I figured I'd post a topic here
So... I'm buying a 5DII in the next few weeks.
I have a 70-200 2.8 IS... so I'm wondering, grab the 24-70 2.8L or go for the 24-105 4L IS!?
Seems like this is always a hard one to decide and everyone either loves or hates either... anyone own them both? Used both of them? Etc.
I'll be using the 24-?? for mainly walk around, candids and some landscapes possibly...
Or should I forget them both and go 16-35 on the FF body!?Decisions!
Well, you get a discount on the 24-105 when you get it with the 5D, right? That did it for me
True, but right now, the 24-70 is only $1350Cdn! [:O]
No question...the 24-105 gives you a lot of flexibility as a general walk around lens. If you happen to be somewhere and need a little more speed, with the 5D II, you just have to raise the ISO and even at 3200, there is not much noise.
Take a look at Bryan's ISO 12233 charts for these two lenses. The 24-105 stands out as the better lens.
Yes, the 24-70 is faster, but unless you're going to walk around in the dark, the 24-105 is much more flexible/useful.
Originally Posted by Alan
Actually, if I wanted to take a picture in the dark (without a tripod), I would prefer the 24-105. I consider it the more flexible lens, no doubt. Not as good for some things, but more flexible.
Actually, if I wanted to take a picture in the dark (without a tripod), I would prefer the 24-105. I consider it the more flexible lens, no doubt. Not as good for some things, but more flexible.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>
Jon, you're right. I was trying to be a little facetious with the "walking around in the dark," but tone/inflection never seems to translate in type. []
I'm with you on this one, too. The IS definitely gives an advantage, especially in low light. Lighter lens, too, so easier to hold. Plus, that extra reach is a real advantage.
With a tripod, I still prefer the 24-105, due to its clarity.
My concern is that the 24-105 is supposedly soft and not so good wide open... I'm honestly on the fence, also thinking that the 16-35 might be an option and picking up a 50 1.4 to fill the gap, since my 70-200 will do the rest
Plus if I get the 24-105 I feel there's a lot of overlap.. decisions, decisions!
I don't see that. At f/4 the 24-70 has less aberration than the 24-105. Maybe you forgot to select f/4?
On full frame it is plenty sharp wide open, IMHO. Keep in mind that many people use it on a crop (APS-C) camera, that results in a much softer image than FF.
A very difficult one. I spent a lot of time debating the same question.
I've had the 5DII for about 6 months now and the 24-70 for nearly a year, and on FF it's often not long enough. I do sometimes find myself swapping to the 70-200 for just that extra bit of reach, and on one or two occasions I've wanted to be able to zoom between 50 and 100mm easily. In these situations it's a hard choice between risking ending up with the wrong lens on or being caught mid-change.
That said, I daresay I'd miss the wide aperture of my lens if I'd gone for the 24-105. I asked lots of people the same question on several different forums and the concensus seemed to be that the 24-70 was better - someone made the interesting point that many who have the 24-105 wish they have the 24-70 but few who have the 24-70 wish they chose the 24-105. Whether or not that's true I'm not sure but it matched what I've read on various forums.
I think that if you intend on shooting even slow moving objects - ie people - in poor light without flash then go for the 70. If you think that anything you'd be shooting without flash will be stationary (so you can let the IS do the work) then go for the 105.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote