carrotbottom
Member
- Messages
- 35
- Reaction score
- 3
Would you rather have extra reach in a canon 24 105 f4 or low light in a tamron 28 70 2.8?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
24 105 f4 or 24 70 f2.8
- Thread starter carrotbottom
- Start date
ttran88
Senior Member
24-70mm F2.8 II L lens is the one to shoot with, some even shoot canon just for it. 24-105L is probably the most common L lens. Could be had for cheap on 2nd hand market. I don't think these two compare well in image quality. Other factors must be considered when you Choose the 24-105L.
Craig Gillette
Forum Pro
For me, the increased zoom range would be more important. Assuming equal quality in the lenses. Mostly travel and outdoors type stuff, less need for shallower depth of field. Also the better performances in higher iso/low noise would buy back some of the speed advantage and for travel, lots of walking, the lighter f4 would be an advantage as well.
Dan Marchant
Senior Member
I would agree with Graig except that the quality of the lenses isn't the same. I have the 24-105 and will be trading it in for the 24-70 as the image quality just isn't very good.
carrotbottom
Member
- Messages
- 35
- Reaction score
- 3
Rather than the zoom loss is there an iq gain with the tammy?
Isn't the tamron more like a 22-68mm? I'd take the reach. Plus, if the Canon isn't that great, the Sigma 24-105 is slightly better up close and about equal at distance. I'm enjoying my Nikon 24-70, but often wish for greater reach. Having said that, even my 24-70 does not greatly impress me with its sharpness. That does not surprise me because the Nikon 24-70 is arguably the 2nd weakest optically--after the Sigma. It may be on par with the Tamron. Canon's is the best of the bunch, but Nikon is expected to unveil a successor later this year.
carrotbottom
Member
- Messages
- 35
- Reaction score
- 3
Can you crop for the extra reach?
Yes, you can crop the Tamron @ 70mm to achieve the same FOV as the Canon @ 105mm--but with suboptimal results.
The FOV at 70mm is approximately 1.5 times that at 105mm. So, cropping the 70mm image to approximate the FOV at 105mm would result in an image 4/9th the original resolution.
For e.g., if you start with 22MP, you'll end up with ~10MP after the crop.
That's a lot to lose--to "gain" back the reach!
Ido Scharf
Veteran Member
Is this thread a call for help/advice, or rather a "poll", as in curiosity of what others' preferences are?
If the former, you haven't given us nearly enough information to base a proper recommendation on. What is it that you want to shoot with the lens, and in what sort of lighting conditions will it be? What camera do you have?
If the latter, then here is mine: My photography at that focal length range does not necessitate a wide aperture. I use the Olympus OM-D E-M5's kit lens—a lens whose variable aperture range starts at f/3.5 at the wide end (not a wide aperture at all, especially given that it's at 12mm on a Micro Four Thirds camera) and ends at f/6.3 on the long end (50mm). I occasionally need a wider aperture, and for that I use my 25mm (50mm equivalent) f/1.8 lens, as I found it's the most versatile focal length for me in that range—I can usually step backwards or forwards to change the field of view, or crop if I need a tighter field of view without changing perspective.
So if I had a camera with a full-frame sensor, and had the choice between a 24-70mm f/2.8 lens and a 24-105mm f/4 lens with both being at least "good enough" for my use, I'd choose the latter in a heartbeat. In fact, if that camera were a Nikon FX DSLR, I could definitely see myself choosing the 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 VR over any other option.
Telephoto, on the other hand, is a different story, which is why I have been eyeing, and trying to save up for, the Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8. I'm pretty sure I could make do with something like a 70-200mm f/4 with a good full-frame sensor, but f/4 on APS-C is a bit of a stretch.
If the former, you haven't given us nearly enough information to base a proper recommendation on. What is it that you want to shoot with the lens, and in what sort of lighting conditions will it be? What camera do you have?
If the latter, then here is mine: My photography at that focal length range does not necessitate a wide aperture. I use the Olympus OM-D E-M5's kit lens—a lens whose variable aperture range starts at f/3.5 at the wide end (not a wide aperture at all, especially given that it's at 12mm on a Micro Four Thirds camera) and ends at f/6.3 on the long end (50mm). I occasionally need a wider aperture, and for that I use my 25mm (50mm equivalent) f/1.8 lens, as I found it's the most versatile focal length for me in that range—I can usually step backwards or forwards to change the field of view, or crop if I need a tighter field of view without changing perspective.
So if I had a camera with a full-frame sensor, and had the choice between a 24-70mm f/2.8 lens and a 24-105mm f/4 lens with both being at least "good enough" for my use, I'd choose the latter in a heartbeat. In fact, if that camera were a Nikon FX DSLR, I could definitely see myself choosing the 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 VR over any other option.
Telephoto, on the other hand, is a different story, which is why I have been eyeing, and trying to save up for, the Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8. I'm pretty sure I could make do with something like a 70-200mm f/4 with a good full-frame sensor, but f/4 on APS-C is a bit of a stretch.
But it isnt that simple.
24-105 is a sub-par lens for an L. at max FL wide open it isnt that great. It is in fact quite comparable to T24-70 cropped.
joejack951
Senior Member
f/4 on APS-C is equivalent to f/6 on full frame while f/2.8 on m4/3 is equvalent to f/5.6. You get a substantially wider lens with the 40-150 on m4/3 but in terms of DOF control, you gain very, very little.
Ido Scharf
Veteran Member
Depth of field is not what I'm worried about, low light performance is. So yes, I guess I can also make do with f/5.6 on a full-frame sensor, or roughly f/3.5 on APS-C, because f/2.8 is wide enough for me on Micro Four Thirds for a telephoto lens.
Roger Krueger
Senior Member
Especially odd is the way performance goes in the toilet at 105/f4/infinity. It's not a focus error, it just monumentally sucks. But at 105/f4/8ft. it's awesome. No, it's not my copy, I traded with a friend and hers has exactly the same problem.
It also has a lot more fringing in backlit situations than I've come to expect from an L.
For the money it's a decent lens, way better than the consumer zooms. But If I had the dough to trade up I'd do it in a heartbeat.
It also has a lot more fringing in backlit situations than I've come to expect from an L.
For the money it's a decent lens, way better than the consumer zooms. But If I had the dough to trade up I'd do it in a heartbeat.
That's an interesting claim. I am skeptical of it, but perhaps someone can empirically validate it--with samples to illustrate this.But it isnt that simple.
24-105 is a sub-par lens for an L. at max FL wide open it isnt that great. It is in fact quite comparable to T24-70 cropped.
On the other hand, at landscape apertures (e.g., f/8), any differences in sharpness would likely be much smaller.
I do not quite see it here. The Tamron is slightly softer in the center even non-cropped.That's an interesting claim. I am skeptical of it, but perhaps someone can empirically validate it--with samples to illustrate this.But it isnt that simple.
24-105 is a sub-par lens for an L. at max FL wide open it isnt that great. It is in fact quite comparable to T24-70 cropped.
The funny thing is that the Tamron is sharper than itself when cropped, if you believe DXO, and that includes the center as well:
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum