24-70 2.8 or 28-70 2.0 or 24-105 4.0???

[Busted Knuckles]

I have compared the ER/RF 24-105. A meh difference if ever there was one.

What I ponder is if either of the faster lenses at 70 would crop to the 105 range with reasonably similar effective resolution with the R5.


Any thoughts or experience on this?

[Joel Eade]

I will give you an educated guess:

I did some test shots with the R5 in full frame mode with image cropping in post and compared them to the taking shots in the 1.6 crop mode .... there was very little difference in image quality.

I suspect if you shoot RAW you could easily crop a 70 mm shot in post processing to simulate 105 mm with no problem or simply shoot in 1.6 crop mode which gets a field of view equivalent to 112 mm on a 70 mm lens.

In crop mode you get less megapixels (17 if I remember correctly) but the resolution is still quite reasonable.

[Jonathan Huyer]

I guess if you know for sure that you are going to be cropping your images in post-production, then you might as well shoot in 1.6 crop mode and gain the smaller file size.

As a follow-up to the other thread, I just did a test in crop mode and C-RAW, and I could not fill the buffer in the R5 at 12 fps no matter how long I shot. The card was easily keeping up with the shot rate.

[Kayaker72]

What I ponder is if either of the faster lenses at 70 would crop to the 105 range with reasonably similar effective resolution with the R5.

Any thoughts or experience on this?

This is essentially what I have been doing since going from the EF 24-105 f/4 L Mk 1 to the EF 24-70 II. Never looked back. Even on the 5DIV. The IQ out of the EF 24-105 was good. But I've always preferred the IQ (contrast, sharpness, etc) from the EF 24-70 II. I do understand that the RF 24-105 is better at 105 (https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1222&Camera=1508&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=0&LensComp=355&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0), which may change the RF conversation a bit. But, as Joel points out, you are still getting a 17-20 MP image even when cropping on the R5.


I guess if you know for sure that you are going to be cropping your images in post-production, then you might as well shoot in 1.6 crop mode and gain the smaller file size.

As a follow-up to the other thread, I just did a test in crop mode and C-RAW, and I could not fill the buffer in the R5 at 12 fps no matter how long I shot. The card was easily keeping up with the shot rate.

Great point. I have reassigned my DOF preview button to toggle between 1.6 crop mode and FF (a Joel Eade suggestion, :) ).

[Jonathan Huyer]

I have reassigned my DOF preview button to toggle between 1.6 crop mode and FF (a Joel Eade suggestion, :) ).

What a great idea -- I've now done the same. Thanks! I just wish there was a similarly quick way to switch between mechanical and electronic shutter. I have it programmed as a custom menu item, so that will have to do unless I'm missing something.

[neuroanatomist]

What a great idea -- I've now done the same. Thanks! I just wish there was a similarly quick way to switch between mechanical and electronic shutter. I have it programmed as a custom menu item, so that will have to do unless I'm missing something.
Can you set up different C# (custom) modes and use the M.Fn button to cycle through them? That’s what I do on my R3 (although for me it’s all electronic shutter with 3, 15 and 30 fps).

[Jonathan Huyer]

Can you set up different C# (custom) modes and use the M.Fn button to cycle through them? That’s what I do on my R3 (although for me it’s all electronic shutter with 3, 15 and 30 fps).

That worked! Brilliant. I've always ignored the C# modes in the past, but this is a great reason to use them. Many thanks!

[Busted Knuckles]

24-70 2.8 seems to be the winner

And dof button is a 'free' button, I use dif preview about never.

[neuroanatomist]

24-70 2.8 seems to be the winner
On EF, I definitely preferred the 24-70/2.8 II. Better IQ than the 24-105 MkI (I had two copies of that), and most importantly, better AF performance on a DSLR because of the wide aperture-requiring AF points.

For RF, if I had to pick just one, it would be the RF 24-70/2.8 IS.

Having said that, I started with the RF 24-105/4 and found the IQ to be equivalent to my EF 24-70/2.8 II. I liked the extra range, and f/2.8 on R bodies no longer adds AF functionality. I couldn't really justify owning both the 24-70/2.8 and the 24-105/4, but rather than swap for the latter for the former, I kept the 24-105 and added the 28-70/2 for indoor low light and portrait use. It's a beast of a lens, but balances well on the R3 with the E1 hand strap.

[Busted Knuckles]

Ooof. Not going to do 2 in the range. You felt the 70 cropped was a lessor image than the 105?

[Fast Glass]

I've owned the EF 24-105 and used the II. First one got stolen, glad to be out of that crime infested city! Augh.

But having owned the 24-70mm f/2.8 II for a while now and previously the old Sigma version the f/2.8 is more useful or than the 105mm for me with portraits. I think the 24-105mm range is excellent for a lot of other stuff though. As far as cropping, I normally just use the correct focal length for the job. But most times for portrait work I use my 85mm f/1.2 and the 24-70mm for looser shots and typically the f/2.8 is fine for that. Still need a fast 50mm prime really badly though for when I want more separation for other shots.

For landscapes though, 24-105 range was nice and I think the better general purpose lens if thinner DOF is not of prime importance. IQ I think is fine for both in my eyes, the way I used the 24-105mm for general purpose shots and landscapes ect. I was stopping down for DOF anyway. But that being said the 24-70mm is still sharper.

I have thought about getting the 24-105mm again in my kit it was still a much loved lens till it got stolen and didn't want to sell it. It is still a very nice and useful lens and cheap enough that it can be worth owning both.

I really like both the 24-70mm and 24-105mm lenses.

[Fast Glass]

I have not used the 28-70mm f/2.0. I would love to get my grubby mits on such a beast though, especially with my propensity for fast lenses.:D

[neuroanatomist]

Ooof. Not going to do 2 in the range. You felt the 70 cropped was a lessor image than the 105?
70 cropped to 105 is not bad, 105 cropped to 150 is not bad. 70 cropped to 150 is not good.

A broader lens zoom range that doesn't sacrifice IQ is a good thing. Trading a stop of light is ok in a walk around lens, for me at least, although having something fast for low light indoors is often useful.

I view the 28-70/2 a less of a zoom lens and more of a collection of fast primes.

[Busted Knuckles]

I noticed the 28-70 at 50mm was pretty stunning.

I guess my GAS will have to be tempered.