I have the Canon 28-135 IS and was thinking of selling it and getting the 24-105. I'd like to see a comparison of the two lenses (24-105 vs 24-70) having shot the exact thing on the same camera body and the same exposure. That's the only way to get a real test. Now, if the 24-105 was a f.2.8...
rjeyre wrote:
Wow, GREAT shot, RGS65. That shot alone may convince me to go with the 24-70.
Thanks man. I like it a lot. I wanted the 105 for the length, but I really prefer f 2.8. I decided long ago I would not again buy a lens slower than 2.8 if I had the option. Anyway, the 24-70L is a great lens. I think I could do with less on my XT, but I am buying lenses for my NEXT body, not this one.
W9JIM wrote:
I have the Canon 28-135 IS and was thinking of selling it and getting the 24-105. I'd like to see a comparison of the two lenses (24-105 vs 24-70) having shot the exact thing on the same camera body and the same exposure. That's the only way to get a real test. Now, if the 24-105 was a f.2.8...
There are threads on this from about a month back - rather heated at times - like the current 85 debate boiling over as I type.....
There seems to be 105 lovers detractors. Those, like me, who don't particularly like slow lenses, and have no working need for IS, don't see the attraction for the price. I am an f stop over IS guy everytime, so no use trying to convince me. I can't see paying all the $ for IS. I will pay it for the extra stop. I think IS is cool and interesting, but primarily a marketing gimick to overprice lenses.
It's not a gimmick on long lenses - no question that it has revolutionized the usabiility of long lenses. Ask any nature photographer.
I just purchased the 24-105 and should get it tomorrow. I would venture a guess that IS will be invaluable on this lens for landscape shooters - where an extra stop is a waste.
Depends on what you use it for whether the stop or IS is better.
As the 24-70 has been around since Nov 2002 and the new boy 24-105 was out only for a few months (got mine in Oct 2005), I cannot expect there are as many samples from the new zoom as the older lens. I don't have the 24-70L and my 28-70L definitely does not perform as well as my 24-105. But with tiny web images posted, I don't really expect anyone can judge the image quality but have a feel for what are the lenses used for.
I have been out only a few time briefly with the 24-105 and I am really happy with the results. Hope the new replacement I have is as good as the one I sent back for exchange. Here are a few of my 24-105 samples:
The above shots are not intended to demonstrate the image quality of the 24-105 lens, which is almost as good as any lens I have at my favorite shooting aperture, but to show the type of shots my lens has been used for.
RGS65 wrote:
There are threads on this from about a month back - rather heated at times - like the current 85 debate boiling over as I type.....
There seems to be 105 lovers detractors. Those, like me, who don't particularly like slow lenses, and have no working need for IS, don't see the attraction for the price. I am an f stop over IS guy everytime, so no use trying to convince me. I can't see paying all the $ for IS. I will pay it for the extra stop. I think IS is cool and interesting, but primarily a marketing gimick to overprice lenses....Show more →
Do you understand the need at times for stopping down a lens even in low light?. Do you shoot everything at f2.8 or less? What do you do when you need more DOF in low light? Have you ever shot a telephoto longer then the 70-200 you rented? Try handholding a 400 at slower shutter speeds, heck try handholding at 1/8th @ 24mm and see if you can get anything usable.
Unless you're shooting portraits or sports (where bokeh is critical) in such low light that you're already maxing the ISO I don't buy the argument that an f4 lens is that much of a detriment. Everything you've posted so far I could easily duplicate with my 5D - 24/105 even from a background blur standpoint because the FF sensor provides shallower DOF at any comparable aperture over the 1.6X sensor in your XT.
I would agree though that IS is a waste if all you ever do is shoot off a tripod (but there aren't many who will claim that.)
rd4tile wrote:
Notice most of the 24-70 examples posted so far are portraits and the 24-105's are primarily landscapes.
Horses for courses!
Well IS has its uses but fast moving subjects isn't one of them.
I think my comment would be they are both very. very fine lenses designed for slighly different purposes.
The 24-70L (which I adore) is effectively as good as a series of prime lenses from about 5.6 down and is on my camera most of my pro life
The 24-105 (which I have never used) is a very high quality general purpose lens with the added benefit of IS
My personal opinon is that the 24-105 is rather overpriced at present in comparison, but that may be because I want one and cant justify the expense as I already have the 24-70
I feel the 24-105 is still overpriced....if it dropped to around 950-1000 tops, it'd be a better value in my opinion. The 24-70 could use some more range, but the aperture is what attracted me to it.
I do shoot wide open with many of my lenses, especially the 200mm 1.8L - where I do need a shallow DoF. I've had a 300 4L IS, and IS can be helpful, but more often than not the lens was too slow for what I wanted and needed so I ended up getting a 300 2.8L instead.
Each lens does have it's own specific purpose, which does vary a bit. If I didn't have a 24-70 2.8L, and I was looking to buy a new lens 24-telephoto range, i'd still pick the 24-70 personally. Offer me a 24-105 2.8L IS, and sell it for less than $1600, and I'll sell my 24-70.
Everyone complains of size....my 200 1.8L is huge...a 70-200 2.8L (w/ or w/o IS) is not huge. If you want low light use and IS and the range, you're gonna need to settle. It's not gonna be on lesser image quality, so i'll live with weight.
Plus, a 24-70 2.8 is only like 2.1 pounds, I can't see the 24-105 2.8L IS being more than 3...3.5 pounds...not the end of the world...my 200 1.8L weighs in at 6.7 pounds.
malice4you wrote:
Everyone complains of size....my 200 1.8L is huge...a 70-200 2.8L (w/ or w/o IS) is not huge. If you want low light use and IS and the range, you're gonna need to settle. It's not gonna be on lesser image quality, so i'll live with weight.
Plus, a 24-70 2.8 is only like 2.1 pounds, I can't see the 24-105 2.8L IS being more than 3...3.5 pounds...not the end of the world...my 200 1.8L weighs in at 6.7 pounds.
Personally I don't care about size, I'm used to 5x4 monorail cameras so all 35mm kit is small to me.
The whole point of the 24-105 f4 is that it is a smallish 'walkaround' lens which a 2.8 version wouldn't be.
"5D - 24/105 even from a background blur standpoint because the FF sensor provides shallower DOF at any comparable aperture over the 1.6X sensor in your XT."
Rich - Not sure that I understand your comment, the lens characteristics do not change, all that is happening is that the field of view is being cropped?
An 18mm wide angle lens at F8 gives exactly the same depth of field as a 500mm telephoto lens at F8. It is a myth that wide angle lenses give greater depth of field as compared here
rd4tile wrote:
Notice most of the 24-70 examples posted so far are portraits and the 24-105's are primarily landscapes.
Horses for courses!
I rarely use my 24-70 for portraits because I don't do many. The shots posted were grabs during Christmas events this year and used only because I am continually impressed by the hair detail that the 24-70 is capable of resolving. Below are a couple of landscapes taken with the 24-70.
On IS... IMO, the IS on the 24-105 is a Godsend. I understand the arguements of those who question its value so maybe it is just one of those things you have to experience. My biggest bitch about the 24-70 is that handheld once I drop below 1/100 sec I know I am losing image quality because of camera shake and thus move to a tripod. This is both good (in most cases as it slows me down in addition to adding stability) and impossible (sometimes a tripod is just totally impractical.)
Being able to shoot at F11 in fading light because you have IS is just as valuable to some as being able to shoot at 2.8. Depends on whether you need to stop motion or gain additional DOF. I find myself in the latter situation far more more often than the former because of what I shoot but obviously, this is a very personal decision that is totally dependent on subject matter and style.
SCOR wrote:
It's not a gimmick on long lenses - no question that it has revolutionized the usabiility of long lenses. Ask any nature photographer.
I just purchased the 24-105 and should get it tomorrow. I would venture a guess that IS will be invaluable on this lens for landscape shooters - where an extra stop is a waste.
Depends on what you use it for whether the stop or IS is better.
IS is no gimmick.
True.......only if you do not have a tripod or refuse to use one. I just think it is overpriced/overvalued personally. Curious how much of the 24-105 price you think is the IS value? Isn't/shouldn't this lens really be a $800 lens? Is IS worth $400+ ?
Brambling wrote:
Rich - Not sure that I understand your comment, the lens characteristics do not change, all that is happening is that the field of view is being cropped?
Sorry you're right, what I should have said is that with a FF sensor I have more ability to control background blur.
"What About Digital?
A common complaint about digital cameras is that when using one it's not possible to get nice out-of-focus backgrounds. Why therefore do digital cameras have greater Depth of Field? The reason for this is that the imaging chips on most consumer digitals is very small, around the size of ones smallest finger nail. This means that a normal lens for a format that small is as short as 15mm. A 15mm lens at f/5.6 has Depth Of Field from about 2.5 feet to infinity. Not too much opportunity for selective focus, is there?
This is one of the unspoken drawbacks of low-end digital cameras. Only expensive SLRs like the Nikon D1x, Canon 1D and their ilk have chips close to the size of a 35mm frame, and therefore offer enough DOF to allow creative control over out-of-focus backgrounds."
Gorgeous examples, Henry and Zane in particular, fantastic portraits.