Age-old debate: EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM or EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM

<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
<meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document" />
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 12" />
<meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 12" />
<link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:\DOCUME~1\Chris\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\cl ip_filelist.xml" />
<link rel="themeData" href="file:///C:\DOCUME~1\Chris\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\cl ip_themedata.thmx" />
<link rel="colorSchemeMapping" href="file:///C:\DOCUME~1\Chris\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\cl ip_colorschememapping.xml" />

<style>

</style>

<p class="MsoNormal"]I am wrestling with that age-old debate: EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L
USM or EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM.
<p class="MsoNormal"]My current gear is:

<span style="font-family: Symbol;"]<span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; -x-system-font: none;"]
50D
<span style="font-family: Symbol;"]<span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; -x-system-font: none;"]
EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM – (seldom used these
days due to my other two listed below)
<span style="font-family: Symbol;"]<span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; -x-system-font: none;"]
EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM
<span style="font-family: Symbol;"]<span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; -x-system-font: none;"]
EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM
<span style="font-family: Symbol;"]<span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; -x-system-font: none;"]
Speedlite 580EX II

<p class="MsoNormal"]I really like the f/2.8 as you can see, but I also like the
IS. This seemed like an easy decision as I saved for it, but now when it is
time to order, it seems to have gotten complicated.
<p class="MsoNormal"]I do a lot of photography at my children’s school and my
church using my f/2.8s without a flash and with great results. At the afternoon
and evening productions of the school Christmas play I took 319 shots and 317
were keepers, not an uncommon result with this gear.
<p class="MsoNormal"]I was leaning towards the 24-105, but I am now not sure that
I would not regret not having the f/2.8 I have become so accustomed to. Since I
always use the IS, I do not know how dependent I have become on it. Back in the
day I used to get great results with my Pentax MX with manual everything. I
took wedding to drag racing photos with very good results.
<p class="MsoNormal"]I know the ideal solution would be to get both, but for now
that is not an option, although down the road…
<p class="MsoNormal"]My questions are:

<li class="MsoNormal"]I would use a lower ISO
with the f/2.8 and stop more indoor action, how much would I miss the IS?
<li class="MsoNormal"]Conversely, if I am not
stopping action, would I be better off with the extra reach and the IS?
<li class="MsoNormal"]How important is IS on a
1.6 crop body using the 24-70mm?
<li class="MsoNormal"]Is 24-70 too close to my
17-55?

<p class="MsoNormal"]I welcome any advice and experience all of you can offer. My
deadline for the 24-70 is the end of the current rebates in two weeks, so I want to make a decision by next weekend to avoid a back order situation.
<p class="MsoNormal"]Chris

Re: Age-old debate: EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM or EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM

With your current gear on a crop I'd go in a different direction, like the 35 1.4L. The 24-xx(x) range is covered. If you were going to go up to FF I'd totally suggest the 24-70.

I had the 24-105 that came with my 5DmkII kit. I liked it while I had it although I use to cringe at the thought of using it on the wide end because of heavy CA (may not have this issue on a crop). Loved in on the long end though. I sold it to finance another lens, then realized I missed that range and since I had the 70-200 2.8 IS I decided to try the 24-70 and I LOVE this lens! On a full frame this lens is a must have. I would recommend this lens over the 24-105 almost always. I have not missed the IS one bit. On the 24-105, I would turn the IS off most of the time to conserve battery life.

Re: Age-old debate: EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM or EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM

I don't see a point of getting another mid-range zoom when you've already got a good one in the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS.

99% of the time I always recommend people to invest in glass instead of body, but for your case, if you want versatility, just get another body and mount the 70-200 f/2.8L IS on. I'm sure you won't miss the 56-69 focal length.

1. If you want to stop action, IS is useless, IS helps minimize camera shake.

2. No, you would not be better off withthe 24-105,you've already have the reach the f/2.8and IS in the 70-200 f/2.8L IS

3. You don't need IS, but it's always welcome

4. No, 24-70 is equivalent to 38-112 on your 50D, you'd loose the wide angle

Re: Age-old debate: EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM or EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM

Yes, it *IS* the age-old question. Given your subject matter and your current gear selection (assuming you're not getting rid of anything in the list) the hands-down answer is the 24-105 f/4 L. Here's why: you're better off having dark shots that are sharp. Without the IS, your keeper rate will drop significantly - it's just the nature of the beast. Shoot with your 17-55 at wide open, but *shut the IS off*. See the difference in your keeper rate. You can judge for yourself.

To take a stab at answering your four questions:

1. IS helps action shots far more than aperture. If you are shooting RAW (and with the 50D you absolutely should be - even sRAW if need be) you can always bump up exposure and fill light a bit - but nothing brings back the crispness of a blurred shot due to camera/subject motion.

2. In posed settings, yes, the 2.8 will produce better bokeh and more pleasing images. But you already have the 17-55 f/2.8 and the 70-200 f/2.8. You need the do-it-all lens that will stay on your body most of the time. My 24-105 rarely sits in the bag. It's almost always on one body or another.

3. To my knowledge, the crop factor of the sensor is irrelevant when it comes to IS ( assuming Canon bodies, which do not provide for sensor-based IS). I may be wrong on this, but regardless of how *much* of the lens the sensor is using, the issue of camera-based motion (the only real reason for IS in the first place) does not change.

4. I would think so. For my money, I would never buy both lenses UNLESS I was making the move to a FF or APS-H sensor in the near future.

Hope this helps...

Rob Gardner

Re: Age-old debate: EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM or EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM

One other thing - to address Sinh's comment about IS not stopping action, only camera shake. While that is certainly true, IS does help with action shots in the sense that while it doesn't stop the action happening inside our field of vision, it does help us stop ourselves when we get to the right subject framing before/as we depress the shutter. Unless your subject is coming straight towards you, chances are with your 'action' shots you are moving/tracking the subject. So in the sense that it helps dampen/suppress motion up to the point of shutter actuation, it in effect does help with action shots.

Re: Age-old debate: EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM or EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM

As said, I don't see why you would need another mid-range zoom. You have a great collection of glass, and maybe you should start considering acquiring a fast prime instead of a mid-range zoom.

A second body could be nice, but you may not feel this to be necessary. You could save the money to move up to a full frame camera, sell the 17-55mm f/2.8 and replace it with one of the lenses you mentioned.

Re: Age-old debate: EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM or EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM

This might help you too, the 24-70 is slightly softer in the center but quite a bit sharper the rest of the way outward and with less CA. On a crop the center sharpness may be more important.

24-70 vs. 24-105 @ 24mm f/4.0

Re: Age-old debate: EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM or EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM

I second the motion for a second body. If you are shooting school events, fast and accurate AF is very important. I have a 1D Mk II and a 50D, and there's a massive difference (in my experience) with the AF. The 1D AF is still vastly superior. Heck, I'd even go find a clean original 1D and leave it mounted to your 70-200 - even the 4.2Mp sensor can produce some great images at up to 8.5fps for $400. Good 1D Mk IIs can be had for $900-1100, and their 8.2Mp sensor still produces a fantastic image - I use mine weekly for just about everything I do.

I would think as only one photographer with only one pair of eyes and hands, you'd be better off with two cameras around your neck (50D with 17-55 f/2.8 and 1D Mk II with 70-200 f/2.8) and get more of the shots you want to get. In the end, getting the shot is all that counts!

Re: Age-old debate: EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM or EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM

Thanks for the feedback thus far.

I realize IS does not stop the action, but I am not as sure as I am as steady as I once was and the IS helps minimize camera shake I may now have without realizing it.

Keith, I have considered a prime, but for my current situations, a mid-range zoom is just much more useful.I have the battery grip mounted all the time any more and have not had any problems with battery life.

Nate, I was thinking that the 17-55 would move back to just wide applications and one of these would replace it as the main mounted lens, particularity if I was pleased with the 24-70 with no IS. My thoughts then may be to sell the 17-55 and add a 10-22, since I would retain my f/2.8 mid-zoom. I know, it adds to the decision down the road.

Rob and Joel, although not in the "near" future, I do covet a 5D MkII -- just don't tell my wife. I have also been looking at the refurbished 1D offerings at Adorama. I have gotten some refurbished P/S for the family and take the little sticker off and they pass for new. I would keep the 50D as a second body. It has given me nothing but pleasure to date. Also, I ALWAYS shoot in RAW even if using small jpg. I am still learning DPP, but have found that with sharp images, many evils can be corrected.

As to my lenses, I am very pleased with them and do not regret buying the 17-55 or 70-200. They really stepped up my game. I have thought of selling the 28-135 as I do not use it much since purchasing the other two and acquiring one of these will all but condemn it to a lifetime of storage. And the addition of either of these lenses works well with a second body in the future. History being a guide, there will be a second body eventually. My glass should all work with a new body, with the exception of the EF-S. I take very good care of my gear. My old Pentax gear looks closer to new than some equipment I see being used.

Just for insight, I have two MX bodies, MX-winders and equivalent glass to my new Canon zooms plus a 2x extender and the 28mm f/2.8 and 50mm f/1.7 primes. And they all still work as new.[:D]

Thank you,

Chris

Re: Age-old debate: EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM or EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM

Honestly, I just don't see how another mid-range zoom will serve your needs. You don't really need to cover the 55-70mm range. The gap is just not that big. You may also find that your image quality is not really going to improve with the 24-70/2.8L or the 24-105/4L IS compared to what you already have in those ranges.

You may also find yourself disappointed if you sell off the EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS for the 10-22. You get ultrawide but my impression from the test charts is that the 17-55 performs better in the focal length range that is common to both. Also, if you really covet the 5D2, purchasing a 10-22 isn't consistent with that goal. I'm not sure if you really want to shoot ultrawide that much in order to make the 10-22 worthwhile.

Now, if you wanted a single lens that enables you to cover both wide and telephoto (rather than a wide zoom and a telephoto zoom), then I could see why you would consider the 24-105/4L IS. But you can't really have it both ways--what you gain in zoom range you lose in maximum aperture. And if you get the 24-70/2.8L, you lose IS.

What it all really comes down to is that as long as you are using an APS-C sensor, the wider angle L lenses aren't really worth the investment because a lot of the cost of these lenses lies in correcting for the periphery of the image circle--precisely the area that is NOT captured with an APS-C sensor. You are paying for something that you're not going to see until you use an APS-H or 35mm sensor. However, the L primes have other advantages, such as larger max apertures (f/1.2 - f/2.0) than what is available for EF-S, and better build quality. But the 17-55 is already a very fine lens. When you do make the jump to "full frame," then that's the time to start buying more L glass. In the meantime, save up.