Reading mode: Light Dark

24-105 and 70-200 for 30D

Go to last post
N

nphs1985

New member
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Location
NE, US
Does it make sense to have both the 24-105 and the 70-200 f/4 for the 30D? Would you worry about wasted $$ with the overlap?

I was thinking of the 24-105 as my "walk around" lens.

Thanks
 
nphs1985 said:
Does it make sense to have both the 24-105 and the 70-200 f/4 for
the 30D? Would you worry about wasted $$ with the overlap?

I was thinking of the 24-105 as my "walk around" lens.

Thanks
Click to expand...
either the 24-70 2.8L or the 24-105 IS 4L pair very well with the 70-200.

Only question is do you want to freeze the motion of your hand, or the subjects you shoot?
 
Me too :). I would also be interested in responses to this ? as I have a 70-200 and am currently looking at the 24-105 as a general purpose on my 30D. Keep your thoughts coming for us... Thanks, Gerry
 
i'm not so sure you can say that the difference between F/4 and F/2.8 will guarantee being able to freeze motion...

sure, it'll help, but if you're in low light situations then a prime is usually the best bet

i played with the idea of getting the 24-70 but i have the 35 F/2 and 50 F/1.8 for any low-light scenarios so i choose the 24-105

will be adding the 70-200 F/4 IS to the collection soon too :)

--
-----
Neil C
http://www.homelands.me.uk/gallery/
 
i have this exact combination along with a 1.4x teleconverter and i think its a great combination to have! i may add a wider angle at some point but the lenses work perfect for all my shooting situations
 
NeilCUK said:
i'm not so sure you can say that the difference between F/4 and
F/2.8 will guarantee being able to freeze motion...
Click to expand...
Not always and not everyone shoots low light but it's always going to perform much better in those situations. That's not even mentioning the improved autofocus when using an f2.8 lens.
NeilCUK said:
sure, it'll help, but if you're in low light situations then a
prime is usually the best bet
Click to expand...
Yes of course, but a zoom is more versatile.
NeilCUK said:
i played with the idea of getting the 24-70 but i have the 35 F/2
and 50 F/1.8 for any low-light scenarios so i choose the 24-105

will be adding the 70-200 F/4 IS to the collection soon too :)
Click to expand...
 
I have both the 24-105 & the 70-200 f4 IS.
They both serve a purpose. Some overlap, but who cares?

I also have a Sigma 17-70. Each lens does something I need that the others don't.

I find the IS on the two Canons in use all the time.

Dan
--
'A bad idea in search of a good cause is..
just a bad idea' ... me
 
It's a great combo for the way I shoot. 2.8 is not bright enough to get away with indoors without flash most of the time so no loss with the F4. Plus the additional range on the long end is really nice when chasing the kids around outdoors.

The IS works great and it's more than wide enough even in my small house.

And of course the 70-200 is just fantastic. I use it occasionally indoors as well.

Gene
 
Do a search I'm sure you'll find a lot of people recommend 17-55 and 70-200 to be the best combo for 30D.
nphs1985 said:
Does it make sense to have both the 24-105 and the 70-200 f/4 for
the 30D? Would you worry about wasted $$ with the overlap?

I was thinking of the 24-105 as my "walk around" lens.

Thanks
Click to expand...
 
shaktipalooza said:
NeilCUK said:
i'm not so sure you can say that the difference between F/4 and
F/2.8 will guarantee being able to freeze motion...
Click to expand...
Not always and not everyone shoots low light but it's always going
to perform much better in those situations. That's not even
mentioning the improved autofocus when using an f2.8 lens.
Click to expand...
i think you just mentioned it :)
shaktipalooza said:
shaktipalooza said:
sure, it'll help, but if you're in low light situations then a
prime is usually the best bet
Click to expand...
Yes of course, but a zoom is more versatile.
Click to expand...
of course it is - that's stating the obvious!

your argument was that 2.8 will allow you to freeze motion

my point is, the difference between F/4 and F/2.8 for these focal lengths are inconsequential with regards to stopping motion.

if you want to stop motion, particularly without flash, you'll want a prime

so if your argument for going for the F/2.8 is 'to stop motion', then i was pointing out that's quite a poor recommendation

if your argument has now changed to improved autofocus, then that's a different kettle of fish altogether

--
-----
Neil C
http://www.homelands.me.uk/gallery/
 
carlk said:
nphs1985 said:
Does it make sense to have both the 24-105 and the 70-200 f/4 for
the 30D? Would you worry about wasted $$ with the overlap?

I was thinking of the 24-105 as my "walk around" lens.

Thanks
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I also have the 17-55mm that I didn't note above. Along with the 70-200 that I mentioned. The thing is the 17-55 is not long enough for a general walkaround lens (in my estimation). The 70-200 is a little too much on the long end for that purpose. Therefore the 24-105 seems to be a good general purpose focal length. I have a 28-135 also that is decent but am looking for better IQ.. Gerry
 
I have four lenses, and they all overlap, somewhat. They are for different purposes, however, so you don't need to worry much about the overlap. (i.e. outdoor sports and my marching band performances with the 70-200 2.8IS, indoor low light with 35 f/2, 24-105 walkaround and 100-400 surfing, birding, zoo, etc.)

Overlap is only a concern if MOST of the range is repeated. Even then, you could use them for different purposes, as well.
 
You certainly are entitled to choose whatever fl you like. However for most people 24mm (38mm ff equivalent) is just not wide enough as a walk around lens. Have you ever heard anyone using 35mm camera wanting a 38-xxx walk around lens. FL aside 17-55 is a faster and shaper lens than 24-105. Much more useful than 24-105 on a 1.6x camera.
ggw2000 said:
carlk said:
nphs1985 said:
Does it make sense to have both the 24-105 and the 70-200 f/4 for
the 30D? Would you worry about wasted $$ with the overlap?

I was thinking of the 24-105 as my "walk around" lens.

Thanks
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I also have the 17-55mm that I didn't note above. Along with the
70-200 that I mentioned. The thing is the 17-55 is not long enough
for a general walkaround lens (in my estimation). The 70-200 is a
little too much on the long end for that purpose. Therefore the
24-105 seems to be a good general purpose focal length. I have a
28-135 also that is decent but am looking for better IQ.. Gerry
Click to expand...
 
It's a great walkaround for FF. But not for the 30D.

IMHO 24mm is a frustrating focal length as the wide end on a walkaround. I would prefer having a 17mm wide end, and don't mind foot-zooming or cropping for a tighter look. But foot-zooming backwards gets you into walls, trees, etc. Plus f/4 is too slow for an everyday lens (for me at least).
Go for the 17-55. No overlap and better range for the 30D.
nphs1985 said:
Does it make sense to have both the 24-105 and the 70-200 f/4 for
the 30D? Would you worry about wasted $$ with the overlap?

I was thinking of the 24-105 as my "walk around" lens.

Thanks
Click to expand...
 
NeilCUK said:
your argument was that 2.8 will allow you to freeze motion

my point is, the difference between F/4 and F/2.8 for these focal
lengths are inconsequential with regards to stopping motion.

if you want to stop motion, particularly without flash, you'll want
a prime

so if your argument for going for the F/2.8 is 'to stop motion',
then i was pointing out that's quite a poor recommendation
Click to expand...
no no no. I made a comparison, f2.8 will freeze motion better than f4, f4 with IS will handle the photographers shaky hands better than 2.8 non IS.

It might be your opinion that the low light capabilities between f4 and f2.8 are inconsequential but it's a major deciding factor with people who choose between those two lenses. If f2.8 allows a shot to be taken at 1600ISO vs f4 at 3200 ISO, you're going to see a significant difference in image quality.
NeilCUK said:
if your argument has now changed to improved autofocus, then that's
a different kettle of fish altogether
Click to expand...
I'm adding to the discussion, not changing my 'argument'. Autofocus capabilities when discussing lenses are often glossed over by people unaware of the canon AF system.
 
i have this combo and i like it. i don't like the change lenses too often so i like having the overlap there.

but like most things in life, this isn't a case of one solution to fit all.

i was going back and forth on the 24-70 f/2.8L vs 24-105 f/4L IS. i am still not sure i made the correct decision and second guess myself all the time but i did go with 24-105 and i like it.

i find myself taking a lot of pictures at 70mm+ and if i had to switch lenses every time i did that (or limit myself to 70mm) i probably wouldn't take a lot of those pictures.

i am not a pro so most of my pictures are taken when i'm with my family and we're out and about. they move along, i snap a quick picture. i don't have time to change lenses, set up a tripod, etc.

RVD.

--
RVD
Redondo Beach, CA
http://www.danpaik.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top