Canon General Zoom Lens

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by apthai86, Oct 18, 2008.

  1. apthai86 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2008
    #1
    I'm deciding between the 24-70mm f/2.8 or the 24-105mm IS f/4.

    I've been doing a lot of research and know the pros and cons of each. The general consensus is that the 24-70mm f/2.8 is better for indoor and the 24-105mm IS f/4 is better for outdoors.

    If I was to use the 24-105mm IS f/4 with an external flash indoors will that be sufficient? or will the 24-70mm f/2.8 still be better?

    I would just get the 24-70mm f/2.8 but I really want the extra focal length and IS.
     
  2. lag1090 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2007
    Location:
    NJ
    #2
    Unless you really need the extra stop of light, I'd go with the 24-105mm. Since it covers all the focal lengths the 24-70mm does, you won't be losing out on much.

    I own a 28-135mm 3.5-5.6 IS that works well for most applications. It's nowhere near the experience either of the lenses you mentioned would offer. I personally don't see much of an improvement with IS, and it can certainly be annoying at times.

    Hope that helps you with your dilemma.
     
  3. Ambrose Chapel macrumors 65816

    Ambrose Chapel

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    #3
    I went through the same choice as you and went w/ the 24-105. I wanted it as a walkaround lens and the extra length was more important to me. For indoor shooting I use usually use a prime (35mm/1.4L).
     
  4. FX120 macrumors 65816

    FX120

    Joined:
    May 18, 2007
    #4
    The 24-70 is what I bought, but you can't really go wrong either way.

    With the 24-105 you might be a full stop slower, but you're gaining IS which can in some cases compensate.
     
  5. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #5
    If you're doing portraits you'd better have the 105mm. If you're using flash the low f-stop doesn't matter that much.
     
  6. PCMacUser macrumors 68000

    PCMacUser

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2005
    #6
    I have the 24-70mm, and it's fantastic. I also have the 70-200mm F4.0L, so the 24-70mm made sense to complete the range.

    On my 40D, the 24mm is not actually all that wide. It's the equivalent of a 38mm because of the 1.6x crop factor. However, once it's on my EOS 1V, it's really wide.
     
  7. Ryox macrumors 6502a

    Ryox

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2007
    Location:
    UK
    #7
    The 24-70 would be my pick + I own it.
    Its sharper, controls CA and distortion better at both ends.
    The Optical performance is superior and its a stop faster.

    On the down side its bigger+heavier, Its more expensive, it has shorter focal length, and lacks IS.
     
  8. localghost macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2002
    #8
    what ambrose chapel said - i own both, and for me it's the perfect combination.

    but there is a reason the 24-70 is THE standard pj lens (I use it at work).

    my advice would be to use a 50 1.8 (or something like that) for one evening at f/4, one evening at f/2.8 and another evening at f/1.8 to see what difference one stop makes to you. depends on your camera body, too.

    theoretically the 24-70 should also focus better in low light, but i have to say that my 24-105 is indeed my most reliably focusing lens, even more than the 35 f/1.4. it is a bit soft above 70mm though, so a properly framed iso 3200 picture at 100mm makes less difference to a cropped 70mm picture at 1600 iso than you might expect.

    At equal apertures and focal length, the f/4 is the definitely the sharpest lens, while the other two are _about_ the same.

    The bokeh of the 24-105 is quite bad, especially with foliage in the background (colors are great though), the 24-70 is decent, but a different universe compared to the 35 f/1.4.

    The 24-70 is a lot heavier, a bit to heavy as a general walkaround for me. if canon ever makes a 24-70 2.8 _IS_, i’d think about it, still not sure if I would change.
     
  9. OreoCookie macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2001
    Location:
    Sendai, Japan
    #9
    Either of these lenses are only general zoom lenses, if you have a full-frame body. On crop bodies, neither is a general zoom lens, they are tele zoom lenses. If you want a general zoom lens, have a look at the various lenses in the 17-55 mm zoom range or Canon's new 18-200 zoom.
     
  10. Edge100 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    May 14, 2002
    Location:
    Where am I???
    #10
    I agree. On a crop body, you might consider something like the 17-40 f/4L, which is the equivalent of 27-64, which is a much better walkaround length than the 38-112 equivalent of the 24-70 or the 38-168 equivalent of the 24-105.

    The 17-40 is also cheaper than either of the two lenses you mention, and while it lacks IS, I find IS to be relatively unnecessary on these focal lengths for most things (at least compared to longer lenses, where IS becomes a bigger concern).
     

Share This Page