I hear a lot of people are replacing their 24-70L lenses with the newer 24-105 IS lens. I can understand the benefit of the longer range and IS -- it's tempting. HOWEVER, not having the faster f2.8 in low light (where I may not be able to use flash) and not being able to produce the shallow depth of field in the closer range makes me lean toward purchasing the 24-70 lens (I don't think I would need IS on that lens).
So, my question to those that have had both lenses is: Do you ever miss the larger f-stop? Do you feel the need to switch to a faster prime lens indoors? I guess I just don't want to second guess my purchase once I drop $1200. I have the 75-300 IS lens to cover the extra range, so my concern is more about available light and DOF. HEEEEELP!!!
Because of its f/2.8 aperture (low light performance and depth of field control, plus I know it's good) I wouldn't sell my 24-70/2.8L, but might also get the new 24-105/4L IS for the IS and the extra range.
You already have the answer. Just carry a 50f1.4 with it and you have a great combo. My 24-70 didn't get much use even before I got the 24-105. Too much weight, too little range. You get as nice a buke at 105f4 that you get at 70f2.8 (or nearly so).
> Do you feel the need to switch to a faster prime lens indoors?
Only if shooting moving objects where a fast shutter speed is needed as even F 2.8 isn't fast enough in some situations. For stationary object shots, F4 with IS is just as good (if not better) than F 2.8 IMHO.
Just bought the 24-105IS and mated with the 5D's high ISO performance, I value IS, the range, the lighter weight more than the one stop difference. Quick Mother-In-Law shot taken yesterday with 24-105 @ F4, 70mm, ISO 800, 1/6 sec (can't do that without IS). Might even sell my 24-70L, will give it some time and see.
I wish the 24-105 was a f2.8 or better. I don't want to lose my cross hair sensitivity on my 1dMKII center clustered focus points. At f4 I lose xhair sensitivity on all but the center focus point. I might see having both lenses, but f4 just can't do what f2.8 or f1.2 can do so far as depth of field and background blur.
Anyhow why would you compare 2 lenses that have completely different focal lengths and maximum apertures These lenses are completely different.
Some people would rate both of these lenses as junk and use a 35mm f1.4 or 135 f2 and call it a day.
I use my little Tamron 28-300mm XR DI when I want a light do it all lens, but I don't compare it to my other Canon L glass to decide what to keep. They are different.
I too wish the 24-105 was a f2.8, focus on the 24-105 is not as fast as my other primes(f2.8 or better). The center focusing point is more sensitive with f2.8 under low light condition.
I just replaced my 24-70L with 24-105L. Do I miss the extra stop? No, since I also have 35L and 85L for low light actions. For static subject (including portrait), 24-105L is actually better for indoor. I have got very sharp images at 1/8s at 105mm with the help of IS, and I was never able to shoot 70mm below 1/20s. DOF? Not at all, actually 70/2.8 and 105/4 have about the same DOF if you fill the frame with the same FOV, and if you keep the camera from the same distance to the subject, 105/4 has even thinner DOF. Since I don't see you have any fast prime in your sig, so I guess the extra stop on 24-70L may be more important to you.
ImageHound wrote:
I hear a lot of people are replacing their 24-70L lenses with the newer 24-105 IS lens. I can understand the benefit of the longer range and IS -- it's tempting. HOWEVER, not having the faster f2.8 in low light (where I may not be able to use flash) and not being able to produce the shallow depth of field in the closer range makes me lean toward purchasing the 24-70 lens (I don't think I would need IS on that lens).
So, my question to those that have had both lenses is: Do you ever miss the larger f-stop? Do you feel the need to switch to a faster prime lens indoors? I guess I just don't want to second guess my purchase once I drop $1200. I have the 75-300 IS lens to cover the extra range, so my concern is more about available light and DOF. HEEEEELP!!! ...Show more →
Having tried both, I would say that the 24-70 is a clear winner in available light and indoors. A 4.0-lens just doesn't cut it in available light unless the subjects are always immovable. But the 24-105 range is more versatile outdoors, and I often wish I had more reach on my 24-70. However, if I had to pick one of the aforementioned lenses I would take the 2.8-lens because there is no substitute for lens speed. Moreover I can always use a fast prime like the 100 2.8 Macro or the 135mm 2.0 L when I absolutely need more reach.
bogatyr wrote:
Having tried both, I would say that the 24-70 is a clear winner in available light and indoors. A 4.0-lens just doesn't cut it in available light unless the subjects are always immovable. But the 24-105 range is more versatile outdoors, and I often wish I had more reach on my 24-70. However, if I had to pick one of the aforementioned lenses I would take the 2.8-lens because there is no substitute for lens speed. Moreover I can always use a fast prime like the 100 2.8 Macro or the 135mm 2.0 L when I absolutely need more reach....Show more →
Agree, plus the 24-105 cant use IS indoors on moving subjects. Sooooo.
nickmeertens wrote:
...... i did this bokeh test shot of the christmas tree with the 24-105 and it looks a LOT better then yours......
The bokeh in your picture is just brighter but it also exhibits bright rings surrounding the circle of confusion ( ni-sen ) which is generally considered to be undesirable.
