canon 24-70 2.8 or 24-105 f4

[britinozz]

I have just got the canon 5d mk 2 well hopefully Monday it will be here and own the canon 17-40 lens.
I am not weather to get the 24-70 2.8 or the 24-105 i know the the 2.8 is more expensive approx $300 ,i will use the 17-40 for landscapes and was thinking the 24-105 as my walk about lens but the 2.8 looks amazing what do you think?

[triptych]

I started a thread not long ago about this and most went for the 24-105 f4

[screamer]

Yep for a great walkabout lens the 24-105 F4 has my vote.

[rbat]

I used the 24-70 albiet for not a long time but was not that impressed to be honest. I would love to see more replies about the 24-105 as this also has IS.

[Xenedis]

I posted an in-depth comparison of these two lenses last August.

You might find it helpful in deciding.

Here it is:

http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...d-24-105-4L-IS

[KeeFy]

If you do a lot of low light shots. you need the 2.8. IS will not stop motion. If you don't need that extra stop of light... then go for the 24-105.

If you like/need subject isolation and typically don't have much space to work around. 24-70 f2.8. Actually if you really need subject isolation 50L 85L 35L. The 3 primes that's on my buy list in the next couple of years.

[Canon500D]

I am asking myself the exact same question. i'm about to purchase the 5dmrkii. and its like omg, hard to decide

[Doninoz]

Actually, why not go with the 50mm F1.8 (just over $100.00 or the F1.4 at about $450.00. For a full frame, it's a good all rounder. The for specialist work use your other lenses. For me personally, I use my 50mm F1.4 half of the time and my 70mm - 200mm F2.8 for the rest! If I could have only two lens, these would be my choice. The 50mm is great in low light and wide enough for me to get reasonable close. That's my opinion for what it's worth. Don

[KeeFy]

Actually, why not go with the 50mm F1.8 (just over $100.00 or the F1.4 at about $450.00. For a full frame, it's a good all rounder. The for specialist work use your other lenses. For me personally, I use my 50mm F1.4 half of the time and my 70mm - 200mm F2.8 for the rest! If I could have only two lens, these would be my choice. The 50mm is great in low light and wide enough for me to get reasonable close. That's my opinion for what it's worth. Don

That is a brilliant idea... but what happens when you're in a smallish room trying to take a group of people in rather low light? Just wondering since you use only the 50mm and the 70-200.

[Doninoz]

That is a brilliant idea... but what happens when you're in a smallish room trying to take a group of people in rather low light? Just wondering since you use only the 50mm and the 70-200.

I do have other lens...when I said 50/50, it was figuratively speaking. Actually, I have been known to use my older (but REAL goody) 24mm NIKKOR F2.8 lens with an adapter. Even though it is manual, I often prefer full control with manual anyway. I also bought a 35mm LEICA F1.0 lens off ebay for $80.00 and sometimes use that (also manual). Actually the older lens have better lens/glass than a lot of the newer ones anyway.

Also I have been caught in a small room with my 50mm and took several photos and stitched them together (well at most 3, anyway) so there is always more than one way to skin a cat.

I still say that if I could only have 2 lens they would be the 50mm F1.4 and the 70mm - 200mm F2.8.

[Doninoz]

Just as an aside on the 50mm F1.4, if you are thinking of this, the lens, although soft wide open, the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Lens is sharp at f/2 and very sharp when stopped down to f/2.8 or narrower.

Corners are soft until f/2 for 1.6x FOVCF bodies and f/2.8 on full frame bodies. Strong halation is present at f/1.4 (a soft, dreamy look) with some Chromatic Aberration.

Colors and contrast (after the halation diminishes at f/2 or so) are very nice. The 50 f/1.4's 8-blade aperture creates a good foreground/background blur quality.

Light fall-off is noticeable through f/2 on a Full Frame body, When mounted on a 1.6x FOVCF body, light fall-off is noticeable only through f/1.6 or so. My exposures with this lens run about 1/3 stop brighter than with most of my other lenses.

If you go for the 50mm F1.8, this lens delivers very good image sharpness - especially for the extremely low price. It is even slightly sharper than the f/1.2 from f/2.8 through f/8 or so. It is very light (4.6 oz/130g) and very small (2.7" x 1.6"/68.2mm x 41.0mm - WxL). Chromatic Aberration is minimal.

The downsides ... First, the 50mm f/1.8 lens feels like a toy (for the relative price, it is practically disposable). It has all-plastic construction including the lens mount (the optics are glass of course). A 5-blade aperture delivers a very harsh background blur You get hexagonal light subjects that are supposed to be round for instance) quality and flare is a problem for this lens. It delivers only adequate color compared to the two other 50s (the F1.2 and the F1.4).

AF is noisy and the MF ring is barely useable - there is no FTM and no distance window or markings. But, it is a very sharp lens for a price that is a small fraction of the cost of the 50 f/1.4.

But my choice is the 1.4...still a good price

[KeeFy]

I personally would not stitch a group photo. It's not easy to stitch a 3 shot group shot when people move so often. The slightest movement = failed stitch. You can't go back to that event again to take the same photo (unless you have a time travel machine... please let me know if anyone has one). Many ways to skin a cat.. why go through the hard way when you have the easy way? Why skin 3 cats and stitch them together to make 1 cat fur coat when you only need skin one?

I agree with manual focus... I'm currently shooting with flim (just started not too long ago) and all are shot in manual mode. In regards to them having better glass. I don't agree on that aspect. Unless you're using MF or FF film cameras, the 35mm lenses from the older times cannot resolve as well as the new glasses. The nikor Wide angle lenses are awesome. I love the quality of the 14-24 f2.8. For wide angles manual focus is easier than longer focal lengths anyway.. no real need for AF. Estimate the subject distance and set the hyperfocal length to your corresponding aperture.

Just as an aside on the 50mm F1.4, if you are thinking of this, the lens, although soft wide open, the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Lens is sharp at f/2 and very sharp when stopped down to f/2.8 or narrower.

Corners are soft until f/2 for 1.6x FOVCF bodies and f/2.8 on full frame bodies. Strong halation is present at f/1.4 (a soft, dreamy look) with some Chromatic Aberration.

Colors and contrast (after the halation diminishes at f/2 or so) are very nice. The 50 f/1.4's 8-blade aperture creates a good foreground/background blur quality.

Light fall-off is noticeable through f/2 on a Full Frame body, When mounted on a 1.6x FOVCF body, light fall-off is noticeable only through f/1.6 or so. My exposures with this lens run about 1/3 stop brighter than with most of my other lenses.

If you go for the 50mm F1.8, this lens delivers very good image sharpness - especially for the extremely low price. It is even slightly sharper than the f/1.2 from f/2.8 through f/8 or so. It is very light (4.6 oz/130g) and very small (2.7" x 1.6"/68.2mm x 41.0mm - WxL). Chromatic Aberration is minimal.

The downsides ... First, the 50mm f/1.8 lens feels like a toy (for the relative price, it is practically disposable). It has all-plastic construction including the lens mount (the optics are glass of course). A 5-blade aperture delivers a very harsh background blur You get hexagonal light subjects that are supposed to be round for instance) quality and flare is a problem for this lens. It delivers only adequate color compared to the two other 50s (the F1.2 and the F1.4).

AF is noisy and the MF ring is barely useable - there is no FTM and no distance window or markings. But, it is a very sharp lens for a price that is a small fraction of the cost of the 50 f/1.4.

But my choice is the 1.4...still a good price

I would skip the canon versions unless it's the 1.2 and go for the Sigma version. I've heard people complain about the AF but after comparison of the 50 1.4 both on a 5D mk2. It's pretty much the same to me and i'm used to switching to MF if it doesn't work.

1.2 is not sharp.. i agree.. but somehow with it just works more like a soft focus and makes the image a litle more dreamy wide open. Another reason why if i can afford the 0.95 (which is definitely not as "sharp" as a 1.2) it's just amazing in low light. If getting the 1.2 and wanting to use it wide open during the day time. A 6 or 10 stop filter is in order.

[Doninoz]

I personally would not stitch a group photo. It's not easy to stitch a 3 shot group shot when people move so often.

I have actually stitched photos of people but they weren't moving much...once at a wake in a lounge room and several photos at a corporate board meeting...worked fine and the customer was none the wiser...all taken manually so no change in white balance or exposure.