Canon 24-70/2.8L & 24-105/4L IS, which one would you prefer?

[Bob]

Ben,





WIDE angles distort, but with Canon's DPP software the distorton is remove quite well. Try it.


Bob

[Bob]

Colin,





My point also, The photo of your dog required at least 6" of focus (DOF). Most photos need at least this much, so awould have to shoot at f8 to f11 to get your dogs ears in focus.





Bob

[Colin]

I must admit, that at 24mm, f/4, the 24-105 barrel distortion and vignetting is pretty extreme. When i first did so on a full frame body, I was a bit pissed with the light fall off. The barrel distortion is most noticed if you've got straight lines in the picture. Otherwise, it isn't that obvious to me.





Anybody got an example of the 24-70 set at 24mm at f 2.8 and/or at f/4?

[Benjamin]

Anybody got an example of the 24-70 set at 24mm at f 2.8 and/or at f/4?
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

Crap! The only full frame I shoot now is film, and when it comes to film I lose track of all shooting data... I barely remember any valuable shots I've ever made is with the 24-70 set to 24mm f2.8 or f4. Will go for digital when FF digital SLRs come to match film in every possible way. Possibly soon.


But I've had some good time with both lens on FF film, from the view finder at least the distortion of the 24-105L is quite significant. That's only from what I have seen though, haven't been bothered to shoot film shots for evaluation...

[Bob]

Colin,


<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black; font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif';"]The Geometric Distortion is about .75% at 24 mm for the 24-70 and about 1.5% for the 24-105. You should view the results after using Canon's DPP lens correctionbefore you make a final judgment.<o></o>


<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black; font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif';"]The Pincushion / Barrel crossover is about 40mm for the 24-70- and about 35mm for the 24-105. <o></o>


<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black; font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif';"]Bob<o></o>

[Keith B]

"Keith: The 24-70L is sold $10 more expensive than the 24-105L in Canada... If there is a greater price difference I think the choice between these two will become less confusing."





If a new IS version of the 24-70 comes out expect to be at least $600 more than the original too.

[MVers]

"Keith: The 24-70L is sold $10 more expensive than the 24-105L in Canada... If there is a greater price difference I think the choice between these two will become less confusing."





If a new IS version of the 24-70 comes out expect to be at least $600 more than the original too.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Well worth it IMO. In fact, Im banking on it...it's the reason I do not already own a 24-70.

[MVers]

Benjamin,
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small; font-family: Calibri;"]I have used both lenses on a FF body.<span> The problem with fast lenses (1.2 to 2.8) is their depth of field is less and their corner to corner sharpness, on FF bodies, is not razor sharp until they are stopped down.<span> Therefore, you will be shooting at f4 to f5.6 anyway on the 24 &ndash;70 if you require razor sharp images corner to corner. This is true for 24 mm and 70mm, whereas, the lens is very sharp wide open corner to corner at 35mm and 50mm.
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small; font-family: Calibri;"]Since newer digital camera bodies have lower noise at higher ISO settings, let your body provide you with faster shutter speeds.<span> The final choice is what kind of photography do you do - hi speed action requiring &gt;1/2000 shutter speeds or landscapes?<span>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small; font-family: Calibri;"]<span>I own the 24 105 and use it 80% of the time and the IS is a big deal for razor sharp images.
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small; font-family: Calibri;"]
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small; font-family: Calibri;"]Bob
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

I found the 24-70 (and all of my 1.4-2.8 lenses) very acceptable using wide open. They are not as sharp as when stopped down a few stops, but plenty sharp. Saying that he will need to use the 24-70 stopped down past f/4 is crazy talk. As for the high ISO thing--yea, you can bump the ISO--but keep in mind when you do so your losing quality and that ISO only takes you so far. If you're using a 40D you can shoot a moving subject at ISO800 instead of ISO1600, and god forbid matters got worse ISO1600 instead of ISO3200. The same even applies to the 5D, 5DII and the 1DsIII. Like IS, ISO is no substitution for a wider aperture.


To the OP, why not buy/rent the 24-105 and shoot with it along side your 24-70 that way you get a good idea of what each one offers pertaining to your shooting style.

[Benjamin]

Well worth it IMO. In fact, Im banking on it...it's the reason I do not already own a 24-70.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

The IS 24-70Lwill totally beworth it! I'll make the moveimmidiately if this comes true.


On the other hand, I'm really not very confidentabout ifthe 24-70L is going to be replaced with IS version fairly soon or not. Nowadays Nikon &amp; Sony both have excellent 24-70/2.8 lens but both w/oVR or anything similar, in this case Canon's not pushed that much. Second, the IS issure to add weight and size more or less, would Canon really do this to an already very fat lens, I don't know how those experts will think. So my point is, it makes sense for Canon (actually a lot sense) to introduce an IS 24-70L; but it is also seems to be not that urgent if they just leavethe current 24-70Lfor some years. So I will not bet on that.


I can't read Canon's mind, but I will enjoy my 24-70L[] Happy shooting!


Ben

[Keith B]

"Keith: The 24-70L is sold $10 more expensive than the 24-105L in Canada... If there is a greater price difference I think the choice between these two will become less confusing."





If a new IS version of the 24-70 comes out expect to be at least $600 more than the original too.

Well worth it IMO. In fact, Im banking on it...it's the reason I do not already own a 24-70.

Not questioning the value just wasn't sure I understood Benjamin's point.


I wouldn't be surprised if Canon didn't add IS to that model. That range is already pretty hand holdable at some slow shutter speeds and with the sensitivity of sensors these days they may not see it necessary.