Dear Friends
Its my first post, also I am aware that there r hundreds of same thread everywhere. Let me specify my self, My question is, in these two, which one has the better IQ and Sharpness. At which F vales, each lens is at its best
Printable View
Dear Friends
Its my first post, also I am aware that there r hundreds of same thread everywhere. Let me specify my self, My question is, in these two, which one has the better IQ and Sharpness. At which F vales, each lens is at its best
what do you photograph?Quote:
Originally Posted by renjith
It depends on your needs: indoor, outdoor. FullFrame or APS-C camera sensor?
For FullFrame camera sensor (if you have 5D, 1Ds...)
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff...0f28ff?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff...5_4_5d?start=1
For the APS-C sensor (for example 600D, 60D, 7D...)
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/18...review?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/18...review?start=1
Looking at charts in photozone.de looks like 24-70 has less distortion especially at 24 mm. But look yourself and read reviews :)
Hi, I own the 24-105 and like it a lot. I do have other lenses where I avoid the largest aperture, but that's not an issue with this lens. In high contrast scenes it can show quite some chromatic aberration, and there’s also significant barrel distortion at the wide end. However, the RAW-conversion software corrects for these flaws basically without effort.
If you look really close, the 24-105 is a little less sharp at the long end (like many zooms), but still quite sharp. Basically you don’t have to bother about sharpness with this lens - it’s sharp at all apertures and focal lengths. The flaws I see are the ones already mentioned.
If you are interested in "sharpness as a function of aperture and focal length", I really recommend the test graphs at slrgear.com - they describe the details better than I can do.
I never tried the 24-70, but I have a friend who owned it and was equally happy with it as I am with my 24-105. I’ve got the impression that they both have really good IQ and that IQ is not the differentiator between them. Instead it’s the obvious difference in their specs: The 24-70 opens up to f/2.8 while the 24-105 only goes to f/4 but has some more reach and excellent IS. What you prefer is up to you.
Thanks Guys
Photography is my passion, Will try to use my gears when ever its possible. Unfortunately, i am not getting enough time for my passion as i used to busy my work.
I am having Canon 40D+ EF 24-70 + EF 70-200 F2.8 IS
Very happy with my gear, But recently i had debt with my friend who has 24-105 on a 7D. That made me to ask the question here.
I do like to take photos of people, event..... U name it!!
I would have suggested the NEW 24-70 but it is 2300 bucks and STILL lacks IS.
I prefer the 24-105. Not giving up much in sharpness overall and a lot less moolah!
Read Bryan's reviews on both lenses on this site. He pretty much breaks it down.
I have never shot with a 24-70, but I do have the 24-105 and I use it a lot. The only problem is the CA (magenta fringe)... it is pretty noticable, but luckly the lens correction in software covers it up pretty good. Basically, I really like it and it is usually what is on my camera.
Of them both, I prefer the 24-70, for entirely subjective reasons. I like the background blur, that's pretty much the only difference between them that's important to me. It does seem that the 24-70 has more CA for things outside the focal plain, which I don't know if that's considered a flaw or not, and may even contribute to the subjective character that I like, but I live with it. I don't know anything about the new 24-70 mentioned. For that kind of money, you'd hope it'd be completely spectacular. Man, all my lenses seem to be moving into 'old'. First it was the 16-35, then the 70-200, now the 24-70. Pretty soon the primes will be discontinued too! Oh well. I don't like them any less.
I vote 24 -70. The nice one..
I have the 24-105 but don't seem to get the fringing other folks have mentioned. In really high contrast situations and shooting wide open, I sometimes get a bit (I've noticed it along the horizon in some of my sunset pics), but compared to the killer CA my 85mm f1.8 or the 50mm f1.4, the fringing on the 24-105 is negligible. And any that's there does go away easily in post (unlike the 85/1.8).
The IS on the 24-105 makes this lens invaluable. I often shoot several stops below 1/FL.
Have the 24-105. It is a favourite of mine. Find it very well suited to outdoor shooting which has been the bulk of my shooting to date. Having said that, I am seriously considering switching to the new 24-70 for the wider aperture. Am starting to do more indoor shots lately and am finding that I can have issues with subject motion blurring shots or high ISO noise issues. The extra stop should make the difference for me, barely, and the extra background blurring capabiity will just be a bonus. Just waiting to see reviews on the new 24-70 before deciding on it or a couple of primes instead.
My 24-70 is at home on my film body more than my digital and since I shoot XP2 C-41 quite a bit I rely on being able to get open a stop wider for optimal contrast. I know this from experience with my 70-200 f/4L. On a crop the 24-70 is the perfect walk around for me, 38mm being the long edge of semi-wide and 112 being a great head and shoulders focal length. I just don't get those who think a wide angle is needed on a walkaround. But we all have different needs and FL's, so it's what works for me. Plus, I got a sharp copy ;)