I do think that theIQ difference between24-105mm and 24-70mm is more significant than these posts suggest. Check outthe 24-105mm, http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/eos5dm2/downloads/2_landscape.jpg. I don't have a comparison, but I think this helps to put into perspective what you are seeing in ISO 112233 charts.
Also check out the difference between the 24-105mm at 105mm VS the 70-200mm at 100mm.
Not saying the 24-105mm is bad, just the24-70mm isbetter.
The two lenses look pretty close to me here. They both are excellent lenses. You can not go wrong which ever one you choose.
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.24.67/Untitled_2D00_1.jpg[/img]
Mark
Mark
I'd definitely go with the 24-70mm L before the 24-105mm L. I'd get(already ordered) a 50mm 1.4, and(I have) 85mm 1.2L MKii. Getting the 70-200mm 2.8mml IS USM is more than the icing on the cake. Having said all of that, it depends on your budget and what you'll use the lenses for. If you're anything like me, you'll find a reason to have more lenses than one may think you need, and you'll buy them all!! I am super new to photography, and I am having a blast!! Prime lenses are attracting me the most. I like moving in and out on a subject. I think the zooms at this point compliment the primes. Again, I am totally new, and I may find myself saying later on that primes compliment the zooms! I am learning that whatever lenses I buy, there will be good and bad. If you don't have a lens in your kit that offsets the bad of one particular lens, maybe you will learn a trick or two with that particular lens to get the image you wantIf not, there's always CS4!! Haven't gone there yet! I'm still in the camera!
Good luck!
It is a tough choice, but I voted for the 24-105 in the end because as much as I am hooked on Canon 2.8's I find myself more addicted to Canon IS. With the exception of my kids sports, I find the IS saves more photos for me than the 2.8. The obvious lament is for Canon to make a 24-105L 2.8 IS, that would be the choice for me and many more, judging by the forums.
As it now stands, however, I agree with Jon, get the 5D with the 24-105 kit and save a little. That is my plan down the road when I add to my 50D.[
Originally Posted by clemmb
These are not a fair comparison, the 24-105mm is at f/4 while the 24-70mm is at f/2.8. You should compare them both at f/4.
Check out these ISO 112233 charts http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp= 0&Lens=101&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI =0&API=2&LensComp=355The biggest difference between the 24-105mm VS 24-70mm is at 24mm, that is the biggest stickler for me personally.
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.
That's the thing, I tend to shoot people more than objects
But I'm leaning heavily towards the 24-70 as you say, because I'm used to 2.8 or even 1.8 with my Nifty Fifty when I had it (sold it with body, going to grab the 1.4 most likely) ... and I don't think IS is that important at the lower end, on the 70-200 ... IS is great because of the 200mm + the weight of it!
But we'll see.. I might even see how much it is to rent the 5DII with a few lens to see which I like of the lower end. Another possibility is still the 16-35 + 50 1.4 .. and then eventually pickup the 24-70. Just really tempting to pick them up now when the lens have a $150 rebate in Canada.
And it seems to be a very split debate.. I've read numerous threads on POTN and same thing always seems to happen a good 50/50 split of people who love one or the other.
The only true thing that would be beneficial is the cost savings of ~$500 on the kit lens.. the 16-35 is ~$200 more than the 24-70. Darn these expensive purchases!
I have. One may say it is not a fair comparison to have one stopped down. Here it is.
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.24.67/Untitled_2D00_1.jpg[/img]
I have. It looks to me like the 24-105 is sharper in the center and the 24-70 is sharper at the edges. Both are so close that when an image is elarged and hung on the wall you probably could not tell the difference. Either lens is a great choice.
Mark
Mark
If I had only one lens, this would be the one.
-Bryan
I looked at both when getting my 50D, i had to get the 24-105, simply being the longer focal length!
It always works perfect for indoor photogrpahy, i use mine for weddings all the time, works a treat! (My mate also uses the same lens for weddings as a full time wedding photographer).
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote