Canon 24-105mm F4L IS USM Vs 24-70mm F2.8L USM (Non IS) Lens

Discussion in 'Canon' started by John, Apr 3, 2007.

  1. John

    John Guest

    Hi all,
    (long time reader, first time caller!)

    I'm a hobby photographer who likes to use quality gear (Can't stand).

    I'm looking at buying an L series lens for my canon digital SLR and
    would like to know if anyone has experience with the 24-205 F4L IS USM
    Lens and the 24-70 F2.8L USM (Non I.S) Lens.

    I'm really only wanting the 24-60mm range but I'm wondering how i can
    decide on a F4 IS or F2.8 Non IS lens.
    I've been told that IS allows you to handhold up to 3 stops slower but
    in good conditions where IS is not required, its a waste.

    Most of my photos are outsite in fairly good lighting, airborne in a
    light aircraft or Inside with a 580EX flash.

    Any ideas on the best choice? I will definitely take note from anyone
    who owns both lenses. Unfortunately my wallet isn't deep enough to
    buy both as I'm hanging out for the new 1ds Mk3 and these lenses are
    about £650 each.

    For some peculiar reason I'm drawn to the F2.8L non IS as I've always
    thought that faster lenses are better, but this has just got me
    absolutely stumped.

    Thanks in advance for your replies.

    John
     
    John, Apr 3, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. <Snipped>

    Most of my photos are outsite in fairly good lighting, airborne in a
    light aircraft or Inside with a 580EX flash.

    Any ideas on the best choice? I will definitely take note from anyone
    who owns both lenses. Unfortunately my wallet isn't deep enough to
    buy both as I'm hanging out for the new 1ds Mk3 and these lenses are
    about £650 each.

    For some peculiar reason I'm drawn to the F2.8L non IS as I've always
    thought that faster lenses are better, but this has just got me
    absolutely stumped.

    Thanks in advance for your replies.

    John
    -------------------------------
    There is one point I'd like to introduce you to regarding Canon consumer
    class DSLRs and IS lenses. You decide if the issue will affect you
    personally.

    Canon (consumer grade) DSLRs default to 1/60th second flash sync when you
    select "program" mode. At this speed, with the slap of their mirrors being
    bad enough that a non IS lens over 30mm FL will almost certainly result in
    fuzzy photos. Use an IS lens, and this issue goes away.

    Very few photographs taken in the wild, will be suitably sharp in a depth of
    field at F/2.8. All it will give you is a brighter viewfinder because the
    sweet spot for all these "L" lenses is usually between F5.6 and F/8.0.

    Other than that, shoot flash in the green square and have absolutely no
    creative control or use an IS lens and start to explore your creative side!

    Douglas
     
    \(The real\) Douglas, Apr 3, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. John

    Mark² Guest

    I own both, and have a few thoughts...
    The 24-70 definitely wins for ultimate image quality (sharpness, depth of
    field control due to 2.8, contrast and lack of distortion).
    I bought the 24-70 after giving up on Canon coming out with a 24-105 range L
    lens...and as was my preference...Canon released the 24-105 f4 IS L almost
    immediately after I purchased the 24-70. :)

    At the time I bought the 24-70, I was shooting with my 10D, meaning the
    focal length (really field of view) through the 24-70 seemed long enough for
    me. But now I use a full-frame Canon 5D, and I find that I want a bit more
    tele for my all-around lens since I shoot a lot of candids. On a 30D, 20D,
    10D, the 24-70 essentially gave that longer perspective...but on my 5D, it
    often left me wishing for a bit more.

    So...for me and my 5D, the 24-105 is just right.
    Were I shooting with a 1.6 crop body (which I assume you'll be using),
    the 24-70 would definitely be my choice.

    As it stands now (as a happy user of full-frame), my barely-used 24-70 is
    for sale. If you're interested, it's in literally mint condition with all
    docs, box, packing, accessories, etc.
     
    Mark², Apr 3, 2007
    #3
  4. John

    John Guest

    As it stands now (as a happy user of full-frame), my barely-used 24-70 is
    I think I'll go for the 24-105 IS Lens. Although on my current
    EOS350D it will give lots of zoom, I've been working through upgrading
    my lenses in preparation for the new 1DS in a month.

    Thanks for the offer of the 24-70. What sort of price were you looking
    at getting? I have a workmate who shoots 1.6x with no intention of
    upgrading bodies anytime soon and I've already sold him on the L
    series lenses.

    Cheers

    John
     
    John, Apr 3, 2007
    #4
  5. John

    Tony Polson Guest


    I'm not sure I could ever describe a lens that has been used as
    "mint", let alone "literally mint".

    "Mint-" or "near mint" might be more accurate.
     
    Tony Polson, Apr 3, 2007
    #5
  6. John

    Mark² Guest

    What that means is simply that one would be hard-pressed to tell it isn't
    new, out of the box.
     
    Mark², Apr 3, 2007
    #6
  7. John

    Tony Polson Guest


    Semantics, I know, Mark, but I would not want to see you getting into
    problems with a perfectionist buyer. Far better to be cautious, and
    not to call something "mint" when you have used it, even just a couple
    of times.

    KEH in Atlanta, GA has an excellent reputation because of the
    conservative nature of its descriptions of condition. As a result, KEH
    has hardly any disappointed buyers.

    It is at least ten times more difficult to earn a good reputation than
    to lose one, but it is a hundred times more difficult to regain a lost
    reputation. I would not want that to happen to you, all for a little
    over-optimism in your item description.
     
    Tony Polson, Apr 3, 2007
    #7
  8. John

    Mark² Guest

    I appreciate the input...
    I've sold two lenses, and their buyers were both extremely pleased (28-135
    IS and 100-400 IS L).
    Note that I mentioned it has been lightly used...so anyone reading along
    should understand my use of the term without much difficulty. I'm frankly
    not dying to sell it...since I'll soon acquire the 1.3x 1D3. I may find
    that the bit of extra (perceived) reach on that body my cause me to happily
    keep the 24-70. On the other hand, if someone wants to buy it now, fine. I
    anticipate using the 1D3 mainly for tele anyway. I've never really put the
    24-70 "up for sale" in any official way...rather simply mentioning it from
    time to time when people express interest in the lens.
     
    Mark², Apr 3, 2007
    #8
  9. John

    Tony Polson Guest

    You're welcome, Mark. It is sincerely intended.

    If I didn't already have one, I would be interested. But mine is a
    real 'user', as is my 24-105mm f/4.

    Only my 70-200mm f/2.8 IS looks anything ike new. :-(

    May I suggest that you might wish to wait as long as possible before
    ordering a 1D Mk III? I think you may well find that the other new
    Canon DSLRs for 2007 are worth waiting for.

    *Well* worth waiting for. ;-)
     
    Tony Polson, Apr 3, 2007
    #9
  10. John

    Mark² Guest

    You've implied some sort of inside information before. What is your source
    for this stuff?

    If I knew (beyond rumor) that a high fps (7fps or higher) body was coming, I
    might consider waiting.
    The fabled "3D" has been just that... a fable. :(
    My feeling is that the 1D3 would keep me happy for a long time as a
    companion to my 5D.
    Here's a mock-up of this fabled camera from way back:
    http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/56208075/original
     
    Mark², Apr 3, 2007
    #10
  11. John

    Tony Polson Guest


    Obviously I can't say, but when I posted here about the (then) new
    Canon 5D, two weeks before it was officially announced, I was accused
    by Stephen Scharf (remember him?) of lying about it.

    I couldn't help laughing out loud, because I had a Canon 5D body on my
    desk right in front of me.

    Canon hasn't yet finalised the specs on the new models, but I suspect
    that what we are referring to as the "3D" will do almost everything
    you could want, although the frame rate may not be quite there.

    If you must trade up to the 1D Mk III, whose frame rate will not be
    beaten (that's another clue) then by all means do so. But having used
    full frame since the 5D came out, and having a good idea what is
    coming next, I would not waste my money on a 1.3X sensor.

    Even if you don't like the new Canon offerings, you will still be able
    to buy a 1D mk III after you have had a look at them. So my advice is
    to wait and see.

    It's not just about Canon either. Nikon's next pro DSLR will make a
    few people sit up and take notice. Both companies want to get these
    products *exactly right* - which I think explains why nothing much was
    announced at PMA this year.
     
    Tony Polson, Apr 3, 2007
    #11
  12. John

    Mark² Guest

    :) Ya, David Littlewood still owes me dinner in Tokyo from when I bet him
    that the 5D rumors wore legit.
    He and I both now have 5Ds, but I still don't have my dinner. :) I'll be
    in Ukraine, South Africa, Mozambique, and Swaziland this summer, but
    alas...no Tokyo...so no dinner.
    I'd guess a full-frame with Digic III, allowing about 5fps...with about
    16MP, using the newly formed sensor similar to the 1D3 (more pixels, but no
    light loss), 6400 ISO, weather sealing and big LCD.

    About right?

    Still, for me, that wouldn't fit the bill. I want fps at long last... Miss
    that.
    It wouldn't be a "trade up," rather it would be an addition to my 5D.
    My plan is this:
    If I can actually find an available 1D3 before I leave for Ukraine and
    Africa this July, I'll buy it (I'm on a waiting list, with deposit placed
    already). If I can't find it by then...I'll wait until fall to see the new
    stuff, and go without it this summer.
    I'm sure Nikon will come out with guns blazing...as will Canon. It should
    be interesting.
     
    Mark², Apr 3, 2007
    #12
  13. : >
    : >As it stands now (as a happy user of full-frame), my barely-used 24-70 is
    : >for sale. If you're interested, it's in literally mint condition with
    all
    : >docs, box, packing, accessories, etc.
    :
    :
    : I'm not sure I could ever describe a lens that has been used as
    : "mint", let alone "literally mint".
    :
    : "Mint-" or "near mint" might be more accurate.
    :
    By the very definition of the word it signifies an item straight from the
    "mint" or factually, never used. Mint, minty, nearly mint are most abused
    terms of description ever used to describe photographic gear. and anyway...
    Offering to sell goods in this group is ABSOLUTELY OFF TOPIC. Get your teeth
    in that one Tony. Lay off those who use 35mm equipment in digital cameras.

    Douglas
     
    \(The real\) Douglas, Apr 4, 2007
    #13
  14. John

    Mark² Guest

    Is there anyone you don't hate, Doug?
     
    Mark², Apr 4, 2007
    #14
  15. John

    Tony Polson Guest


    Nooooo!. He hates himself, which is the root of his problem.
     
    Tony Polson, Apr 4, 2007
    #15
  16. :
    : >(The real) Douglas wrote:
    : >> : >>>>
    : >>>> As it stands now (as a happy user of full-frame), my barely-used
    : >>>> 24-70 is for sale. If you're interested, it's in literally mint
    : >>>> condition with all docs, box, packing, accessories, etc.
    : >>>
    : >>>
    : >>> I'm not sure I could ever describe a lens that has been used as
    : >>> "mint", let alone "literally mint".
    : >>>
    : >>> "Mint-" or "near mint" might be more accurate.
    : >>>
    : >> By the very definition of the word it signifies an item straight from
    : >> the "mint" or factually, never used. Mint, minty, nearly mint are
    : >> most abused terms of description ever used to describe photographic
    : >> gear. and anyway... Offering to sell goods in this group is
    : >> ABSOLUTELY OFF TOPIC. Get your teeth in that one Tony. Lay off those
    : >> who use 35mm equipment in digital cameras.
    : >>
    : >> Douglas
    : >
    : >Is there anyone you don't hate, Doug?
    :
    :
    : Nooooo!. He hates himself, which is the root of his problem.
    :
    ------------------
    The type of people I dislike are those who insist on making their
    communications about photography and photographic equipment a contest of who
    can muster the most personal insults. Some people are past masters at it.

    Why anyone has to begin a conversation with their keyboard using "You" which
    is intended in itself to inflame someone just looking for a chat with other
    Photographers... Totally escapes me.

    Mark insists on Internet images fitting his idea of correct when in fact, no
    two makes of browsers display images the same way... How bloody minded is he
    to even attempt to impose his ideas on someone else?

    And Tony Polson... Now there's a man who doesn't hesitate to make an idiot
    of himself. Surprisingly well versed in hardware... Right up there with the
    best camera salesmen in the UK, I'd have a guess. Not a single word in
    defence of the lies about his endeavours with a camera, Not a single image
    (save for the train -Sniggers there) in support of his claims to be a Paris
    Match cover shooter. Not a single example to support his claim of - what was
    it Tony? 50 or 500 rolls a week of film?

    Yeah... I don't hate anyone... I love my kids, love my wife, love my grand
    kids, love my great grand kids. Love my cat. Love all the people whom I
    work with. Right up until you showed me your willingness to get personal and
    then I return the fire and all of a sudden... I'm the bad guy? Yeah... Nice
    stuff guys.

    I suppose when you lit up that discussion about the old guy in period gear
    being soft focused is about the time I really saw you for the fuckwit you
    really are. So where is the apology for all your crap when I posted the
    sharp image? None?

    Yes mate... The pair of you are total fucking losers. Both in my brand new
    killfile.
     
    \(The real\) Douglas, Apr 4, 2007
    #16
  17. John

    Tony Polson Guest


    No-one more than Doug. Which is why he dislikes himself so much.
     
    Tony Polson, Apr 4, 2007
    #17
  18. John

    John Guest

    Thankyou for all your responses. Constructive or Not.
    I've recently decided to upgrade all my gear from cheap consumer grade
    to L series.
    I've decided on the EF24-70 F2.8L from this conversation, but still
    deciding on the following two:
    EF16-35 F2.8 L USM
    EF70-200 F2.8 L IS USM

    Anyone have any better recommendations? My budget is not endless, but
    I'm determined to use L series and quality gear and think I've managed
    to justify (to myself anyway) spending £2000 - £2500 on three lenses
    from wide to 200mm while I wait for a new body later this year.

    Cheers and as always thanks for any responses (good or bad).

    John
     
    John, Apr 5, 2007
    #18
  19. John

    Tony Polson Guest


    Personally, I would not go for the 16-35mm because there is a lot of
    overlap with the 24-70mm. Effectively, you are buying a 16-24mm.

    Have you considered something wider? The only Canon lens is the
    10-22mm EF-S but it won't work with the 1D Mk III. So you would need
    to look at third party brands, such as the Sigma 12-24mm F4-5.6 EX DG,
    which covers full frame.

    As for the 70-200mm IS f/2.8L, it is a very fine lens. Provided that
    the focal length is what you want, there is no better lens.
     
    Tony Polson, Apr 5, 2007
    #19
  20. John

    Alan Browne Guest

    I agree with Tony (what a morning!).

    At our company we say "under promise, over deliver"

    Let the buyer discover that it wasn't the promissed 9+ but rather, "Gee,
    this looks mint!"
     
    Alan Browne, Apr 6, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.