Why the Canon EF 24-105 Lens MAY Be a Better Choice than the Z 24-200

Started 9 months ago | Discussions thread
LMOE Regular Member • Posts: 267
Re: Why the Canon EF 24-105 Lens MAY Be a Better Choice than the Z 24-200
1

Markr041 wrote:

Meerkato wrote:

I'm sorry but I don't think we need this thread.

It randomly compares two lenses that shouldn't be compared - different mount, purpose, aperture, zoom range etc.

It states the obvious - yes, we already knew that F4 is faster than F6.3.

And comes to the wrong conclusion. I would never buy the EF 24-105 for a Z mount, why would anyone ever do that? If you need a travel lens, get the 24-200. If you want an F4 zoom, get the 24-70 F4. If you want the 105 zoom, wait for the Z version. If you want a canon lens, go with a canon body (and choose RF rather than EF). But under no circumstance I would ever buy an EF lens for my Z body, ever, and noone should.

Using a Canon lens on a Nikon! The shame!

You have strong opinions, and your last sentence indicates that they are based on nothing but perhaps Nikon loyalty. Btw, comparing apples and oranges can be useful in choosing what fruit to eat on a given day.

As the video shows, the Canon EF lens works perfectly well on the Z cameras and the F4 aperture at the long end is useful. So it is a viable option available now with no issues at all. So, why is it worth considering?

There are two FX Z zoom lenses with telephoto now or very soon available. They each have important characteristics that make them inferior to the Canon alternative.

A. The Canon EF 24-105 lens has more reach than the Z 24-70 with no loss in aperture size, so it is better than the Z 24-70 in an important way. It is bigger of course. I did not mention that one because it is obvious that 105 beats 70, ceteris paribus.

Yet, you ignore the loss of IQ within the 24-70mm range.

B. The Z 50-200 has the narrower aperture, so that may be an issue depending on what one aims to shoot (as noted in the original post). The discussions I have seen on the aperture issue have zero empirical content, I provided some (there could be a lot more).

Of course there is the "future" Z 24-105. The Canon is clearly superior to that because it is available now, so you can actually use it rather than sitting around waiting for the Z version, which could be a year away or maybe never.

There is also the Nikon F 24-120 FX lens. It is also a viable alternative if one wants to retain blind Nikon loyalty/

Canon and Sony lenses work perfectly well on the Z cameras. That fact is a major advantage of the Z system. Stubbornly waiting around for "pure" Z lenses does not seem to me a rational choice. The available Z options are quite limiting.

So, you are accepting of all the negative compromises with the Canon 24-105 including IQ in the 24-70mm range just to get that extra reach? Too much compromise IMHO.  Unless one already owns the Canon lens.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
NCB
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow