Canon f2.8 lens vs Canon f4 lens with IS

razamalik

razamalik

Well-known member
Hi guys im in the market for a new zoom lens for Canon 5D... which lens would be better in your opinion

Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 EF Lens
or
CANON EF 24-105MM F4L IS

the later has 3-stop Image Stabilizer so i want to know if that will compensate for the loss of light due to using f4 instead of f2.8 in low light conditions? my understanding has been that the f2.8 lenses are as good as they can get and are the closest things to use intead of prime... any thoughts on that?

Which is a better quality lens of both regardless of the price in your opinion & experience...

what other lenses will you suggest for event/wedding photography?
 
Last edited:
MarcusX said:
I heard the Tamron 28-75 is better than the Canon lenses: http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/2875mm.asp

I believe kprince (the guy with the maui-pictures) uses the Tamron and I'm thinking of buying one, too.
Click to expand...

i see, the price difference is quite remarkable but i'd like to know the performance of this lens compared to the much expensive cannon lenses, i remember trying a sigma 28-70 f2.8 lens & the auto focus was notably slower than nikon's 28-70 f2.8 on the D70, not to mention the noise the lens made while trying to focus... :(

in Kprince case i dont think it will make much of a difference as he is doing landscape work & probably uses manual focus but lets say for live events i think having a fast lens that responds quickly & can focus as fast would be worth its price end of the day...
 
go for the canon 24-70mm 2.8, i have one and its an amazing everyting lens. the f4 will stop you from doing alot of stuff in low light but the 2.8 will be on your side. good luck
 
thanks for the kind words Jay, im falling in love with the fast lenses they make the life so much easier... but have you or anyone has any experience with the f4 lens i mentioned? i'd like to know if Image Stabilizer compensates & if it is of any good in low light while shooting on low shutter speed...
 
Having image stabilization is not going to compensate anywhere close to having a faster lens. Just think, in low light you're going to have to stop down to f/4 and you'll have to have a long shutter to get an exposure. IMO, I would go with a faster lens, but I'm more traditional and I don't trust auto focus or image stabilization.
 
i agree with oneinfiniteloop, i mean there is a reason for the price difference. i have a f4 wide lens 12-24mm, and in low light it not that good, but if youre going to be shooting in the sun or in a studio its ok. trust me, invest a little more and when you decide to sell that lens or to upgrade, people will still it out of your hands then a f4 lens. its just like a honda vs handai. no offense to anyone who drives anyone of those cars.
 
i agree with both you guys & this has been my undertsanding too until a friend bought a Canon 5D with the f4 IS lens & when i said to him that he should have spent a little more & bought the f2.8 lens he said that this is new generation lens it has IS & it will dilever better picture than f2.8... sharper was his word!!! may be he likes deeper depth of field...but this was a shock for me... the way i see it is that you can always shoot at f4 on a f2.8 lens & hence get a deeper depth of field if you wanted to but not vice versa... so thanks for putting my mind back in place :)

here's a review comparing the canon & tamron lenses
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-28-75mm-F-2.8-XR-Di-Lens-Review.aspx
 
Last edited:
oneinfiniteloop said:
In regards to IS, there is a much better solution to that problem...a tripod :)
Click to expand...

i guess you can use tripod for candid, portait, landscape, wildlife stuff etc but some times you just need some freedom to move inside the action & get some intimate emotional kinda shots specialy if you ever been to an asian (indian/pakistani/bangladeshi) wedding you'd know why you'd wanna avoid tripods.... too many kids running about :kali: ... & specialy at the end of the wedding i.e VIDAAE the part where bride is crying n stuff, no one will care where the photographer is at that point & if its dark & you are on your tripod... you'd be screwed.. so either full flash or fast lens with IS... :love4: so in that case IS makes some good sense to me :) i gotta test it out first though... :)
 
razamalik said:
in Kprince case i dont think it will make much of a difference as he is doing landscape work & probably uses manual focus but lets say for live events i think having a fast lens that responds quickly & can focus as fast would be worth its price end of the day...
Click to expand...

In the end, go for what makes you happy, but I'll tell you from experience, this lens responds very quickly in near NO LIGHT situations. PS: I actually use auto focus for most of my landscapes, I usually shoot at f-16 - f-22 so once the cam grabs focus on anything, I'm set. There is no special reason for auto over manual just that it's quicker when you shooting an image that in and of itself is a fleeting moment to begin with. Cheers.
 
These two shots were taken well past sunset with a flash. Who needs to be worried about LOW LIGHT, it's just marketing jargon. If your subject is in this infamos LOW LIGHT and you are able to get a clean shot via IS and 2.8, I'll bet you a pineapple it's not going to look very good. Then you'll have the friends of the bride or groom emailing shots they took with their point and shoots set to auto that will look better cause they used a flash. Problem solved.

Remember this is well past sunset, not amazing but they work.
NickPhilly4.jpg


NickPhilly3.jpg
 
oneinfiniteloop said:
What kind of flash did/do you use? I've been looking into getting one.
Click to expand...

580 EX : I think all flashes have a steep learning curve but once under control open a whole new world of creativity.
 
Fast lens is nice to have; better in low light, can play with short DOF, focus easier. BUT: the (awful) truth is that often the good f4 lenses really are sharper (=better) than the much more expencieve pro-f2.8 lenses. And cheaper, smaller, lighter. This holds true especially with Canon 16-35mm f2.8 which really is BAD. I had to give mine away after two visits to repair shop, the picture was still totally unusable (got 20/2.8 lens instead). And many prosshare my view on this one. The problem with fast wideangles is the minimal tolerances at short focal lengths combined with big apertures. I think it is impossbile to make a good 16-35 zoom for 35mm frame at f2.8 ( at a "reasonable" cost, that is).

24-70mm f2.8 Canon is a good lens, but I belive the f4 version is really sharper. In the faster lens you are not paying for better image quality, only for that one f-stop, and compromize the quality.

With 2.8 zoom you get some benefits (small DOF if you need it, I have 1.4-1.8 primes for that), faster shutter speeds for moving subjects etc, but with f4 you get sharper pictures, more reach and that image stbilizer really works more or less as advertized (as long as the subjects are stationary, of course). Tough call.

I do this as a profession, by the way.
 
I own the 24-70 2.8L. It is an incredibly sharp zoom. The only downside IMHO is that is is fairly heavy and large. A lot of people find it intimidating. They mistakenly think that it is some sort of massive telephoto.

Here is a review from a solid reviewer.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/28-105.shtml

If I were buying new, I might be tempted to get the 24-105, considering they are roughly the same price. Losing f2.8 would be kind of a bummer, but considering how clean all the digital cameras are, it is not as big of a deal.
 
Last edited:
jsinicropi said:
I have the Tamron lens and it's nice however nothing is better then Canon glass. Especially the L series
Click to expand...

I don't know...Carl Ziess makes some pretty amazing optics.
 
True however unfortunately they don't make lenses that fit anything other then Sony video or Hasselblad still cameras
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top