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

[MVers]

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.

Not neccessarily. Current IS systems are very light, as are lens barrel materials--not to mention new lens designs and special elements. With the introduction of Sony/Ziess and Nikon 24-70 variants (possibly even Sigma's new 24-70HSM--which is very small) I believe they may have lit a small flame beneath Canon's a**. The lens is most deffinitely due for an update and I honestly believe it will happen soon *crosses fingers*. We shall see.

[Benjamin]

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.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

Just some clarification. I shoot my 24-70L wide open mostly for portraiture. I found it to have massive resolution in the central area, but what's on the corner I don't really care since portraiture I shoot normally doesn't require corner sharpness (usually blurred background at corners). Regarding the ISO, I do believe that technology will eventually bringing us noise-free or at least close to noise-free images at high ISO. But on the contrary, I thinkimporved ISOshould help us to say goodbye to IS not the f2.8! IS does nothing but help to stable the image, once this goal is acheived through other method (i.g. high quality image @ high ISO), there'slittle value for IS anymore. On the other hand, the f2.8 will always helpwith background blur, vignette, and so on and so on...


I do stop down this lens when I'm working with great DOP or landscape. These two lens become very similar optically after stopped down, but the distortion produced by 24-105L won't go away untill you open PS on your computer later on...


Same here, we shall wait for the IS! Even possibly an extended range too. Maybe a 24-85/2.8L IS?? Since the 17-55/2.8 on 1.6x body translates to 24-85mm on FF. I do feel 70mm to be a little bit short for this lens. 85mm will be perfect!

[Oren]

17-55 on 1.6 body is not equal to 24-85 on FF. Do the math again.

[Benjamin]

17-55 on 1.6 body is not equal to 24-85 on FF. Do the math again.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

K, it's 27.2 - 88mm. But I think they're gonna start from 24mm no matter what. Just wish if they can end the range at 85mm that's all. The 24-70L replacement may not even happen very soon, take the 24-85/2.8L IS as a joke...

[Keith B]

Wow you guys really take the fun out of life.





Anyone ever heard of gray area, personal preference, individual needs. Opinions. Any of that.





Let it go.

[SupraSonic]

What body are using at the moment?


My experience 24-105L is the best lens OUTDOOR. But indoor is NOTanadvantage due to its extended barrel and F4.But if you want to be versatile i would go for 24-70L 2.8 if you have the extra$$$.

[Tony Printezis]

the IS issure to add weight and size more or less

The two 70-200 f4s (non-IS and IS) are identical in size and the IS is only 55g heavier...


Tony

[Ken Schwarz]

I think you summed up the tradeoffs well. With the new high-ISO sensors, an f/4 lens seems to be OK for general purpose shots, even indoors. I worried about the sheer size and weight of the 24-70/2.8, since the mid-zoom is my principal lens for travel. I like shooting at f/2 for shallow DoF, so I use primes if the f/4 lens isn't fast enough.

[Tony Printezis]

But on the contrary, I thinkimporved ISOshould help us to say goodbye to IS not the f2.8!

In all honesty, I highly doubt this. Even with better ISO performance, photographers will always want to push the limits on how little light they would like to shoot in. And IS will always help them push the limits. Also remember that the longer the focal length the more important (and desirable) IS is.


BTW, is this our most heated thread to-date? :-)


Tony

[Tony Printezis]

But indoor is NOTanadvantage due to its extended barrel and F4.

Eh? Doesn't the barrel of the 24-70 extened? In fact, (extended or not) the 24-70 is I think longer than the 24-105...


Tony