-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
IQ Comparison - 24-105L & 24-70L
- Thread starter MonochromaticAberration
- Start date
themanwithnoname
Well-known member
yes, right after you bet me a c note.
Alastair Norcross
Forum Pro
Now you're just being silly. They are both very good. You may have obtained better results from a Tamron lens. Many others have had the opposite experience. But if you actually had results that weren't very good, you had very bad copies. More likely, you are just being hyperbolic.
--
Alastair
http://anorcross.smugmug.com
Equipment in profile
--
Alastair
http://anorcross.smugmug.com
Equipment in profile
Alastair Norcross
Forum Pro
I see. So you were, as I suspected, just joking.
--
Alastair
http://anorcross.smugmug.com
Equipment in profile
themanwithnoname
Well-known member
I didn’t say the Canon's were broken or not working right.
I said they were all optically the same to a MUCH cheaper and much lighter and smaller lens that comes with a 5x longer warranty too.
Therefore I recommend the Tamron 28-75 2.8
Using DXO or DPP or Adobe CS4 I can see no difference in all three lenses, so the cheap light small one is the winner of my recommendation.
I said they were all optically the same to a MUCH cheaper and much lighter and smaller lens that comes with a 5x longer warranty too.
Therefore I recommend the Tamron 28-75 2.8
Using DXO or DPP or Adobe CS4 I can see no difference in all three lenses, so the cheap light small one is the winner of my recommendation.
themanwithnoname
Well-known member
I have done this 3 times in my life, I'll do it again for you if your serious. If you dont think I can do it, then your money is safe. I'm not joking at all.
I see. So you were, as I suspected, just joking.
--
Alastair
http://anorcross.smugmug.com
Equipment in profile
Nop,it just reduces camera shake,you are correct to assume that camera shake can be offset by reducing exposure time, I suppose requiring higher ISO and/ or wider aperture.Digital images reveal more camera shake distortion the higher the pixel density of the sensor,you can't really compare it to a film,but a very(VEEEERY)shallow comparison is that an ISO100 film can give about the information of a 20mp FF sensor.
IS is more useful at longer focal lengths because at shorter ones,camera shake is not so apparent.I own a 200/2.8L II,i don't miss Is,but again,this is just my personal opinion.As you can see in this thread,opinions vary so what matters more is yours.
--
Let there be light
IS is more useful at longer focal lengths because at shorter ones,camera shake is not so apparent.I own a 200/2.8L II,i don't miss Is,but again,this is just my personal opinion.As you can see in this thread,opinions vary so what matters more is yours.
--
Let there be light
tremorhand
Well-known member
Appreciate the input. I would probably be using the 200/2.8 for outdoor shots, short exposure times, so I agree that IS would be less important.
Alastair Norcross
Forum Pro
Why on earth would I take such a ludicrous bet? What, are you going to travel to my house to perform the test? Obviously, to verify such an extreme claim, I would have to see you do it. But regardless, why would you only do such a thing for money? Of course I don't believe you, but it certainly isn't worth $100 to me to find out that you can, in fact do it. Besides, even if you are the freakish one in a billion person who can hand hold a (at least) 70mm shot at 1 second and produce a sharp photo, what does that have to do with the benefits of IS? Given that no-one else could possibly hand hold a 70mm shot without IS at even 1/20 and get sharp results, your freakish claims are simply irrelevant to the issue of this thread.
--
Alastair
http://anorcross.smugmug.com
Equipment in profile
themanwithnoname
Well-known member
LMAO brother you have me laughing.
I think photographers have been holding cameras still long enough that plenty of thousands of people learned to hold still for just 1 second. Maybe you should work on that as a goal instead of lazily relying on IS as your crown jewel. For the last 100 years photographers have not had IS.
There are far people more than just me making this claim that we can hold steady for a shot longer than what is "normal" for someone who doesn’t practice honing this skill.
Get over it. I'm not lying, neither are the other people who legit make this claim.
Just try and practice with your own $100 and see if you can work up to it.
In the two local Photog clubs here in Tulsa, Oklahoma, there are others there who have demonstrated this skill, not just me.
I'll give you the name and number to the local photo shop where several photographers work and they make the same claim, bet me a C note put it on the counter and I'll take a 1 sec photo of it sharply.
http://www.aperturesphoto.com
1936 South Harvard Avenue
Tulsa, OK 74112-6828
(918) 742-0500
Call and ask Mike, who works there, he can tell you all about people here who do this regularly, that he witnesses in person
-Steve
I think photographers have been holding cameras still long enough that plenty of thousands of people learned to hold still for just 1 second. Maybe you should work on that as a goal instead of lazily relying on IS as your crown jewel. For the last 100 years photographers have not had IS.
There are far people more than just me making this claim that we can hold steady for a shot longer than what is "normal" for someone who doesn’t practice honing this skill.
Get over it. I'm not lying, neither are the other people who legit make this claim.
Just try and practice with your own $100 and see if you can work up to it.
In the two local Photog clubs here in Tulsa, Oklahoma, there are others there who have demonstrated this skill, not just me.
I'll give you the name and number to the local photo shop where several photographers work and they make the same claim, bet me a C note put it on the counter and I'll take a 1 sec photo of it sharply.
http://www.aperturesphoto.com
1936 South Harvard Avenue
Tulsa, OK 74112-6828
(918) 742-0500
Call and ask Mike, who works there, he can tell you all about people here who do this regularly, that he witnesses in person
-Steve
Why on earth would I take such a ludicrous bet? What, are you going to travel to my house to perform the test? Obviously, to verify such an extreme claim, I would have to see you do it. But regardless, why would you only do such a thing for money? Of course I don't believe you, but it certainly isn't worth $100 to me to find out that you can, in fact do it. Besides, even if you are the freakish one in a billion person who can hand hold a (at least) 70mm shot at 1 second and produce a sharp photo, what does that have to do with the benefits of IS? Given that no-one else could possibly hand hold a 70mm shot without IS at even 1/20 and get sharp results, your freakish claims are simply irrelevant to the issue of this thread.
--
Alastair
http://anorcross.smugmug.com
Equipment in profile
SHillphoto
Leading Member
I like the 24-105 much better on a crop and as a general purpose lens and landscape...
The 24-70 is the best portrait lens.... DOF, color and contrast, has much better elements but has a softer look and needs micro adjust to work and heavy....
2 good lenses with different uses.....
The 24-70 is the best portrait lens.... DOF, color and contrast, has much better elements but has a softer look and needs micro adjust to work and heavy....
2 good lenses with different uses.....
MonochromaticAberration
New member
Thanks to everybody for their input.
So far, I'm not really seeing a significant reason to move to 24-70 from 24-105, although I admit that the extra stop would be very nice to have.
The many (sometimes divergent) opinions re IS are interesting - perhaps some of the more steady shooters out there could post details of their techniques for getting sharp captures at slow shutter speeds ...?
Extrapolating a little from these postings, an interesting point is coming through re the trend towards IS lenses. Seems to me that as good as IS can be as an aid to capturing images at low shutter speeds, it can also be a ticket to poor technique. I can vouch for this from personal experience.
Perhaps I should explain a little ... I've recently bought a 70-200 f/2.8 (no IS) ... wonderful lens, weighs a ton but a wonderful lens, no doubt about it. One of the first things I noticed was that I was having trouble with image blur due to lens shake. I went back to basics (posture, breathing, etc.) and have improved the situation to the point where I'm moderately happy but there's always room for improvement.
Now, my walkaround lens is the 24-105 f/4 IS ... so the bulk of my shooting is done with the protection of IS. Having had the luxury over the last 18 or so months of having minimal camera shake problems with that lens, I've obviously (inadvertently) developed a bunch of bad habits which came to life when using a non-IS lens.
Perhaps it means that Image Stabilisation is a wonderful modern convenience, however it can be a hinderance in some ways in the long run.
I'm not suggesting for a moment that we should all turn off the IS and go back to the bad old days, however I am suggesting that this effect is something we all need to be aware of.
So far, I'm not really seeing a significant reason to move to 24-70 from 24-105, although I admit that the extra stop would be very nice to have.
The many (sometimes divergent) opinions re IS are interesting - perhaps some of the more steady shooters out there could post details of their techniques for getting sharp captures at slow shutter speeds ...?
Extrapolating a little from these postings, an interesting point is coming through re the trend towards IS lenses. Seems to me that as good as IS can be as an aid to capturing images at low shutter speeds, it can also be a ticket to poor technique. I can vouch for this from personal experience.
Perhaps I should explain a little ... I've recently bought a 70-200 f/2.8 (no IS) ... wonderful lens, weighs a ton but a wonderful lens, no doubt about it. One of the first things I noticed was that I was having trouble with image blur due to lens shake. I went back to basics (posture, breathing, etc.) and have improved the situation to the point where I'm moderately happy but there's always room for improvement.
Now, my walkaround lens is the 24-105 f/4 IS ... so the bulk of my shooting is done with the protection of IS. Having had the luxury over the last 18 or so months of having minimal camera shake problems with that lens, I've obviously (inadvertently) developed a bunch of bad habits which came to life when using a non-IS lens.
Perhaps it means that Image Stabilisation is a wonderful modern convenience, however it can be a hinderance in some ways in the long run.
I'm not suggesting for a moment that we should all turn off the IS and go back to the bad old days, however I am suggesting that this effect is something we all need to be aware of.
mbloof
Senior Member
I've used both on my 400D, 50D and 5DII. (well, I have the older 28-70L)
I'd have to say, that the 24-105L was my favorite walk around lens on a crop body. In September I shot an entire outdoor wedding with the 24-105 mounted on my 50D. Great FL range, the IS comes in handy when shooting at shutter speeds less than 1/FL and its much lighter than the 28-70L that I have.
The 28-70L was my first lens purchase. After using it for 6mo's I sent it to Canon for cleaning and focus calibration. It came back clean. However until I got a 5DII and started using mirror lockup while on a tripod, this has been one of the most frustrating lenses in my bag. (not exactly the lens's fault here)
One day I'll get a series of stunning images out of it and with my confidence in it up, I'd leave it mounted and on the next session get nothing but soft images! I have however been very happy with it on my 5DII and may one day try it with mirror lockup on my 50D/400D for kicks.
The balance on my crop cameras is WAY front heavy. It balances almost perfectly on my 5DII. This thing is a bear to lug around. Forum readers will get a real laugh, but I actually replaced it with a 17-85IS as I wanted more FL range and IS. I was able to get more constant images out of my crop bodies with the 17-85IS than I was getting with the 28-70. I attributed it to the IS.
Given how front heavy the 28-70L is on my crop bodies, no small wonder that mirror slap may of been my problem all along.
--
(insert brag sheet here)
http://flickr.com/photos/mbloof
Technologist @ Large
- Mark0
themanwithnoname
Well-known member
Hey, one more reason the 24-105 f/4L rocks, I found a line in my 1D III manual that said this lens is on the list with the 70-200 2.8L which maintains high precision AF points at all times! though it's an f/4 lens, it still inhibits the trait that is only reserved for f/2.8 lenses.
I felt the same way at one time with different bodies.
When I had a 40D 1.6x the 24070L was perfect in my mind,
When I went 5D I wanted the 24-105 for the reach and weight and size and IS.
Now I'm using a 1D III 1.3x I went back to the 28-70 2.8 Tamron, since I find it just as good but cheaper than the L's and it get's the High precision AF points at all times too. I never seem to miss IS with the f/2.8 stops, I use flash fill as needed I don’t use slow shutter speeds, unless on a tripod or some rare occasion.
Maybe, you should still consider trading your 24-105 for a Canon 17-55 2.8 IS if your looking to go wider, if you prefer the long reach of thee 105, then that's cool keep it. But you may be missing a whole world if you've never had a wide angle view on your Body. on the 1.6x you have to go 17mm to get 24mm effective frame fill, and more like 10mm to get ultra wide effective 15mm.
That lens would complement the reach of the 70-200 you have.
Get a Very nice monopod for the 70-200 2.8; trust me it's worth it! Giottos (sp?) has a $199 unit that is the best on B&H. Also get a black diamond sling for the 70-200 2.8; it will save you a lot of aches.
I felt the same way at one time with different bodies.
When I had a 40D 1.6x the 24070L was perfect in my mind,
When I went 5D I wanted the 24-105 for the reach and weight and size and IS.
Now I'm using a 1D III 1.3x I went back to the 28-70 2.8 Tamron, since I find it just as good but cheaper than the L's and it get's the High precision AF points at all times too. I never seem to miss IS with the f/2.8 stops, I use flash fill as needed I don’t use slow shutter speeds, unless on a tripod or some rare occasion.
Maybe, you should still consider trading your 24-105 for a Canon 17-55 2.8 IS if your looking to go wider, if you prefer the long reach of thee 105, then that's cool keep it. But you may be missing a whole world if you've never had a wide angle view on your Body. on the 1.6x you have to go 17mm to get 24mm effective frame fill, and more like 10mm to get ultra wide effective 15mm.
That lens would complement the reach of the 70-200 you have.
Get a Very nice monopod for the 70-200 2.8; trust me it's worth it! Giottos (sp?) has a $199 unit that is the best on B&H. Also get a black diamond sling for the 70-200 2.8; it will save you a lot of aches.
Alastair Norcross
Forum Pro
I didn't call you a liar. I said I don't believe you. You probably believe what you are saying. More likely, what you call sharp is simply different from what others call sharp. I have no doubt that practice can help with hand holding at slower speeds. Your claim is simply too extreme to be believable, unless you're talking about viewing the results at very small sizes. Remember, you said that you could take a sharp hand held shot with a 70-200 at 1 second. (You are, of course, talking about supporting the lens only with your hands, and not leaning it on something else) If you care to post a 100% crop of such a shot, I would have an idea of what you mean by sharp. And no, I'm not going to accept any juvenile bet. If you can really do this, you will post a shot. I know it won't actually prove anything, but at least it would give me an idea of just what you are claiming.
Using IS isn't lazy, any more than using a lens at F1.4 or using high ISO. It's simply a photographic tool. The macho attitude that 'real phoographers don't need IS' is laughable.
--
Alastair
http://anorcross.smugmug.com
Equipment in profile
Using IS isn't lazy, any more than using a lens at F1.4 or using high ISO. It's simply a photographic tool. The macho attitude that 'real phoographers don't need IS' is laughable.
--
Alastair
http://anorcross.smugmug.com
Equipment in profile
themanwithnoname
Well-known member
I prefer and recommend to use IS, I never mentioned that, but you inferred that I'm against IS and being macho about it too?
I was only saying the whole jive about long expose technique in response to a post of long ago where someone was nay saying the notion to another forum poster. I spoke to their and my own defense.
I was only saying the whole jive about long expose technique in response to a post of long ago where someone was nay saying the notion to another forum poster. I spoke to their and my own defense.
How about this? Here is an actual image comparison!!!....
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/864583/0#8099811
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/864583/0#8099811
These are two very different lens, I had the 24-105L before and now a 24-70L. IMO the 24-105L is a little bit sharper than the 24-70L, I don't consider the IS as a "gimmick" but I don't found it very useful for MY KIND of shooting style either. to me what separates the two is the Bokeh and distortion @ 24mm end of the two on FF. at least that was my reason to trade the 24-105 for a 24-70, believe or not, I even like the reverse zoom design of the 24-70L much better than the 24-105L, and that makes the 24-70L lens hood more effective
94
Senior Member
I thought that this is a request for IQ comparison, not tostesterone.
I've no doubt that a zen master or someone long schooled in a martial art could hold a camera very still for the time needed to complete an exposure if not much longer than than that.
I've no doubt that a zen master or someone long schooled in a martial art could hold a camera very still for the time needed to complete an exposure if not much longer than than that.
gdanmitchell
Veteran Member
Some may love cameras but I believe they are a joke. Anyway, I can paint the scene so cameras just aren't for me.
Let there be paint.
---
G Dan Mitchell - SF Bay Area, California, USA
Blog & Gallery: http://www.gdanmitchell.com/
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/gdanmitchellphotography
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdanmitchell/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/gdanmitchell
IM: gdanmitchell
Gear List: Cup, spoon, chewing gum, old shoe laces, spare change, eyeballs, bag of nuts.
Let there be paint.
--
---
G Dan Mitchell - SF Bay Area, California, USA
Blog & Gallery: http://www.gdanmitchell.com/
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/gdanmitchellphotography
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdanmitchell/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/gdanmitchell
IM: gdanmitchell
Gear List: Cup, spoon, chewing gum, old shoe laces, spare change, eyeballs, bag of nuts.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum