Open Photography Forums  
HOME FORUMS NEWS FAQ SEARCH

Go Back   Open Photography Forums > Digital Camera Discussion > Lenses: DSLR and Rangefinder, MF adaptions to 35mm such Zoerk

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 20th, 2008, 01:56 AM
John Need John Need is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland
Posts: 8
Default Canon 24/70 2.8 or 24/105 f4 IS help!

Hi All....

I discovered this site yesterday, and then didn't leave for about 4 hours. So I had to sign up.
Looks like a hive of activity so hopefully I'll be spending much more time in here.

Anyway, to get to the point, I've been chancing it now for about 6 months with the 350d (Rebel, I think it's called in the US) and the nasty ef-s lens! I've got the 50mm 2.5 macro, as well as the 70-200mm f2.8 L IS Canon.

I've just ordered the EoS 5D and this arrives next week, but I can still change my mind on the lens.
I love the 2.8 L lens, and was thinking I should get the 2.8 24/70, however, after reading so many different interesting points on here, I'm now confused.

I need a good street lens and generic all rounder. I carry all my gear with me anyway and don't mind lugging the stuff around and changing lenses etc. but the f4L lens seems to be a bit of a favourite amongst some of you in here.

So (finally getting to the point) do I opt for the f4 L with IS or the 2.8 L as I do a lot of live band shoots and thinking the 2.8 in darker venues would work out better, or...........?

I've got some live shots (such as Portishead, Level 42 and many others) on www.myspace.com/thebassmonster (in the pics section) and this might give you an idea of shoots Ive already done and then help which lens would be better suited.

Thanks for reading all of this and I look forward to any help>

Many thanks,
John
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old June 20th, 2008, 03:28 AM
Mike Shimwell Mike Shimwell is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: North Yorkshire, UK
Posts: 1,792
Default

I've got the 24-105 and it works exceptionally well with the 5D, and the IS is amazing. But, of course, IS won't freeze action.

For 'street' shooting with the 5D I use mostly the 50 1.4 or my 35 f2

Mike
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old June 20th, 2008, 06:02 AM
Bart_van_der_Wolf Bart_van_der_Wolf is offline
pro member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 4,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Need View Post
Hi All....

I discovered this site yesterday, and then didn't leave for about 4 hours. So I had to sign up.
Looks like a hive of activity so hopefully I'll be spending much more time in here.
Hi John, welcome to OPF. I've had a quick look at some of your images, and liked what I saw.

Quote:
I've just ordered the EoS 5D and this arrives next week, but I can still change my mind on the lens.
...
So (finally getting to the point) do I opt for the f4 L with IS or the 2.8 L as I do a lot of live band shoots and thinking the 2.8 in darker venues would work out better, or...........?
From what I've seen from the 24-105mm it is a very interesting lens. It's a relatively compact lens that has a nice reach, and IS rarely hurts the final quality, and IS compensates somewhat for the f/4. My main concern for FullFrame use is it's vignetting tendency. For me as FF shooter the vignetting is too much, although on a cropped sensor array or e.g. for your music photography, it's less of an issue.

The 24-70mm is a great lens, one of my favorites, although perhaps the upcoming Photokina may have something new in store for us ...

Bart
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old June 20th, 2008, 06:11 AM
Cem_Usakligil Cem_Usakligil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,946
Default

Hi John,

Welcome to OPF. I have had the 5D and the 24-105 f4 L IS. The one stop advantage of the f2.8 in freezing the motion (due to the higher shutter speed possible) is not to be ignored, especially when you shoot bands and the subjects are moving constantly. As you probably know, the IS does compensate for the camera shake but it does not help against moving subjects. For that purpose, the f2.8 is the better choice. But for all other purposes, I can wholeheartedly recommend the 24-105 f4 L IS. It is an excellent lens and you'll never regret it.

BTW, I have used the 24-105 to shoot bands in dark venues and it has delivered excellent results. Having said all this, I mainly use my 70-200 f2.8 L IS for that purpose now and the zoom range is better anyway if you want to shoot some portraits. So since you have that one as well, go for the 24-105 I'd say.

HTH,
__________________
Kind Regards, Cem

flickr
website
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old June 20th, 2008, 06:36 AM
Cem_Usakligil Cem_Usakligil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,946
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart_van_der_Wolf View Post
...My main concern for FullFrame use is it's vignetting tendency. For me as FF shooter the vignetting is too much, although on a cropped sensor array or e.g. for your music photography, it's less of an issue.
..
Hi Bart,

Are we talking about the same lens here? I have used the 24-105 on my 5D FF body (some 10,000+ pictures taken) and never had any problems with any "noticeable" vignetting. But then again, you are much more critical than I am ;-),


Cheers,
__________________
Kind Regards, Cem

flickr
website
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old June 20th, 2008, 06:38 AM
Nill Toulme Nill Toulme is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Atlanta, Georgia USA
Posts: 1,407
Default

This is pretty much a 50-50 proposition. I traded my 24-70 for the 24-105 and have been very happy with the latter. I found the former heavy, unwieldy, somewhat difficult to use (stiff zoom ring) and frequently too short. But OTOH, more often than not I'm using these lenses with flash, so the extra stop is of no value. And when I'm not using flash, it's rarely for moving subjects so the IS is of more value than the extra stop.

Others' (including your own) usage differs, and I'm pretty sure the guy I traded with is just as happy with the swap as I am.

I would add though that for shooting bands in low light venues, you should give serious consideration to a couple/three fast primes instead of either of these zooms. E.g., 35 f/2 @ $240 + 50 f/1.4 @ $325 + 85 f/1.8 @ $355 = $920, vs. $1190 for the 24-70 or $1059 for the 24-105. Or your could substitute the 50 f/1.8 @ $90, and you'd almost have enough left over to add the dandy 15mm f/2.8 rectangular fisheye @ $610.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old June 20th, 2008, 06:44 AM
Nill Toulme Nill Toulme is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Atlanta, Georgia USA
Posts: 1,407
Default

p.s. I most often use my 24-105 on the FF 1DsMkII and have no problem with vignetting either, although vignetting is not something I'm particular sensitive to or for that matter have much objection to. Some people actually add it to their shots in post processing, remember. ;-) And it's fairly easy to correct in post as well.

The 24-105 does exhibit noticeable barrel distortion at the wide end, but that's generally only an issue in shooting architecture or art, and again it's easily corrected in post.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old June 20th, 2008, 06:46 AM
Rachel Foster Rachel Foster is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Michigan, USA
Posts: 3,574
Default

I just got the 24 105 for my Rebel and am quite impressed.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old June 20th, 2008, 06:50 AM
John Need John Need is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland
Posts: 8
Default Canon 24/70 2.8 or 24/105 f4 IS help

Well, this has thrown me! I've had my mind/heart set on the 2.8 for so long, and to hear the F4 ratings, i'm slowly swinging in this direction.

Can I ask though, is it mainly because of the focal lenght that you've chosen this lens (and the IS) or is it the cost against the 2.8?

Thanks so much to you all for getting back to me but I'm still unsure as to which to buy...

I'm tempted to just buy both, but that would just be really very silly so I have to find a clear winner here.

Thanks again to all....
John
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old June 20th, 2008, 06:54 AM
Nill Toulme Nill Toulme is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Atlanta, Georgia USA
Posts: 1,407
Default

Certainly not cost as I traded even up. For me it was basically the extra length, the IS, and the size/weight. I just never really liked the 24-70 and so rarely used it. I use the 24-105 a lot. But again, this is definitely an example of different strokes for different folks.

Another thought though, and one that might be determinative for your application. The extra stop permits the 24-70 to AF more readily, and perhaps (or perhaps not) more accurately, in very low light. The 24-105 can be just slightly frustrating in that regard sometimes.

But again, the fast primes would be even better in this respect.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old June 20th, 2008, 06:59 AM
Cem_Usakligil Cem_Usakligil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,946
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Need View Post
Well, this has thrown me! I've had my mind/heart set on the 2.8 for so long, and to hear the F4 ratings, i'm slowly swinging in this direction.

Can I ask though, is it mainly because of the focal lenght that you've chosen this lens (and the IS) or is it the cost against the 2.8?

Thanks so much to you all for getting back to me but I'm still unsure as to which to buy...

I'm tempted to just buy both, but that would just be really very silly so I have to find a clear winner here.

Thanks again to all....
John
Price has never come into my calculations, I bought that lens because it was the right one for me.

Buying both would be, to say the least, kind of ridiculous. Stick with the excellent advice given by Nill before me and Mike before him. In other words, if you really want a large aperture buy a prime instead. For all other purposes, buy the 24-105. Or if you insist, the f2.8 although you won't have as much flexibility with that one.

Again, you cannot go wrong with these choices (as Nill said before) and whichever you choose, you will end up thinking "I am glad I have made this choice". Seriously!

Good luck.
__________________
Kind Regards, Cem

flickr
website
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old June 20th, 2008, 06:59 AM
Mike Shimwell Mike Shimwell is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: North Yorkshire, UK
Posts: 1,792
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Need View Post
Well, this has thrown me! I've had my mind/heart set on the 2.8 for so long, and to hear the F4 ratings, i'm slowly swinging in this direction.

Can I ask though, is it mainly because of the focal lenght that you've chosen this lens (and the IS) or is it the cost against the 2.8?

Thanks so much to you all for getting back to me but I'm still unsure as to which to buy...

I'm tempted to just buy both, but that would just be really very silly so I have to find a clear winner here.

Thanks again to all....
John
I bought it becauseof the IS and the relatively compact size. The extra reach is nice too, in a walk around lens. I like primes in any case, and would second the thought of picking up the 35, 50 and 85, all of which are in my bag and these days get more use than the zooms.

Mike
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old June 20th, 2008, 07:04 AM
Cem_Usakligil Cem_Usakligil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,946
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Need View Post
Well, this has thrown me! ...
Having re-read this statement, it seems as if you've already made a choice for yourself, i.e. the 24-70 f2.8. If that is the case, just do it and you won't regret your choice. As Ray West used to say, we all tend to have different mechanisms for taking decisions. I usually choose with my heart and use my head to justify the choice afterwards :-). If you are the same, do not buy the 24-105 since by the first disappointment you'll regret the fact that you've allowed yourself to be convinced to buy that one.

Cheers,
__________________
Kind Regards, Cem

flickr
website
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old June 20th, 2008, 07:22 AM
Kathy Rappaport Kathy Rappaport is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: So. California
Posts: 1,793
Default Both

I have both lenses for my 5D. I think that they each have a different look in the final image - even taken at the same focal length and shutter speed. I bought the 24-70 when I was using a cropped sensor and I bought the 24-105 as a walk around. I like the extra reach and there is a crispness to the images with the 24-105. I have not had any vignetting with it. Will Thompson uses it for Band shoots all the time and it's great for portraits. I tend to use the 24-70 for indoor shooting with kids for natural light portraits and in my studio with strobes.

I say to rent them first or at least to go to the camera store and test them for yourself. If you got the 24-105 you could always get something like the 50 1.4 or 85 1.8 for a low light lens. The 35 f2 might be too wide.

I have the 50 2.5 and it is dreamy but too slow for any motion and takes a long time hunting for focus.
__________________
You can call me ChatKat
********************
I created this piece of fine art. It's Fine Art because it's mine, I made it and I say it's fine art...
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old June 20th, 2008, 07:50 AM
John Need John Need is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland
Posts: 8
Default

OK, that's done it. I think you've all managed to answer all of this for me.

Cem, I think you've nailed it really, as I should just do it. Nill, the low light AF will be an issue for me as I do get frustrated with slow AF. And as Kathy has said, the 2.5 50mm which we both have, is very slow and tends to jump through the entire focal length, but when it gets there, it does create great results....eventually!

I do lie the idea of having lots of primes, but I'd be running round changing many different lenses and possibly missing out on the action and the combined weight would be double that of the 24-70mm.

So, in response to everyones input, I'll go for the 24-70 and place the order immediately.

Once it's here, I'll take a few shots and post them up somewhere and dedicate it to you guys as this has been fun.

Many thanks from Scotland and I'm feeling very emotional....sniff... couldn't have done it without you guys....sniff!!

Seriously, cheers and this site ROCKS and thanks to all!!

Cheers
John
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old June 20th, 2008, 09:11 AM
Bart_van_der_Wolf Bart_van_der_Wolf is offline
pro member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 4,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cem_Usakligil View Post
Hi Bart,

Are we talking about the same lens here?
Yes ;-)

It's most obvious at the wide end and when used wide open. Of course everything is relative to one's sensitivity for it, but half a stop (and thus also more noise) is quite noticable to me. For instance compare at f/4 on these charts, courtesy of www.slrgear.com (make sure to select the 'Full Frame Results' tab):





The Chromatic aberration and corner sharpness is also better for the 24-70mm wide open at the 24mm end. Stopping down, and using longer focal lengths, brings the image quality of both lenses very close to each other, and as I said the extra reach and IS of the 24-105mm are welcome.

Cheers,
Bart
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old June 20th, 2008, 03:29 PM
Mike Bailey Mike Bailey is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Wisconsin, United States
Posts: 114
Default

To add a footnote to all the above: I'm basically a landscape photographer, so this is where I'm coming from. My current main camera is a 5D and I have both the 24-70 and the 24-105. To me, the 24-70 gives superior images. Something that doesn't seem to be mentioned often, but should be: bokeh. The 24-105 bokeh is nowhere near as good as that of the 24-70 and that can make or break an otherwise good image.

Mike
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old June 21st, 2008, 05:04 AM
John Need John Need is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland
Posts: 8
Default

Thanks Mike - That's what I wanted to hear. It's ordered now and can't wait for it's arrival. Have a mag shoot next week so that'll be the tester...
And thanks to Bart for the fall off scale.

Cheers all...
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old June 26th, 2008, 06:31 AM
Yaron Lenard Yaron Lenard is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Berlin
Posts: 34
Default

Ah, I see I've come too late to this conversation.

I own a 5D and several lenses, incl. the 24-70mm. Like others, I prefer shooting on the street with a 25mm or a 50mm prime... if I'm going to use an SLR at all. Rangefinders are better for me on the street.

But here's what I would have said regarding your topic...

Rent both, see how they work for you.

Wait with buying the 5D. I believe a new 5D is imminent. (I know, I know, they always say that on the Internet, but in this case I believe it is true.) The point is that I believe the new 5D (Mk. II probably) will have much better ISO - that's speculation, but that seems to be current battlefield. As such, you might be able to forego the faster lens, unless the shallow DOF is key to your look.

I have found the 24-70mm to be a little short, and wish I had the 105mm range.


Ultimately though, I use the 24-70mm for shooting my kids, and I love the look of it wide open, the 24-105mm couldn't give me the same look.

Hope that was in any way helpful, god knows it wasn't timely.
__________________
The Iron Flatline - images at The Western Flatline
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old June 27th, 2008, 05:24 AM
John Need John Need is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland
Posts: 8
Default

Thanks Yaron.

There's actually a delay in the delivery and it won't be getting shipped 'til Monday, however, my mind is now made up.
I have the reach with the 70 to 200mm and I don't leave home with out it, so, the 105mm is redundant really...

I'm sure the 5Dmkii will arrive soon, but I'm off to Berlin then Latvia on the 20th July and need the full frame for a Film shoot I'm doing so I can't wait...Maybe I'll just buy a 1D one day and be done with it...

Nice to hear the wide open note though so I look forward to it.

Again, thanks to all.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old June 28th, 2008, 03:40 AM
Mike Bailey Mike Bailey is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Wisconsin, United States
Posts: 114
Default

John,

Here's a little bit more on what I was talking about, and it might be of interest to others too. When I first noticed the bokeh on the 24-105 seemed to have a problem I did a lot of research on it and found a most interesting somewhat technical thread on Luminous Landscape that might explain it:

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/...opic=19642&hl=

About halfway through the thread a 'Klaus' explains that it might be nisen bokeh and the conversation goes into more detail from there. Reading the whole thread is somewhat enlightening. At least it was for me. Others may know all about this already, but for those who don't, it's one more thing to make the brain itch.

Mike
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old July 1st, 2008, 08:49 AM
John Need John Need is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland
Posts: 8
Default

Very interesting indeed....The blur the 24-70 is creating seems very natural indeed and I've not had any issues with the lens thus far....
However, I do have another question and wasn't sure where to post it so will try my luck here.
I didn't get a UV filter for the camera but ended up with a hoya 85C...Now, this is what I've found so far:

Hoya 85C decreases the colour temperature from 5500K to 3800K. The effect obtained is the same as with daylight type colour films used in daylight.

Now, being a man of very little brain, Im finding this confusing. Daylight type colour films being used in daylight....hey??? Is this not when you would use a daylight type film?

I understand the temperature but was wondering if someone could explain when this filter would be best used.

The person I used to call 'my better half' made the order for me and I simply asked her to order a 'Skylight Filter' not thinking this would cause confusion, but I realise now that I should've been more specific. So, I've got the thing now and might as well use it....but where?

Many thanks
John
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old July 2nd, 2008, 04:12 AM
Mike Bailey Mike Bailey is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Wisconsin, United States
Posts: 114
Default

John,

Perhaps the filter you wanted (i.e. Skylight, rather than Daylight) was the superHMC Pro1 UV(0), the ultra thin version suitable for wider angle lenses? I've a couple of those I use on my lenses at times. Just for reference I'm including the BHPhoto link for the 3mm version instead of the 5mm version.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...iolet_UV_.html

I don't know if it's still on his web site, but Michael Tapes (http://www.pictureflow.com/) once had an article/review of the filter which was one of the reasons I ended up getting that particular brand and style.

Mike
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old January 30th, 2010, 05:38 AM
Madhu Tyagi Madhu Tyagi is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 5
Default

I think you should consider 17-55mm f2.8 IS instead!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are Off
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:37 PM.


Posting images or text grants license to OPF, yet of such remain with its creator. Still, all assembled discussion 2006-2017 Asher Kelman (all rights reserved) Posts with new theme or unusual image might be moved/copied to a new thread!