Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Canon gear head? Interested in a review of the 24-70 f/2.8L II vs 24-105 f/4L IS?

ChrisA said:
If you never open the f/2.8 lens up past f/4 then there is no difference. I think the major different is the f/2.8 maximum f-stop.

I know, you say what is just one stop? Answer: It means you can shoot is 1/2 the ISO, or with a shutter that is twice as fast or with DOF greatly reduced. If you never do any of this then don't send the $$$$ on an f/2.8 zoom.

It seems that maybe you don't need an f/2.8 zoom and are happy at f/4. You are lucky and can save some money. Maybe use the saving to by lighting equipment or whatever.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I use to think f2.8 was great, but now I think it's a bit too much compromise. You don't get great blurry backgrounds to make your subject pop (if that's what you're going for) nor can you get a full scene in focus in low light (if that's what's needed). So as I said in post #14, it's a bit of a no-man's-land aperture. I find myself either wanting something in the f1.4-f2 range or f8-f11 range. That's why, in my case, the combo of a slow zoom and fast primes seems ideal over a modestly fast zoom.

EDIT: and if your only lens happens to be the 24-70II or the 24-105 and you want to try and take a portrait with blurry background, your best bet is to stand back, zoom in to the full telephoto end and use the widest aperture... f2.8 @ 70mm or f4 @ 105mm and as it turns out, the DOF in both situations is about the same. You can see how this looks in the test on POTN as well. In this case, the added reach of the 24-105 can offset the slower aperture.
 
Last edited:
Sorry about getting in late on this. I have the 24-105 as my main walk around lens and I will use it at 105 zoomed out at f/4 for some bokeh. As for the 24-70 being faster at f/2.8 in lower light, with the newer DLSRs, in my case a 5D mark III, I just boost the ISO, so that is a non-issue. The big differences for me and the 3 reasons why I am not looking to upgrade to the 27-70 are: a) all of my filters 77mm, the 24-70 is 82mm; that means either new filters or a step up ring. For me it's not worth it. b) price, I recently bought a used 70-200 f/2.8L II IS USM in pristine condition and I use that if I really want a good bokeh head shot or portrait photo, and c) I like the extra reach of 35mm as a walk around lens. The 24-70 is bigger and heavier, I believe. Anyway, that's my 2c. Looking at your test, Virtual, has me feeling very good about keeping the 24-105 and reinforces my happiness with the lens.
 
I pair my 24-70 II with my EOS-1Dc and the quality of it totally blows me away. It's so sharp, almost like a prime lens. It's a huge step up compared to the 24-70 first generation.

The 24-105 is more useful in some situations though where the extra reach is needed.

Meanwhile, the Sigma 24-105 is also a super good lens too. This Sigma was designed to be more of a Carl Zeiss than a Canon L lens.

http://www.canonrumors.com/reviews/review-sigma-24-105mm-f4-os/
 
yjchua95 said:
I pair my 24-70 II with my EOS-1Dc and the quality of it totally blows me away. It's so sharp, almost like a prime lens. It's a huge step up compared to the 24-70 first generation.

The 24-105 is more useful in some situations though where the extra reach is needed.

Meanwhile, the Sigma 24-105 is also a super good lens too. This Sigma was designed to be more of a Carl Zeiss than a Canon L lens.

http://www.canonrumors.com/reviews/review-sigma-24-105mm-f4-os/
Click to expand...

im still torn between the 35mm 1,4 L Canon and the 24-70mm 2.8 L II. Do you yourself have a preference?
 
KimJonNumberUn said:
im still torn between the 35mm 1,4 L Canon and the 24-70mm 2.8 L II. Do you yourself have a preference?
Click to expand...

Without any doubt, the 24-70 f/2.8L II USM.

However, I've heard around the Canon Rumors forums saying that Canon could come out with a monster 24-70 f/2.8L IS II USM variant soon. Currently, the IS variant of the 24-70 lens only exists in the f/4L form.

If Canon came out with the IS version of the 2.8L II, the price tag is going to be well beyond US$3000.
 
yjchua95 said:
Without any doubt, the 24-70 f/2.8L II USM.

However, I've heard around the Canon Rumors forums saying that Canon could come out with a monster 24-70 f/2.8L IS II USM variant soon. Currently, the IS variant of the 24-70 lens only exists in the f/4L form.

If Canon came out with the IS version of the 2.8L II, the price tag is going to be well beyond US$3000.
Click to expand...

any partiuclar reason u side witht he 24-70 over the prime?
 
The main reason the 35 1.4 is only 'as good' as other lenses is that the other lenses are much newer. The 35 is 90s tech, long in the tooth. When the replacement (35/1.2 II ?) hits, things will be more proportional to price and features.
 
ElectronGuru said:
The main reason the 35 1.4 is only 'as good' as other lenses is that the other lenses are much newer. The 35 is 90s tech, long in the tooth. When the replacement (35/1.2 II ?) hits, things will be more proportional to price and features.
Click to expand...

ive read it was releassed in 1998, and hasnt changed mainly cause its "that good".

would u urself pick it up over hte 24-70mm 2.8 II?
 
fcortese said:
Sorry about getting in late on this. I have the 24-105 as my main walk around lens and I will use it at 105 zoomed out at f/4 for some bokeh. As for the 24-70 being faster at f/2.8 in lower light, with the newer DLSRs, in my case a 5D mark III, I just boost the ISO, so that is a non-issue. The big differences for me and the 3 reasons why I am not looking to upgrade to the 27-70 are: a) all of my filters 77mm, the 24-70 is 82mm; that means either new filters or a step up ring. For me it's not worth it. b) price, I recently bought a used 70-200 f/2.8L II IS USM in pristine condition and I use that if I really want a good bokeh head shot or portrait photo, and c) I like the extra reach of 35mm as a walk around lens. The 24-70 is bigger and heavier, I believe. Anyway, that's my 2c. Looking at your test, Virtual, has me feeling very good about keeping the 24-105 and reinforces my happiness with the lens.
Click to expand...

Good reasoning. For the types of shooting I do with the 24-105 at f4 I don't even need to boost ISO to compensate in low light... That's where IS saves the day.

----------
yjchua95 said:
Without any doubt, the 24-70 f/2.8L II USM.

However, I've heard around the Canon Rumors forums saying that Canon could come out with a monster 24-70 f/2.8L IS II USM variant soon. Currently, the IS variant of the 24-70 lens only exists in the f/4L form.

If Canon came out with the IS version of the 2.8L II, the price tag is going to be well beyond US$3000.
Click to expand...

I hang out at CR as well, and I wish you were right, but I don't think an IS variant of the 24-70 f/2.8 is much more than wishful thinking, never mind coming soon. But you're certainly right about the likely price point if it ever did materialize.
 
VirtualRain said:
That would be great. Of course, I have no idea if I was testing a bad copy or not... so it would definitely help to see some similar testing from other like lenses.
Click to expand...

Here are samples from my lenses, not a very scientific handheld test both at 35mm f4

Unprocessed RAWs
24-70 mk 2
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6574169/24 70 mk2-1.cr2

24 105
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6574169/24 105-1.cr2

If you look at the red square at the far left on the snow speeder you can see a big difference, although as noted above this is by no means a scientific test..although I suppose it may show some real world differences

EDIT
added a couple of shots f2.8 70 bokeh vs 105 f4 bokeh. Again hand held not very scientific test but to me the 2.8 bokeh is better

24 70mk2 bokeh
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6574169/24 70 mk2-1 copy.cr2

24 105 bokeh
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6574169/24 105-1 copy.cr2
 
Last edited:
Have 24-104 for 5D3 walk around as it has IS feature. If I wanted a 24-70, I would get a Tamron with VC and save a lot of money.
 
TheDrift- said:
Here are samples from my lenses, not a very scientific handheld test both at 35mm f4

Unprocessed RAWs
24-70 mk 2
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6574169/24 70 mk2-1.cr2

24 105
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6574169/24 105-1.cr2

If you look at the red square at the far left on the snow speeder you can see a big difference, although as noted above this is by no means a scientific test..although I suppose it may show some real world differences

EDIT
added a couple of shots f2.8 70 bokeh vs 105 f4 bokeh. Again hand held not very scientific test but to me the 2.8 bokeh is better

24 70mk2 bokeh
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6574169/24 70 mk2-1 copy.cr2

24 105 bokeh
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6574169/24 105-1 copy.cr2
Click to expand...

do u use a 35mm 1.4 L ?
 
KimJonNumberUn said:
sincea 35mm 1.4L would act as 56mm on a crop sensor , do you or could you use your sigma 50 for portraits/group shots from your experience?
Click to expand...

Depends on how close you want to stand to your subjects, for me at say 2.5/3 m then a 50 is about a 3/4 shot.

I tend to use the 50 1.4 in very bad light when I need all the light I can get

That said a 50 is one of the most versatile focal length and many people swear by their 50 YMMV
 
Last edited:
TheDrift- said:
Here are samples from my lenses, not a very scientific handheld test both at 35mm f4

Unprocessed RAWs
24-70 mk 2
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6574169/24 70 mk2-1.cr2

24 105
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6574169/24 105-1.cr2

If you look at the red square at the far left on the snow speeder you can see a big difference, although as noted above this is by no means a scientific test..although I suppose it may show some real world differences
Click to expand...

Thanks. You can definitely see the difference there. Now the only question left lingering in my mind, is whether I had a bad 24-70 or a super sharp 24-105 (or a bit of both). If you look at the images in my review, based on your experience, what do you think?

I guess I need to give another copy of the 24-70 a go at some point.
 
VirtualRain said:
Thanks. You can definitely see the difference there. Now the only question left lingering in my mind, is whether I had a bad 24-70 or a super sharp 24-105 (or a bit of both). If you look at the images in my review, based on your experience, what do you think?

I guess I need to give another copy of the 24-70 a go at some point.
Click to expand...

If its just for sharpness, then I suspect you will never notice the difference in most real world cases.

The extra stop (for me Indoor photography in natural light, where all the IS in the world won't make a subject move slower) and the bokeh are better reasons to look to upgrade IMO.

As a side note I think lens rentals had some good articles on sample variance AKA (good copy bad copy)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back