17-55 ef-s + 24-105, or 24-70 2.8?

Printable View

03-01-2013, 09:27 PM
gbc

17-55 ef-s + 24-105, or 24-70 2.8?

Looking for opinions- Currently have a 7D with the 17-55 2.8 EF-S lens, which I love. Didn't think I'd upgrade to full frame anytime soon, but the 6D is looking good, particularly for its low-light capabilities. I shoot mainly low light situations like concerts. So 2.8 is really about the slowest I can use for a lot of shows.
It seems a no-brainer to get the 6D bundled with the 24-105. Trying to decide if I should keep both lenses, and carry two bodies at shows, with fast primes on the 6D and the 17-55 on the 7D. OR sell both and buy the 24-70 2.8 (original). I think the 2.8 might be more important than IS. Anyone of experience with all these lenses?
Thanks!
03-01-2013, 09:36 PM
ahab1372

there have been similar threads here about this question. The overall answer is that the 6D with the 24-105 will still give you better IQ in low light than the 7D with the 17-55 because the larger sensor more than compensates for the one stop you loose in max aperture, so there is no reason to keep the 7D/17-55mm combo for low light.
2.8 on FF will of course be even better for low light, and fast primes even better than that.
03-01-2013, 10:26 PM
neuroanatomist

17-55 ef-s + 24-105, or 24-70 2.8?

6D with an f/4 lens will beat a 7D with an f/2.8 lens for low-light performance.
03-02-2013, 06:56 PM
gbc

OK, thanks guys! Just needed a little positive reinforcement to make me feel better about spending the dough...
03-03-2013, 12:05 AM
HDNitehawk

Experience with all of them yes.

This would be my suggestion.

Buy the 6D, if you want to get the 24-105 package cheap do it, then sell the 24-105. I have seen them going for about $825.
Sell your 7D and your 17-55mm. Take all that money and buy the 24-70mm f/2.8 II. After a month with this kit you will never doubt your decision.

F/2.8 on a crop body has a much wider DOF. You will notice the increased performance and abilities you will have with the full frame camera over the 7d. Keeping the 17-55mm because it can go to f/2.8 on a crop body when you own a FF, doesn't make sense.

There are a few reasons to keep the 7D if you go full frame 6D. The reasons would be back up body and if you need a sports camera with the illusion of extra reach.

As a backup body it will probably collect dust once you get the 6D and the 24-70mm II.

Stay away from the 24-70mm original, there are better lenses.
03-03-2013, 02:41 AM
EricPvpi

6D with 24-105 is currently $2,399.00 on B&H when you add it to your cart.
03-03-2013, 05:01 AM
UmiKaibutsu

Ryther Camera has the 5D MK III for $2,199.00, you could just about get a f1.8 50mm, add some tax and walk away for the same amount. That's grey market though. I wonder if maybe they'll be in stock depending on how many high markup accessories you insinuate you would be purchasing, at least I read that this is the scenario in some grey market stores who profit little to nothing on the grey market items. Couldn't hurt to have grey market because you'll insure it anyway. I read somewhere that Canon will service it if you show a purchase slip regardless. Put Magic Lantern on it, what could go wrong?
03-03-2013, 08:01 PM
gbc

@HDNitehawk- Thanks for the advice. Seriously considering getting the 24-105 and selling it along with the 17-55. Plan on keeping my 7D, both to have a backup body, and for the extra reach for wildlife and other far-away shots. Or would a cropped full-frame shot at 300mm still be better than a 7D/300mm shot?
03-03-2013, 09:47 PM
neuroanatomist

17-55 ef-s + 24-105, or 24-70 2.8?

Quote:

Originally Posted by gbc

Plan on keeping my 7D, both to have a backup body, and for the extra reach for wildlife and other far-away shots. Or would a cropped full-frame shot at 300mm still be better than a 7D/300mm shot?

A 6D shot cropped to the APS-C FoV will have equivalent IQ to the upcropped 7D at low ISO (less that ~800), and better IQ at higher ISOs. So, assuming 7.8 MP is enough (prints up to 16x24"), there's no advantage to the 7D from an IQ standpoint.

However, the AF of the 7D is better for moving subjects. If you were getting a 5DIII, I'd say the only use for the 7D would be as a backup (I'm not even sure I'll keep my 7D, after getting the 1D X I haven't even used it for anything but some test shots). But with the 6D, the 7D is going to be better for moving subjects, and I think better AF will trump IQ in that scenario, at least up to about ISO 3200 - above that, the 7D IQ is not really usable, IMO, and if the 6D's AF can't keep up you'll have hit the limit which only the 5DIII or 1D X would let you overcome.
03-04-2013, 12:04 AM
HDNitehawk

Quote:

Originally Posted by gbc

@HDNitehawk- Thanks for the advice. Seriously considering getting the 24-105 and selling it along with the 17-55. Plan on keeping my 7D, both to have a backup body, and for the extra reach for wildlife and other far-away shots. Or would a cropped full-frame shot at 300mm still be better than a 7D/300mm shot?

It is the AF on the 7D for action shots that you will miss the most. You say wildlife, if you are talking stationary deer or sitting birds you would not miss the 7D as much with the 6D when you crop. If you are talking birds in flight then the 7D would be the choice to keep. Neuro's description is accurate of what to expect with the IQ on the long end.

My philosophy is this, I would rather have the best of the best that I can afford for my favorite type of photography. Make do with that gear for the rest. I would give up the back up or a bit of reach to have the best gear for my favorite type of shooting.
03-04-2013, 11:33 AM
Kayaker72

I am actually working on deciding if it is worth keeping my 7D after upgrading to FF (5DIII) as well. I had planned on selling the 7D, but, at least for now, I am keeping the 7D. If what happened to Neuro happens to me, namely that the 7D isn't used, then it will be sold in a couple of months. The issue is that I often crop the images I take with the 7D. So, while all the above is true if you crop the 6D down to the 7D FoV, I will likely be cropping well beyond the 7D FoV for subjects, usually birds, but sometimes other subjects.

I posted the comparison of the 5DIII with the 100-400 L @ 400 mm with and without the 1.4 TC here. I took the same shots at the same time with the 7D. These shots were ~1:1 of the 5DIII image, so the 7D has some extra pixels. The 5DIII definitely was a "cleaner" image at even moderate ISO (400/800), as mentioned, but there is more detail to the shots I took with the 7D at ISO 100. Two quick examples (manual focus with live view; increased sharpening in post):
Tree at ~100 ft/30 m:
5DIII:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8251/8...e3cae19e_b.jpg
5DIII LR4 900 600-0092-2 by kayaker72, on Flickr

7D:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8387/8...5d5627e7_b.jpg
7D LR4 900 600-2203 by kayaker72, on Flickr

Tree at ~150 ft/45m:
5DIII:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8229/8...d66870ce_b.jpg
5DIII LR4 900 600-0097 by kayaker72, on Flickr

7D:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8368/8...d77fd381_b.jpg
7D LR4 900 600-2200 by kayaker72, on Flickr

First, let me say that I think the 5DIII is remarkably close to the 7D in this pixel peeping test. So there is definitely something to the pixel quality vs pixel quantity argument. The images are close enough, and this is an extreme enough crop, that the difference may not be noticeable in real world use. But, as there is more detail to the 7D shots and I am often cropping shots taken from my 7D, I decided to hold onto the 7D and let the real test will be when I am out shooting wildlife.

BTW, I am very impressed by the 5DIII thus far. Most of my shots are around the house (low light/high ISO). But it gets focus in low light where the 7D would just hunt and the noise performance is great.

Also, just to show how extreme of a crop this is, below is a similar full size image of the first (100 ft) tree (crop taken out of the center).
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8099/8...e8a6723c_b.jpg
5DIII 900 600-0091 by kayaker72, on Flickr
03-04-2013, 11:53 AM
Kayaker72

Quote:

Originally Posted by gbc

Looking for opinions- Currently have a 7D with the 17-55 2.8 EF-S lens, which I love. Didn't think I'd upgrade to full frame anytime soon, but the 6D is looking good, particularly for its low-light capabilities. I shoot mainly low light situations like concerts. So 2.8 is really about the slowest I can use for a lot of shows.
It seems a no-brainer to get the 6D bundled with the 24-105. Trying to decide if I should keep both lenses, and carry two bodies at shows, with fast primes on the 6D and the 17-55 on the 7D. OR sell both and buy the 24-70 2.8 (original). I think the 2.8 might be more important than IS. Anyone of experience with all these lenses?
Thanks!

More of a direct response to the original post, the focusing in low light of the 5DIII is much better than the 7D. Really, it is often the difference of getting focus in low light versus not getting focus in low light. And the 6D is supposed to be even better than the 5DIII in low light focusing (EV -3 sensitive vs EV -2 at the center point). Popular photography timed the 5DIII AF at EV -2 at 1.15 secs. I saw that the 6D review is on newstands, but it isn't online yet.

I have noticed better low light focusing on my 5DIII with the 50 f/1.4 compared to the 24-105 f/4. I assume this is because it activates the f/2.8 senstive AF points (I haven't checked the lists yet). So, if you already have the fast primes, I might go with that. Otherwise, I would probably be selling both lenses and getting f/2.8 (or better) glass on the 6D for your low light situations.

ISO performance will be the other thing that really impresses you. There is a thread over at CR posting high ISO photos taken with the 5DIII. If you believe DXO, the 6D should even be a bit better. From what I've seen, there is a 2-3 stop improvement over the 7D. I can clean up ISO 6400 images and I am beginning to think I can use ISO 12,800 images.
03-04-2013, 10:33 PM
gbc

Thanks for the comparison shots. I'm definitely going to hang onto the 7D at least for a while for comparison. I also crop my 300mm shots quite a bit, especially birds in flight, and far away concert shots. So I'll be interested to see how they compare to the 6D shots.
03-05-2013, 01:57 AM
thekingb

17-55 ef-s + 24-105, or 24-70 2.8?

I recently upgraded to a 6D and have the 24-105 mounted. I am blown away by what I can capture in low light with an f/4 lens compared to the 7D. It's like I skipped many generations of technology.

But I am definitely keeping the 7D for now for those situations where I need AI servo mode. The 7D is still better in that department. It's also a bit more rugged.
03-05-2013, 02:02 AM
DavidEccleston

Thanks for the mentions of AI servo on the 6D. I was hoping I could sell everything and get a 6D, but it looks like I'll have to wait for the 5DmkIII to have a massive price drop.
03-05-2013, 02:25 PM
gbc

Is AI Servo mode that much worse on the 6D than the 7D? I'd say at least half my photography is concert shots, where there's usually low light or strobes or other quick and extreme lighting changes, and where the subjects tend to move around unpredictably. So the low-light capabilities are the main appeal of the 6D, but if the AF isn't great, especially at the non-center points, I'm starting to think I may be better off sticking with the 7D and waiting for a price drop on the 5D3. Though that leaves me without a general purpose zoom lens.
03-05-2013, 04:51 PM
neuroanatomist

AI Servo attempts to predictively track subject movement. That is facilitated by having more AF points and/or more densely-packed AF points. The 5DIII/1D X are much better in that regard than the 6D, and the 7D is better as well.
03-05-2013, 05:31 PM
Kayaker72

The current deal on a refurbished 5DIII is among the best I have seens since the 5DIII was released:

http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs....mc_id=C126149
04-07-2013, 02:12 AM
gbc

OK, finally got the 5DMIII. Now looking for the general purpose lens. As mentioned before, was using the 17-55 2.8 on the 7d. Considering the 24-105 now. I've read on a few forums that the f4 on the 5DMIII will be better or just as good in low light as the f2.8 on the crop sensor. Is this true? I'm pretty happy with the low light performance I've been getting with the 17-55/7D combo, so if I can get something close to that with the 24-100 without having to splurge for the 24-70 II (or the Tamron 24-70), I'd be satisfied with that.
Though I WILL be selling the 7D and 17-55...
04-07-2013, 10:50 AM
Busted Knuckles

Quote:

Originally Posted by gbc

OK, finally got the 5DMIII. Now looking for the general purpose lens. As mentioned before, was using the 17-55 2.8 on the 7d. Considering the 24-105 now. I've read on a few forums that the f4 on the 5DMIII will be better or just as good in low light as the f2.8 on the crop sensor. Is this true? I'm pretty happy with the low light performance I've been getting with the 17-55/7D combo, so if I can get something close to that with the 24-100 without having to splurge for the 24-70 II (or the Tamron 24-70), I'd be satisfied with that.
Though I WILL be selling the 7D and 17-55...

I have the 24-105 on the 5dIII and am generally pleased... but.... I picked up the 40 2.8 pancake and it really points out how soft the corners of the 24-105 actually are.

I am toying with the idea of the 24-70 2.8 or perhaps going to primes - w/ the low light performance of the 5dIII it is an interesting question.
04-07-2013, 11:54 AM
Kayaker72

Ok, first we have to consider where you are going and where you have been. I've recently gone from 7D with the EFS 15-85, which is very similar in terms of sharpness to the 17-55. On a FF, I am seeing more detail with the 24-105. I haven't looked at the corners in painful detail yet, but in general, when I look at 1:1 ratio on the screen, there is a modest, but noticable, improvement. Please note, I still consider the 7D with the 15-85 to be excellent. Both are extremely capable. But I would expect you to see an improvement with the 24-105 on the 5DIII compared to the 17-55 on the 7D as well. So, coming from where you were, yes, I would expect an improvement.

However, as Busted notes, I've heard others comment that the corners are "soft" on the 24-105. Which to me just means that there is room for improvement on the 24-105 on a FF body. Unfortunately, if you are to follow TDP recommendations, there is only 1 zoom lens, the 24-70 f/2.8 II that is "overall" better than the 24-105. I've seen enough reviews to also think that the 24-70 f/4 IS is likely a little sharper, especially at the extremes (softer in the middle focal ranges), but it is also significantly more expensive.

....the next option is primes. So, you can enter the classic primes vs zooms debate.

Myself, I went with the 24-105 and am happy. Honestly, there are times when I miss the 15-85 mm. IS on the 15-85 is noticably better (4 stop IS on the 15-85 vs 3 stop on the 24-105) and I do notice the equivalent 31 mm lost on the long end. But the 24-105 on a 5DIII is still a great combo. But the best zoom, based on everything I've read, Bryan's recommendations, etc, for a Canon FF camera is the 24-70 f/2.8 II, if you can afford it.
04-07-2013, 11:56 AM
neuroanatomist

17-55 ef-s + 24-105, or 24-70 2.8?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busted Knuckles

I am toying with the idea of the 24-70 2.8 or perhaps going to primes - w/ the low light performance of the 5dIII it is an interesting question.

I find f/2.8 is often sufficient in 'low' light. I reach for a fast prime when I want thinner DoF.
04-07-2013, 03:43 PM
Busted Knuckles

Quote:

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

I find f/2.8 is often sufficient in 'low' light. I reach for a fast prime when I want thinner DoF.

Right tool for the right task - struggled w/ the post as the options are pretty expansive... and expensive. Canon has done a good job of providing options, layer in 3rd Party options and it gets confusing.

I had pre-ordered the 24-70 2.8 II and got tired of waiting & picked up the 24-105. Given the quality of the 2.8 I think I should have waited, maybe, sort of. I have the middle covered w/ the nifty fifty for speed, so the 24 end is missing the speed - yet $1750 seems a lot for that segment. Seems that for the step up in $$$ flexibility of the 24-70 and loss of 2 stops & IS might, again might be the right thing.

If I hadn't been just six lousy numbers off from the lottery this wouldn't be an issue :)
04-07-2013, 03:44 PM
Busted Knuckles

Quote:

Originally Posted by jrw

The 24-105 remains a very good all-purpose lens and when I head out with 1 lens it is my travel companion. The barrel distortion on the wide end is something I notice more than the corners. The corner softness is usually only noticeable at wider apertures not when stopped down which leads me to think that you might benefit more from a wider aperture lens with a shorter zoom range or a selection of primes. Myself, I went for older MF primes as they work very well for what I am shooting on the wide end which is mostly landscapes. Benefits to me are that they are inexpensive, smaller, and lighter than current AF primes or zooms. May or may not work for your situation though zone focusing is still an option for action shots if you aren't comfortable with rapid fire MF adjustments.

If you mostly use the long end of the 24-105 for action then a 70-200 along with wide primes may prove to be a superior kit for you. It really comes down to how you use the different focal lengths available from the 24-105.

+1
04-07-2013, 04:21 PM
HDNitehawk

Quote:

Originally Posted by gbc

I've read on a few forums that the f4 on the 5DMIII will be better or just as good in low light as the f2.8 on the crop sensor. Is this true? I'm pretty happy with the low light performance I've been getting with the 17-55/7D combo, so if I can get something close to that with the 24-100 without having to splurge for the 24-70 II (or the Tamron 24-70), I'd be satisfied with that.

Yes, close and it is your cheapest option.

Your best IQ will be from the L primes, if you know what length and only need one length it would be a cheaper option than the 24-70mm f/2.8 II. I was never happy with the IQ out of either the 24-105 or the 24-70 I so for years I covered the range with several primes. I now own the 24-70 F/2.8 L II and use it as my carry around lens. I still favor the L primes when I have specific tasks.
04-07-2013, 04:32 PM
gbc

Thanks for the input. I'm already preparing myself mentally for having to rationalize buying the 24-70II. Just seems far and away to be better than any other options. Especially since low light capability is the biggest priority for me. Second on the priority list is convenience, and not having to switch between primes while in the middle of a shoot would be a great help.
Anyone have experience with the Tamron 24-70 with VC? I think that's my second option right now.
04-08-2013, 03:23 PM
Kayaker72

I don't have any hands on experience with the Tamron....but as some people don't see the TDP's news:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/N...aspx?News=4569

Also, I've found this to be useful:

https://www.thecamerastore.com/blog/...70-vc-shootout

My take, if you can get a good copy, it is a very nice lens, more than most of us need. But I'd be pretty concerned about getting a good copy and have a detailed testing plan if I were to buy one.