I shoot a 1DmkII and will be getting either the 24-70L or 24-105L for my main
walk about lens.
Try to get some feel from others with either of these setups. I want the 24-105L for the IS and lighter weight. The difference between the 70 and 105 is not that important to me. I have a 70-200L IS, and it will be in my backpack if needed. I have read that the 24-105L
has more distortion than the 24-70L at wider angles. Is it really that noticable?
Also, with a 1D series camera, I know I will be getting both horizontal and vertical focusing points with the 24-70L because of the f/2.8 max aperture. This will give more accurate focusing than the 24-105L which is f/4.0
If you do a lot of indoor shots, like weddings or functions, then IS can't make up for the extra 1.2 stops on 24-70, no matter what anyone says. If your mostly outdoors, then the extra 35mm focal length will serve you better and the f4 should suffice on 24-105.
Had both lenses and decided to keep the 24-70. The 24-105 has lots of desirable features but the 24-70 was just too much better to give up for the convenience. May try another copy at some point but wasn't that impressed for the price of the 24-105.
Hrow wrote:
The 24-105 has lots of desirable features but the 24-70 was just too much better to give up for the convenience.
I feel the same way after playing with it for a few days. I wish Canon would just updated the 24-70 and made it a 24-85mm f/2.8 IS. Had they done it though, it would have crashed the market of the 24-70 since most 24-70mm users would have switched. Not a smart marketing strategy on their part, so they came up with a 24-105 f/4.0 IS. Oh, well.
rsg_1 wrote:
...then IS can't make up for the extra 1.2 stops on 24-70,..
I assume that's the egg nog talking
The 24-105 is an f/4 lens and the 24-70 is a f/2.8. They are exactly "1.0" stop apart, so the 24-70 lets in exactly twice as much light at any given focal length.
Because we are talking about the area of a disc and the area does not scale linearly with diameter, full stops are at f/1.0 1.4 2.0 2.8 4 5.6 8 11 16 and 22
The 24-105 is an f/4 lens and the 24-70 is a f/2.8. They are exactly "1.0" stop apart, so the 24-70 lets in exactly twice as much light at any given focal length.
Actually not. Read the thread a few days ago re: the 24-105 here: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/329976#2802311 It actually performs more like an f 4-5.6 lens. Its light transmittance is lousy apparently according to that thread. Many folks tested and were losing a lot more than one stop.
Have both and love both for obvious reasons. On my 1DmkII, however, the 24-70L practically lives on it. It acually balances well on the 1-series. There is a noticable difference in weight. If I were going on a hike, the 24-70L would stay home. If I were on a paying gig, the 24-70L would be in the bag. I was going to replace the 24-70L with the 24-105L, but I simply can't. The difference between f/2.8 and f/4 may not seem like much, but in situations when the extra shutter speed means freezing necessary motion, the IS won't do it alone.
I bought the 24 - 70L f/2.8 just for that last part - - f/2.8!
I just don't see the logic of adding IS to a "slow" lens just so you can talk yourself into thinking you have a "fast" lens. If you do any available light photography at all, you will not regret going for the faster glass.
Bobster2 wrote:
You need to read the entire thread. It turned out to be a metering issue, not a lens problem.
I read the whole thread and I am not sure what you mean by a metering issue. If the camera/lens "metering issue" results in more than one stop slower who cares what is causing it? What am I missing? Enlighten me? I really want to understand this since I seriously considered the lens, but I really need the speed of the 2.8. If I can get a shot on my 24-70L at f2.8 at 1/60 sec, what will the 24-105L f4 give me? 1/30? 1/15? Wasn't the end result that some lenses were taking shots more than one stop slower?
I'm planning to get the 24-105, but I won't sell my 24-70.
Like others already said, the F2.8 can't be replaced by IS.
I'm going to use the 24-105 for travel, together with the 100-400.
RGS65 wrote:
I read the whole thread and I am not sure what you mean by a metering issue. If the camera/lens "metering issue" results in more than one stop slower who cares what is causing it? What am I missing? Enlighten me? I really want to understand this since I seriously considered the lens, but I really need the speed of the 2.8. If I can get a shot on my 24-70L at f2.8 at 1/60 sec, what will the 24-105L f4 give me? 1/30? 1/15? Wasn't the end result that some lenses were taking shots more than one stop slower?
I guess it would depend on whether you're completely trusting the meter or checking your exposures via the histogram/LCD image. Everyone of my lenses behaves a bit differently and you just learn whether to dial in a little compensation or not. In fact with one of my MF lenses I have to dial in a stop and a half of extra exposure at small apertures because it fools the metering that badly. I always found the Tamron 28-75 metered a little "brighter" then either the 24-70 or now the 24-105. End result if I didn't compensate shots tended to be a bit underexposed if left up to the camera. If you expose to the right as a matter of principle a lens that meters like the 24-105 could actually be doing you a favor.
I did my initial "testing" by putting the lenses on the camera and reading the meter. That was not a valid test. When I set the camera to manual mode and shot actual pictures with identical shutter speeds and apertures with different lenses, there was very little difference in the image histograms.
I believe the actual images tell the real story. For some reason, the meter needs to have different exposure compensation for different lenses.
rd4tile wrote:
I guess it would depend on whether you're completely trusting the meter or checking your exposures via the histogram/LCD image. Everyone of my lenses behaves a bit differently and you just learn whether to dial in a little compensation or not. In fact with one of my MF lenses I have to dial in a stop and a half of extra exposure at small apertures because it fools the metering that badly. I always found the Tamron 28-75 metered a little "brighter" then either the 24-70 or now the 24-105. End result if I didn't compensate shots tended to be a bit underexposed if left up to the camera. If you expose to the right as a matter of principle a lens that meters like the 24-105 could actually be doing you a favor. ...Show more →
Thank you Rich. Great explanation. So the fix is the learn what your lens needs and dial in as necessary? For example, I shoot available light and f 2.8 or lower a lot. I should see how my lens performs and keep a mental note in my head and dial in compensation accordingly as a general rule? I can't afford to check the histogram after every shot.
Rob
Bobster2 wrote:
I did my initial "testing" by putting the lenses on the camera and reading the meter. That was not a valid test. When I set the camera to manual mode and shot actual pictures with identical shutter speeds and apertures with different lenses, there was very little difference in the image histograms.
I believe the actual images tell the real story. For some reason, the meter needs to have different exposure compensation for different lenses.
Thank you again for the explanation. This is quite helpful. But I do not like not trusting my meter. I shoot on aperture priority a lot. What you are telling me is that the camera is shooting at a slower shutter speed than it needs to right? That on these particular lenses when my meter says I need 1/30th and I let it do that on AV mode, I may be able to actually get away with 1/60 if I do it manually? It seems I need to shoot more on manual to resolve this assuming I have a lens that fools the meter like this?
I'm just in the habit of taking a shot and looking at the histogram and usually bumping the EC a bit depending on what I see and then I just shoot away until the scene or lighting changes. Since I'm usually shooting RAW I don't stress too much over it though.
Two of the reasons I like the 24-105 so much is it reminds me of the 17-40 and 17-85 which were my favorite lenses on the 20D and with the high ISO performance of the 5D I find I'm just not needing f2.8 enough to worry about having it. I used to stress going over ISO800 on the 20D and now I'll dial up a 1000, 1250 or 1600 on the 5D without too much trepidation. Plus IS really helps for much of my shooting in this range. I know you're on the fence about the 24-105 and having the 24-70 just makes it tougher because you know you're not going to see any huge IQ improvement by switching. To be honest if the 24-105 didn't have IS I would tell you not to even bother with it.
As you can see in my sig, I have the 28-70 and the 24-105. Both are superb lenses and each has it's own niche. The 28-70 lives on my backup 300d and the 24-105 is my main 20D lens, along with my 70-300 and 10-20. If I were doing some low-light ambient shooting, I'd take the 28-70 along instead of the 24-105 and avoid caffeine for the day
