opinions on the 24-105L vs 24-70L. I have this in the wedding forum because Its intended use is only for Weddings, Bridals, and Engagements. I know the 2.8 is nice, but there are times when 2.8 is too slow so a 3stop IS would be better.
3 stop IS is only good for stationary subjects. When push comes to shove the higher shutter speeds are more often than not the better choice. Or use a flash and equalize it all.
Having recently traded my 24-105L for a 24-70L, the 24-70L wins in sharpness and f2.8 aperture (the latter being my biggest motivation for the swap). The 24-105L has the IS and nice range, making it a really nice lens to use for video. Otherwise, the 24-70L is the one to get.
3-stop IS is only good for stationary objects because it only really helps to reduce camera shake. In practical terms, if you are shooting at a 100mm lens at 1/100s shutter speed (average minimum hand-holdable shutter speed), the IS will allow you to shoot at 1/12s with equal image stability. Now obviously these two shutter speeds will give you different results if the subject is moving right?
Better than f/2.8 is to get a fast prime. If you pay attention to the EXIF info, many shots are not shot at f/2.8 at all! It is good to have it for those moments you need it. Especially when using flash, f/4 is more than adequate for 90% of your shots. Keep you backup body with a fast lens for those low-light (or flash-less) moments. My XTi always had the 35/2, 50/1.4 or 85/1.8 on.
I don't shoot weddings, but I do shoot indoors social events... (less stress!)
drew.bowser wrote:
opinions on the 24-105L vs 24-70L. I have this in the wedding forum because Its intended use is only for Weddings, Bridals, and Engagements. I know the 2.8 is nice, but there are times when 2.8 is too slow so a 3stop IS would be better.
Thoughts?
For times that f/2.8 is too slow use a prime, bump your ISO or use a flash. Never rely on IS as a substitute for aperture when shooting animate subjects, such as people.
And FWIW, try not to insult people in this forum with words like "d-bag". Most people here tend to be genuinely helpful, and the advice given has been sound. If you can't find a thread in the database either run another phrase through the search or ask politely for a link.
Ellery...exactly. Brides and grooms dont tend to move a whole lot during the ceremony. I do not EVER shoot anything sports related I have quite a few primes so. Will IS or 2.8 benefit me more. I suppose I could pick one off the B&S board and if I dont like it sell it at almost no loss...
M Vers wrote:
For times that f/2.8 is too slow use a prime, bump your ISO or use a flash. Never rely on IS as a substitute for aperture when shooting animate subjects, such as people.
And FWIW, try not to insult people in this forum with words like "d-bag". Most people here tend to be genuinely helpful, and the advice given has been sound. If you can't find a thread in the database either run another phrase through the search or ask politely for a link.
Updated...sorry, Its been a long day and post just telling you to use search are a sore spot for me. Apologies!
rsg_1 wrote:
Being the douche bag that I am, I decided to use the time machine feature of the forum to do a search of 2006 about the 24-70L vs. 24-105L:
Thanks! I wondered what d-bag meant!
I have all three lenses, the 24-70L, 24-105L and a good Tamron 28-75 and the 24-70L is the best optically (but big), the 24-105 is probably the most useful and the Tamron is just great for travel and pretty much everything.
I had both. For weddings and receptions, I used the 24-70L, for everything else the 24-105. Now, I use the 24-105L on a 7D and 35L on a 5DMkII for weddings and receptions and got rid of the 24-70L in anticipation for the new 24-70L IS.
The bad about each. 24-70L has variation quality, but is quite good now. It also more prone to flare. The 24-105L has distortion issues, but you may be able to correct for some of this with the latest version of DPP.
dhphoto wrote:
Thanks! I wondered what d-bag meant!
I have all three lenses, the 24-70L, 24-105L and a good Tamron 28-75 and the 24-70L is the best optically (but big), the 24-105 is probably the most useful and the Tamron is just great for travel and pretty much everything.
David
For most guys like me its a compliment. I consider being called a rocket blower enema a real insult!
Your profile shows the 28-75... so I think your experience with that well-regarded lens would inform your thinking here?
dorkily ("but in a good way"),
Paul
No longer own it and had too many focus issues with it. I have never owned any canon L midrange zooms. Also, My signature is not up to date. So don't go by it.
Being the douche bag that I am, I decided to use the time machine feature of the forum to do a search of 2006 about the 24-70L vs. 24-105L:
Why Thank you. And once again I apologize for the crude term. I am a firm believer in the "If you dont have anything worth saying, then don't say anything at all." mentality. Anyone can post "use the search" but not anyone can input something worth saying. The links make the difference. So once again. Thanks
Oh, and I see in your signature you have a 24-105L. What made you choose that over the 24-70?
drew.bowser wrote:
instead of being dorks you could post a link
Or point to the search feature in this forum that we would have to use to do the search for the OP.
Both are fine lenses. The real question is which lens has the feature set that most closely corresponds with your specific photographic needs. So begin with some careful analysis of this.
24-105: larger focal length range. IS worth several stops when the low light shooting limit is based on ability to hold camera steady at slow shutter speed. A bit smaller/lighter, esp. considering the longer FL.
24-70: f/2.8 can provide one stop in low light where subject motion is the issue. Slightly narrower DOF possible at f/2.8. Smoother bokeh at equivalent apertures. Large/heavy lens for its range.
I used both last year at weddings and preferred the 24-105 for the extra range + IS, and plainly preferred the files it produced vs the 24-70L. For the times when f/4 won't cut it on a 5D2 (that gets decent files up to ISO 3200+) I'm going to a prime anyways so f/2.8 won't twist my nipples.
