4 L IS USM

Printable View

12-27-2009, 02:09 PM
Chris White

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:
1. <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
12-27-2009, 02:31 PM
Keith B

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.
12-27-2009, 02:37 PM
Sinh Nhut Nguyen

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
12-27-2009, 02:40 PM
Rob Gardner

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
12-27-2009, 02:45 PM
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.
12-27-2009, 02:51 PM
Joel

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.
12-27-2009, 02:53 PM
Keith B

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
12-27-2009, 03:06 PM
Rob Gardner

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!
12-27-2009, 03:56 PM
Chris White

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
12-27-2009, 05:01 PM
wickerprints

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.
12-27-2009, 06:45 PM
Feanor

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by wickerprints

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.

I have the 24-70 and I completely agree.

When I was starting out I was really worried about ensuring that I had no gaps in my zoom range and I was also really keen on avoiding overlap as I felt it was a waste. I realise now that I was wrong.

55-70mm isn't much. Most of the time you can move to compensate, the rest of the time you can crop to compensate. IMO it's definitely not worth a £900 lens - that money will be much better spend on other accessories or a different lens IMO. Furthermore, the 24-70 isn't a light lens so you'd also be lugging around that extra weight for not much reason.

I bought the 24-70 when I had a 400D/XTi and was unsure whether I would eventually upgrade to full frame. I did make that upgrade but partly because I had the 24-70; I now think that had I never had the benefits of full frame I really wouldn't have missed them. Had I known then what we all know now about the existence & specs of the 5DII and the 7D, I hope that I would have stuck with crop sensors and gone for the 17-55.

If you do go full frame or APS-H then I would save your cash for then and buy both the body and lens at the same time. In this case, if you're finding that the 17-55 isn't long enough now, you'll probably find the same with the 24-70; I have sometimes found that my subject was moving constantly between the range of my 24-70 and 70-200 which can be annoying. But then again I have no experience of the 24-105 and the consensus when I asked your question was that the 24-70 edges out the 24-105 for IQ and low light use.
12-28-2009, 01:11 PM
Mark Elberson

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feanor

I now think that had I never had the benefits of full frame I really wouldn't have missed them. Had I known then what we all know now about the existence & specs of the 5DII and the 7D, I hope that I would have stuck with crop sensors and gone for the 17-55.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

What do you mean by this? You're not happy with your 5D?
12-28-2009, 01:40 PM
Fast Glass

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

What shutter speeds are you using? If you are using 1/120th of a second and faster to stop subject motion than you don't need IS. You will need a wider apeture or a higher ISO to compensate for subject motion. I found that it takes at least this fast of a shutter speed to stop peoples movements.

John.
12-28-2009, 03:49 PM
ShutterbugJohan

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

With the equipment that you already have, I wouldn't buy either. However, if you really want one, I would buy the 24-105, since it is more "walk-around" and you already have the low-light zooms covered.
12-28-2009, 08:29 PM
Daniel Browning

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris White

I would use a lower ISO
with the f/2.8 and stop more indoor action, how much would I miss the IS?

A lot, IMHO

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris White

Conversely, if I am not
stopping action, would I be better off with the extra reach and the IS?

Yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris White

How important is IS on a
1.6 crop body using the 24-70mm?

Medium important. (Not vital like a pure telephoto, but still important, IMHO, especially at large-ish print sizes.).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris White

Is 24-70 too close to my
17-55?

Imho yes.
12-29-2009, 05:42 PM
wycrich

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

If I were you, I would try to sell the EF 28-135 and keep the others. Either save the money for a FF body (one lens on each body) or get the EF 24-105. You already have f2.8 pretty well covered in most ranges, why notexplore something different with a f4 when you have extra money to spend and that is what youhave planned to do?
12-30-2009, 02:35 PM
Feanor

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Elberson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feanor

I now think that had I never had the benefits of full frame I really wouldn't have missed them. Had I known then what we all know now about the existence & specs of the 5DII and the 7D, I hope that I would have stuck with crop sensors and gone for the 17-55.

<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

What do you mean by this? You're not happy with your 5D?
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Yes, and no - but for the same reasons many other people aren't entirely happy with it.

Reach is important to me and I don't have money to burn on a 500 f4 and anyway this is just a hobby for me. Fast and flexible AF is also important. So the 7D - had it been released when I bought my 5DII - would have suited me better. But I've read that the IQ of the 7D can't compete; had I never had the 5DII, I doubt I would ever have missed its IQ but I think, now, that I would. (Also, my thread on this forum about considering switching to the 7D attracted much bemusment! :D) All this might all sound rather confusing, but anyway I'm going to see how I get on with my new 400 f/5.6 for now.

Sorry for going completely OT there!
12-30-2009, 02:59 PM
Keith B

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

I think the 5DmkII is good enough to keep some of the people happy and bad enough to make most of the people crave a 1Ds mk 3 or 4.

My latest 5DmkII gripe:

Do not under expose even a little, the banding is horrible in the shadows when you bump up the exposure in RAW. Definitely over expose your shot and then darken in RAW.
12-30-2009, 03:18 PM
Daniel Browning

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith B

My latest 5DmkII gripe:

Do not under expose even a little, the banding is horrible in the shadows when you bump up the exposure in RAW. Definitely over expose your shot and then darken in RAW.

Agreed. For what it's worth, it looks like Canon is making some progress on this issue. The 7D has much less pattern noise (banding) at high ISO than the 5D2. (The pattern noise at low ISO is still just as bad, though. Here's hoping for the 60D.)
12-30-2009, 03:29 PM
Mark Elberson

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Elberson

You're not happy with your 5D?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feanor

Yes, and no - but for the same reasons many other people aren't entirely happy with it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith B

I think the 5DmkII is good enough to keep some of the people happy and bad enough to make most of the people crave a 1Ds mk 3 or 4.

My latest 5DmkII gripe:

Do not under expose even a little, the banding is horrible in the shadows when you bump up the exposure in RAW. Definitely over expose your shot and then darken in RAW.

I know I'm probably being silly, but being someone who is currently saving upfor a 5D Mark II, your comments make me nervous [:^)]. Now we're really off topic!
12-30-2009, 03:56 PM
Keith B

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

Well if nothing else, the 5DII will help make you be a<span style="text-decoration: line-through;"]bettermore aware photographer. Like I mentioned, over exposing shots. Metering perfectly is too risky. If you have to bring exposure up you will get banding in the shadow areas (I keep hoping firmware will fix this). For example I use to just shoot and judge my shot by LCD (I know, I know) and if it wasn't perfect I'd fix in post. Now I live by the histogram, thusly making me a<span style="text-decoration: line-through;"]bettermore aware photographer.

Fighting with autofocus in low light situations, I have become more attune with manual focusing. The ST-E2 is very helpful with autofocus even when not shooting with off camera flashes. The shutter lag has helped me get better at my timing of shots. I haven't figured out the reflections of the mirror on my images during long exposures thing yet.

I look at it like this, I am paying a penalty for being poor and wanting full frame.

I don't know if the 1Ds mkIII has the same banding issues as the 5D mkII.I haven't heard of this being the case. Maybe the dual digics keep this from happening since the sensors are similar (I don't know).I think when 1Ds4 is announced I will try to pick up a mk3 cheap(er).

If they can fix the banding with firmware I would be pretty content with the 5D mkII. I just don't think they can or they would have.
12-30-2009, 04:16 PM
Daniel Browning

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith B

I don't know if the 1Ds mkIII has the same banding issues as the 5D mkII.I haven't heard of this being the case. Maybe the dual digics keep this from happening since the sensors are similar (I don't know).I think when 1Ds4 is announced I will try to pick up a mk3 cheap(er).

The 1Ds3 has much less pattern noise than the 5D2, but still a lot more than the D3X. It's not because of the DIGIC: the pattern noise is added to the signal before it ever gets to the DIGIC. (It may be caused by differences in power conditioning, ADC quality, shielding, variable gain amplifier quality, etc. I don't know except that it happens before DIGIC.)
12-30-2009, 04:24 PM
Mark Elberson

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

Thanks for the insight Keith. I am also "poor and wanting full frame" :-) I think my current savings puts me at abouthalf way to a 5DII so even a used 1Ds Mark III will be out of the question (when the Mark IV is released). You can pick up a used 1Ds Mark II for about $2k. Do you think it's too far behind the 5DII to compare?
12-30-2009, 04:56 PM
Keith B

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

No problem Mark.

I had a photog at a magazine I worked at supply me with images from 1Ds mk2 and images she shot at 640 ISO were horrible, very noisy so I don't want to go that route.

I am venting a little bit about the banding right now because it just recently bit me in the butt. I was shooting a portrait on black seamless at 100 ISO with strobes and was going for a moody shadowy look so I ignored the histogram and let it run off the left side. So when looking at the images in Aperture the exposure was close I only bumped it .06 of a stop but I brought the shadow levels up 15 percent and the black seamless looked really bad due to the checkered banding pattern.

I was able to fix it PS but I just got pretty annoyed, I'm a terrible purist. I got my start in this business as PS guy fixing other photographers work and I would have talked so much crap if someone submitting an image like that to me.

Thanks Daniel, for the info. I guess that means firmware isn't going to fix the problem then.
12-31-2009, 12:15 AM
Colin

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

I'd vote for a fast prime. 2.8 is okay indoors, but 1.4 kicks bum!
01-07-2010, 11:20 PM
Chris White

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

I want to thank everyone for the thoughtful and helpful advice. After careful consideration, I decided to order a EF 24-70mm. I do realize that it is more overlap than complementry to my existing lens line up, but after re-reading Bryan's review, I had to go with his good advice in the end:

"The Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM Lens will work just as well in your home as it does in the church or other indoor venue.
Capturing the memories of family life is, in my opinion, one of the most important photography pursuits.
You can sell the lens later, but those precious family moments will never be back."

I would like to use it for my daughter's First Communion this spring, similar to shooting a wedding, you are in church and flash use is frowned upon. I will get a little extra reach -- less crop (my 70-200 is too long for most shots in church) and still shoot f/2.8.

And given the constant increase in Canon glass, it may be a better investment than my retirement account. [;)]

I just feel that I want to try it myself and if I choose not to keep it, I can sell it and it will balance out to basically a rental with a large deposit.

Thank you again,

Chris
01-09-2010, 08:09 AM
Jon Ruyle

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Elberson

I know I'm probably being silly, but being someone who is currently saving upfor a 5D Mark II, your comments make me nervous [img]/emoticons/emotion-18.gif[/img]

Just to provide an alternate point of view, Mark, I own a 5DII and have been very satisfied with it. My previous camera was a 1DIIN and for me, the advantages of full frame far outweigh the advantages of 1 ness. Of course the 1DIII was a major step up from the 1DIIN so I'm not comparing oranges to oranges here, but I have no desire to own a 1DIII or 1DIV. (Well, not much :) )

The only thing that is frustrating is that Nikon has proved one can make an inexpensive full frame camera without some of the 5DII shortcomings. (At least, I've never heard anyone say anything bad about the D700, maybe if I read Nikon user groups I would [:)]).

Yes, the 5DII has pattern noise. Yes, its af is not as good as the 1DIII or the D700. Yes, video has some quirks. Yes, etc. But I believe there are plenty of people out there who are happy with their 5DII's and would not trade it for a D700, let alone any non-full frame body out there.

It just comes down to knowing what you want, I suppose.
01-09-2010, 01:13 PM
Keith B

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Elberson

I know I'm probably being silly, but being someone who is currently saving upfor a 5D Mark II, your comments make me nervous [img]/emoticons/emotion-18.gif[/img]

Just to provide an alternate point of view, Mark, I own a 5DII and have been very satisfied with it. My previous camera was a 1DIIN and for me, the advantages of full frame far outweigh the advantages of 1 ness. Of course the 1DIII was a major step up from the 1DIIN so I'm not comparing oranges to oranges here, but I have no desire to own a 1DIII or 1DIV. (Well, not much :) )

The only thing that is frustrating is that Nikon has proved one can make an inexpensive full frame camera without some of the 5DII shortcomings. (At least, I've never heard anyone say anything bad about the D700, maybe if I read Nikon user groups I would [img]/emoticons/emotion-1.gif[/img]).

Yes, the 5DII has pattern noise. Yes, its af is not as good as the 1DIII or the D700. Yes, video has some quirks. Yes, etc. But I believe there are plenty of people out there who are happy with their 5DII's and would not trade it for a D700, let alone any non-full frame body out there.

It just comes down to knowing what you want, I suppose.

Yeah I'm feeling a little bad about slamming the 5DmkII before. Like I said I was just steaming because I had just recently noticed the banding issues on the 5DII's images. That isn't bad to be unhappy with just a few shots after 1 year and 30,000 shots.The camera is awesome for about 90% of what I shoot.

I've never heard anything good or bad about the D700. I think Nikon owners are so overwhelmed to have full frame they are in a reality distortion field. Where as Canon users, we used to the company being at the forefront, and we tend to be more critical of the little things.
01-09-2010, 09:12 PM
Mark Elberson

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

Thanks Jon and Keith for helping to set my mind at ease!
01-09-2010, 09:34 PM
Keith B

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

I don't know if this means anything for you but, I just got my 35 1.4 the other day and just shot some random low, low light shots with it today. I'm not a technical guy but I swear the outer focus points (which aren't even 2.8 sensors) function a hundred times better on the 1.4 than on my 2.8 lenses.
01-10-2010, 12:11 PM
DrPete

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

OK, I'll add myself to the list of hand-wringers...

I'm looking at the 24-70 and 24-105 as a replacement for my 28-135 IS. One of the reasons I'm looking is just for better IQ in general, but specifically for a good lens for indoor shooting, events, etc.Right now I'm learning the challenges of photographing my daughter, a fast moving toddler, primarily indoors.

Intuitively, it would seem that the 24-70 wins with the extra stop of aperture, but I've found that in available-light conditions I still need to crank up the ISO at f/2.8, which gives me results I'm not all that happy with in terms of noise, color definition, etc. It's also a very heavy lens.

The 24-105 is lighter, has more reach (something I like for candids/portraits and the outdoor action), has IS, and overall seems to have equivalent image quality. The only downside I can see is that I'll be using my Speedlite 430EX II more often with the 24-105, but maybe that's not such a horrible thing anyway. The IS is also a plus because it would likely yield a better image in the hands of my not-so-photographically-inclined wife and other family members.

So despite the fact that I'd love to have the extra f-stop for low light, I find myself being drawn to the 24-105.

I'm guessing the replies will be split down the middle, as is this poll and every other discussion, but I figured what the hey--we'll see what you guys think. :)
01-10-2010, 12:14 PM
DrPete

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

I should add I'm using a Rebel T1i, and have been spending quite a bit of time in the 100mm range with my 28-135 on that body...