Rob
Of course I understand DOF, apertures for landscapes etc.
Both lenses can do f8
I would invariably use a tripod or monopod for landscapes anyway. Though in daylight it's not hard to get f8 at more than 125th so it's a non issue anyway.
Does IS really become useful for landscapes I wonder?
Rob
Actually, f/22 is not as sharp as f/11, as f/22 is approaching the
diffraction limit of your lens.
If you want to read more about "diffraction limit" it's here:
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm
So you want to use f/8 - f/11 but how do you obtain the max DOF? A
common solution is to use hyperfocal distance. Here, you can find
out more about hyperfocal distance, and how to calculate it:
http://www.dofmaster.com/hyperfocal.html
This is what I do, I print out a Hyperfocal Chart and carry it in
my camera bag. After a while, you can do it without the chart.
Good point. I use f/22 for my landscape shots. This is primarily
because I want everything sharp. Just like those landscape photos
you see in calendars.
--
'You see, but you do not observe' Arthur Conan Doyle
Robert Holloway
Senior Member
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum