fredmiranda.com

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

2 end

Archive 2023 · Q: 24-70mm f/2.8 vs 24-105mm f/4

goyoneuff
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · Q: 24-70mm f/2.8 vs 24-105mm f/4

Good morning !

Please excuse any rookie mistakes I might make, but first time starting a thread here. Also, by no means I am a photographer, I am just an old man that like to take pics, and want to take pics again of his kids ! ;-)

I have been reading a lot and watching lots of videos regarding these two lenses. I am seeking for real life experiences with both of them so I can make a decision. Any pointers, real life experiences, and general comments about both lenses are greatly appreciated ! Or if you have other suggestions, by all means share your experience !

Thank you very much !!!!

Cheers,

G.

Decision:
*. Buy either the 24-70mm f/2.8 or the 24-105mm f4.
*. Sell the Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8.

Givens:
*. One camera body: Canon R6 II.
*. One lens.
*. No post processing (or 99% of the time, no post processing).
*. Not really "street/travel photography" as for that I either keep the smaller GX85 with one prime, or a Fuji X100V.
*. Minimize expenditure. I don't want to have lots of $$$ sitting around not being used for that just "one" occasion.

Tasks to cover:
*. Outside soccer games (son). - Good light.
*. Inside artistic roller skating (daughter) - Think ice skating figures, sans the ice. - OK-ish light, but inside.
*. Occasional events: graduations, family parties, beach visits, take 4-legged son Wally (GSP) to parks.

Background:
*. Used to have two Nikon bodies, two teles, two prime, back in the day like 20 years ago. Different reasons made me stop carrying all that and taking pics :-(
*. Few years after, decide do sell ALL, and got a M43 GX85 with the 12-32mm kit, a M.Zuiko 2-40mm f/2.8 PRO, a 20mm and 25mm primes.
*. I decided to get back into taking pictures, specially of my kids as explained in tasks to cover. Bought an R6 II and a 70-200mm f/2.8 Tele. ABSOLUTELY great lens for soccer games, the pictures are amazing... but it is big, heavy, and was pricey. I want to sell it (it is like new, used twice), recoup some money, and have just one lens.

Edited on May 12, 2023 at 11:20 AM · View previous versions

May 12, 2023 at 10:27 AM

artsupreme
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #2 · Q: 24-70mm f/2.8 vs 24-105mm f/4

May 12, 2023 at 10:46 AM

goyoneuff
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #3 · Q: 24-70mm f/2.8 vs 24-105mm f/4

Thank you !

Yes, as stated above, it is a f/2.8.

Thank you for the suggestion, but a 70-200mm f/4 won't cover the all other ocassions, a 28mm range would be covering that.

artsupreme wrote:
I was going to suggest the 70-200 before I read you already have one. Did you buy the 2.8 version? If yes, why don't you get the f/4 version? If that doesn't work, maybe you should try the 24-240 since you only want one lens.

May 12, 2023 at 11:08 AM

artsupreme
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #4 · Q: 24-70mm f/2.8 vs 24-105mm f/4

goyoneuff wrote:
Thank you !

Yes, as stated above, it is a f/2.8.

Thank you for the suggestion, but a 70-200mm f/4 won't cover the all other ocassions, a 28mm range would be covering that.

I think you made a typo, you said "Sell the RF 24-70"...I see no where you mentioned you bought a 70-200 f/2.8

Anyway, I own all of the above and both the RF 24-70 and RF 24-105 are vey boring lenses in my opinion. So if you are after a boring zoom you might as well get the 24-240 that covers a long range.

May 12, 2023 at 11:15 AM

goyoneuff
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #5 · Q: 24-70mm f/2.8 vs 24-105mm f/4

See @artsupreme, I knew I will make a mistake (s).

. Sorry, fixing it now.

Thank you for the comments ! What do you mean by "boring"? Thanks again !

May 12, 2023 at 11:19 AM

artsupreme
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #6 · Q: 24-70mm f/2.8 vs 24-105mm f/4

IMO, your RF 70-200 f/2.8 lens is not boring at all because you can open up the aperture and get great portraits of the kids. But I understand it's too heavy for you.

I'm more of a prime lens shooter at large apertures so I don't use my zooms often, but I do use my RF 70-200 f/2.8 without hesitation for portraits. With that said, you are wanting a versatile zoom for flexibility, so you don't have many options other than the two you mentioned and the less expensive 24-240. If you are going to be shooting in good light often, I would get the 24-240 due to its massive range. If you think you'll be shooting in low light often get the 24-70, but I wouldn't consider that a lightweight lens either.

May 12, 2023 at 11:28 AM

jedibrain
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #7 · Q: 24-70mm f/2.8 vs 24-105mm f/4

I think there is a sad reality that one lens cannot cover most events.

If you only want one lens, then the 24-105 is pretty versatile for many things. ISO performance of the R6II easily makes up for that one stop over the 24-70 2.8. Plus you get another 35mm of reach. You'll not get much usable from soccer with that lens unless the action comes right to you on the sidelines. Even less so as your kids get older. Mine is 14, and a 100-400 with 1.4x TC is what I use for those games. Sometimes I wish I had more, as I'm not always able to get set up in a good spot.

For indoor sports - you need to go as fast as possible. You'll lose a lot of shutter speed to freeze action even in well lit arenas. And I think you need reach as well depending on how close you can get. Your 70-200 2.8 is probably about perfect for this already.

For general indoor family photos, the 24-105 will be fine. Its the sports that's killing you.

The 24-240 is slow but for outdoors stuff it might be a great option.

I think you'll need to prioritize your desired targets, and get the one that manages the best compromise. The 24-240 can do outdoor sports at higher ISO, and the family events just fine. Bu I suspect may struggle for your daughter's indoor events. The 24-105 will be Good at family events and a tick better than the 24-105 indoors but with less reach. Too short for soccer. 24-70 2.8 would be better at events and indoors, but with less reach. The 70-200 2.8 is probably a bit close up for typical family event stuff, but best suited to the sports indoors and out.

What you need is the illusive 24-300 2.8 featherweight lens, which no one has yet invented!

Brian

May 12, 2023 at 11:35 AM

jedibrain
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #8 · Q: 24-70mm f/2.8 vs 24-105mm f/4

Here is another thought - what about using your Fuji for the family event stuff/wide angle, and getting a 135 f/2 EF with adapter for your sports life? Its fast, has the reach of the mid-range of your 70-200 but is much smaller and lighter. And very well priced on the used market.

-Brian

May 12, 2023 at 11:37 AM

EB-1
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #9 · Q: 24-70mm f/2.8 vs 24-105mm f/4

Either use an RF 24-105/4 and RF 70-200/4 or the RF 24-240. The latter might be good enough for your application and will cover a large range. The 24-240 only weighs 750g (26 oz.).

EBH

May 12, 2023 at 11:48 AM

AmbientMike
Offline
• • • • • •
[X]

p.1 #10 · Q: 24-70mm f/2.8 vs 24-105mm f/4

Someone rented rf 70-200/2.8 recently, I didn't find it big and heavy. Then again I've been using a big macro lens + accessories.

Shorter FL or slower than 2.8 probably isn't the direction to go. 70-200 probably too short for soccer if anything and I remember roller rinks being pretty dim. The 24-70 & 24-105 look very versatile but not for sports. 70 200 should be great for portraits. 24 240 sounds too short for soccer for the most part, and it wouldn't be my first choice for indoor sports due to the slow aperture

May 12, 2023 at 12:11 PM

gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #11 · Q: 24-70mm f/2.8 vs 24-105mm f/4

goyoneuff wrote:
Good morning !

Please excuse any rookie mistakes I might make, but first time starting a thread here. Also, by no means I am a photographer, I am just an old man that like to take pics, and want to take pics again of his kids ! ;-)

I have been reading a lot and watching lots of videos regarding these two lenses. I am seeking for real life experiences with both of them so I can make a decision. Any pointers, real life experiences, and general comments about both lenses are greatly appreciated ! Or if you have other suggestions, by...Show more →

For the stuff you mention, I think that the 24-105 might be ideal as a more general purpose "one lens on the camera" solution. This focal length range covers a lot of ground, and can be the only lens on your camera for a whole lot of general stuff. I once photographed with only a 24-105 for a week and a half or so in the Sierra backcountry and it worked pretty well � even though I usually would carry at least two additional lenses.

However, I think that you may still want a 70-200mm lens for some of the other things you mention. I think you may be a bit disappointed by the reach of 105mm for those soccer games. But maybe a lighter f/4 version could replace the large, heavy f/2.8 70-200?

I have one of the older 24-70mm f/2.8L lenses, and they are fine tools. But I think most general photographers would like the larger focal length range of the 24-105mm lenses and find them a bit more useful.

May 12, 2023 at 12:17 PM

bman212121
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #12 · Q: 24-70mm f/2.8 vs 24-105mm f/4

Not too much to add, but the 24 - 70 won't cover 2/3rds of your use cases, so I would not consider that an option. The 70 - 200 is already the best focal length option you can get for one lens to cover your use case scenarios. Because it's on full frame even small group shots of 4 or 5 people can be done at 70mm. The only thing the lens you have now cannot do is take a large group photos.

If it's weight and cost, as already stated the 70 - 200mm f4 would help in that regard. No it doesn't attempt to cover the wide angle, but it's not going to be as big of a compromise as the 24-240 will be to get that one use case.

The 24-105 f4 is an excellent all around lens, and will sort of work for what you're wanting provided you do a lot of cropping.

My personal take would be drop down to the 70-200 f4, and then just pair it with either the 24mm or 35mm prime. Yes it's two lenses, but you can still save several hundred dollars with the f4 and a 35mm 1.8 macro, and you can likely put that 35mm in your pocket. (it's about the same size as a 2x Teleconverter) The other option is only use the 70 - 200 F4 and then use one of your other bodies for those occasional wide angle needs.

I've not used the 24 - 240 10x style zoom so I cannot comment on it, but if you want absolute compromise to get the selected focal lengths into a single lens then it's likely the choice you have.

May 12, 2023 at 12:39 PM

goyoneuff
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #13 · Q: 24-70mm f/2.8 vs 24-105mm f/4

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR ALL YOUR COMMENTS !!! WOW !!!

May 12, 2023 at 01:38 PM

goyoneuff
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #14 · Q: 24-70mm f/2.8 vs 24-105mm f/4

@jedibrain Brian, thank you !

I was thinking about this too. I realized that there is one parent in the roller skating group that shoots in Canon, I think he has a D6. And, by looking at his pictures, I am 99.9 % sure it is using a 135mm f/2 (the bookeh gives them away). I am asking him right now, but I am almost sure that is what he uses.

What do you guys/gals think:

So, a f/2.0 is ideal for the roller skating rinks, but I am sure a f/2.8 would do fine, the question is if a f/4.0 with "better" body camera as the R6 II is vs. D6 at higher resolution and ISOs, would be enough to overcompensate for the f/4.0 vs the f/2.8 or f/2.0 in an EF 135mm, or a RF 70-200mm.

I have no idea, but are the EF/RF adapters good? Honestly don't know enough yet to say if an EF + adapter is as good as a proper RF; I am sure this has been discussed at length somewhere.

I don't see used EF 135mm lenses here right now, but MPB has them for about $450 or so.

Also, I guess keeping the 70-200mm f/2.8 and just adding another prime (not sure what would be the best option) is not a bad idea since the f/2.8 would make it enough for roller rink (that was my original thought and 1/2 the reasoning to buy it). It seems the 24-70mm would be too short in both cases anyways.

May 12, 2023 at 02:00 PM

marsguy
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #15 · Q: 24-70mm f/2.8 vs 24-105mm f/4

I can't add much over the great feedback in this thread already, but here are my thoughts:

* Use the X100V for close-in family shots with its 35mm FF equiv. FOV
* Keep the 70-200/2.8 for your longer distance use cases - it's already a little too short for soccer, but you'll want the extra stop of light over the f/4 when shooting at 1/1000s indoors at ISO6400 or 12800
* If you want a wide angle specifically on your R6II, perhaps the RF24/1.8
* If you truly wanted a single do-it-all lens, yes the 24-240 would be be the obvious pick, and would require less cropping for soccer, but if 105mm is enough reach given a somewhat deep crop, then the 24-105/4 would absolutely be my choice, for optical quality and constant aperture

May 12, 2023 at 02:23 PM

jedibrain
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #16 · Q: 24-70mm f/2.8 vs 24-105mm f/4

goyoneuff wrote:
@jedibrain@ Brian, thank you !

I was thinking about this too. I realized that there is one parent in the roller skating group that shoots in Canon, I think he has a D6. And, by looking at his pictures, I am 99.9 % sure it is using a 135mm f/2 (the bookeh gives them away). I am asking him right now, but I am almost sure that is what he uses.

What do you guys/gals think:

So, a f/2.0 is ideal for the roller skating rinks, but I am sure a f/2.8 would do fine, the question is if a f/4.0 with "better"...Show more →

EF-RF adapter is seamless. EF lenses work as good or better than they did on the EF bodies. On the 135 f/2 you'll need to use the electronic shutter mode to get the highest frame rates. I shoot soccer exclusively in ES mode and very few images suffer greatly from rolling shutter. But its something to be aware of.

If we assume your roller rink is lit such that you can get 1/1600 of a second exposure at F2, ISO 800 to freeze action, then at F/4 you'd be at ISO 3200. If its dark like most of the non-pro gyms I've been in and you start at ISO 1600 or 3200, then you are up to 6400-12800. That's pushing it. If you have some photos there that you know the shutter speed, Av and ISO of, we can do the math. 6400 is not an issue on the R6II, depending on your taste of course. At 12800 a good denoise program like DXO or Topaz works great, but you do not want to shoot RAW or do any post work.

If you keep the excellent 70-200 2.8 that you have for shooting the sports and family portraits, a 35 1.8 prime or 24 1.8 prime might be a good companion. Relatively small and light. Versatile indoors and out. I think you could fit the body, 70-200 and 35 1.8 in to a Peak design 10L sling, or maybe even the 6L. Those are small and handy bags.

Honestly, a 24-104 f/4 and that 70-200 you have would be an extremely versatile combo. Most folks could do everything they wanted with just those two lenses, unless they lean heavy in to sports or birds. But doing everything with just one lens is challenging/impossible.

Brian

May 12, 2023 at 03:16 PM

goyoneuff
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #17 · Q: 24-70mm f/2.8 vs 24-105mm f/4

Thank you every one of you !!!!!

May 12, 2023 at 03:21 PM

goyoneuff
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #18 · Q: 24-70mm f/2.8 vs 24-105mm f/4

Ok, so here is what I have decided to do, opinions welcomed:

*. I will keep my new set up: R6 II + the RF 70-200mm f/2.8.
*. I will get a battery. Apparently compared to DSRL, these new bad boys drain battery faster,

.
*. I will try to get an EF 135mm f/2.0, and adapter RF/EF.

At this point, I will evaluate if keeping both lenses make sense for my needs:

(A). The 135mm with high f/2.0 is much better in the rinks (lower light) after my conversation with the other dad I mentioned. But I am wondering if the 70-200mm at f/2.8 with a slight bump in ISO (no more than 6400) will suffice vs. the faster 135mm.

(B). Now, there is the artistic roller skating Nationals which are run in bigger venues (farther away) but better lit, so the 70-200mm f/2.8 is much better getting closer and the light is better, so f/2.8 is good enough. Also, for soccer the 20-200mm f/2.8 with longer reach would be better. But, the 135mm at f/2.0 could be enough after cropping (aka, digital zoom in). All this on the basis that I probably never print anything bigger than say A3, or even A2.

I think either lens, but not both, to keep. Of course, praying the 135mm will be enough, as it is way cheaper.

.

THEN, either,

*. Get a 24-105mm f/4.0 either RF or EF (if I keep the 135mm I will have the RF/EF adapter anyways).
*. or a RF 35mm f/1.8.

Finally,
I think I am going to sell the barely used X100v, and just keep the small trusty M43 GX85 with one prime, maybe the 25mm f/1.7, and sell the other M43 lens !

Cheers !

G

May 12, 2023 at 03:37 PM

artsupreme
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #19 · Q: 24-70mm f/2.8 vs 24-105mm f/4

goyoneuff wrote:
Ok, so here is what I have decided to do, opinions welcomed:

*. I will keep my new set up: R6 II + the RF 70-200mm f/2.8.
*. I will get a battery. Apparently compared to DSRL, these new bad boys drain battery faster,

.
*. I will try to get an EF 135mm f/2.0, and adapter RF/EF.

At this point, I will evaluate if keeping both lenses make sense for my needs:

(A). The 135mm with high f/2.0 is much better in the rinks (lower light) after my conversation with the other dad I mentioned. But I am wondering if the 70-200mm...Show more →

If you are going to keep the RF 70-200 f/2.8 make sure to get the 50mm hood for it as it reduces the size quite a bit. You can see a photo of mine here on page 17 of the safari thread:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum//forum/topic/1734990/16

As for battery life, I shoot my R5's with the LCD closed in the back now 90% of the time. I only open it when I need it for something and I find that helps with battery life. When you want to review images just do it through the EVF which is easier to see in daylight anyway.

I'm not sure how much light is in these roller rinks but I'm picturing night time disco lights...if that's the case or it ever gets too dark just revert to pan shots and you'll come home with some artistic pan shots, especially if you can get low to the floor.

May 12, 2023 at 08:04 PM

jedibrain
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #20 · Q: 24-70mm f/2.8 vs 24-105mm f/4

Another tip for battery life is to run the camera in airplane mode. The WIFI/Bluetooth etc drain things fast even if you are not connected. So shut them off if you aren't using them, which is what airplane mode does. Like ArtSupreme, I run either the evf or the rear screen and also shut off image review. That makes the battery last a lot longer, but still not DSLR territory.

May 13, 2023 at 11:33 AM

1 2 end
FM Forums \| Canon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 end