24-70mm f2.8 or 24-105mm f4?

H

HeyAndy

Active member
I'm considering buying my first L lens for my canon 60D, but I'm stuck between either a 24-70mm f2.8 lens or a 24-105mm f4.

The reason why I would go for the former is because it's got a wider aperture (for shallow depth of field), but it has a shorter focal length and no IS. And the reason why I would go for the latter is because it has a longer focal length and IS (for video), but the aperture is not as wide.

I don't know which one to get. I was wondering if anyone could help me?

Many thanks.
 
I had the same question last year. I shoot ASP-C/Super 35. L glass makes a ton of sense IMO, the quality of both build and optics is worth it.

I haven't used the new 24-70 but the old one I found very soft, even stopped down a bit from wide open. I went with the 24-105 for the focal length and the IS and haven't looked back. Most definitely the right decision I believe. Although I'd say rent both from Lensrentals.com or a local shop (not affiliated, just a satisfied customer) for a weekend and shoot with them for yourself and see what suits your style best.
 
William_Robinette said:
I had the same question last year. I shoot ASP-C/Super 35. L glass makes a ton of sense IMO, the quality of both build and optics is worth it.

I haven't used the new 24-70 but the old one I found very soft, even stopped down a bit from wide open. I went with the 24-105 for the focal length and the IS and haven't looked back. Most definitely the right decision I believe. Although I'd say rent both from Lensrentals.com or a local shop (not affiliated, just a satisfied customer) for a weekend and shoot with them for yourself and see what suits your style best.
Click to expand...

How shallow is the depth of field when you go all the way up to 105mm focal length?
 
Pretty shallow? Hard question because it's based on multiple variables. Look here and you can compare for yourself: http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

Honestly, and I'll freely admit I like shooting a 2.8/4 split indoors, 5.6/8 split outdoors (I like to see my backgrounds), you're just talking about one stop difference between the lenses. Your 2.8 isn't going to be ultra shallow either. If that's what you're after you need to be looking at primes; the 50, 85, 135, etc. I would never think twice about it for anything lit. Event photography? Might come in handy but have you ever tried to reliably pull focus at 2.8? It isn't the easiest thing in the world. I just finished a whole short and used nothing but the 24-105L the whole time and never once wanted another stop. You can see some grabs here.

The great thing about the 24-105 is that it is a macro, so you can be at 105mm and focus on stuff 14ish inches away from the front of the lens. Makes it very versatile. Don't get me wrong, I'm not hating on the 24-70, but sometimes all people see is that 2.8 and assume it must be better. In my opinion, I don't think that is always the case!
 
Last edited:
William_Robinette said:
Pretty shallow? Hard question because it's based on multiple variables. Look here and you can compare for yourself: http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

Honestly, and I'll freely admit I like shooting a 2.8/4 split indoors, 5.6/8 split outdoors (I like to see my backgrounds), you're just talking about one stop difference between the lenses. You're 2.8 isn't going to be ultra shallow either. If that's what you're after you need to be looking at primes; the 50, 85, 135, etc. I would never think twice about it for anything lit. Event photography? Might come in handy but have you ever tried to reliably pull focus at 2.8? It isn't the easiest thing in the world. I just finished a whole short and used nothing but the 24-105L the whole time and never once wanted another stop. You can see some grabs here.

The great thing about the 24-105 is that it is a macro, so you can be at 105mm and focus on stuff 14ish inches away from the front of the lens. Makes it very versatile. Don't get me wrong, I'm not hating on the 24-70, but sometimes all people see is that 2.8 and assume it must be better. In my opinion, I don't think that is always the case!
Click to expand...

Interesting reasoning. Do you miss any of the wide end when using the 24-105 on APS-C?
 
Yes I do!

Which is why I think I'm going to pick up the 17-40 f/4 L next. Although I think this depends a lot on your style of shooting and how you like to compose. I very rarely go below a 24mm on ASP-C, and the only reason I want anything wider is on big establishing shots or if I am doing high-speed on a sensor that crops down to do high frame rates. I usually stick to 24, 28, 35, 50mm and if I want longer I'll run all the way to 105mm or 135mm which is why the 24-105 was the best for me. I don't come from a FF photography background though, I have always composed in an ASP-C/Super 35 environment.
 
I see so it really depends on your shooting style and subject.
How would you advise someone who still uses the DVX on what lenses would be best for their first DSLR?
Lets assume they live in a third world country without much options to rent.
 
I'd get the 24-105 for the IS alone. Then with the savings you can get a 50 f1.4 vintage and another 28 or 35 f2 to fill in when there's no light. The f4 is a struggle when indoors and you can't set up lighting. That's where the vintage primes do really well for the money and how often you really need them.

I'm a big fan of L glass on the crop cams. Yes they're way more expensive, even used, but they are a bit sharper than even the very best crop lenses and they have a phenomenal build quality, which for what i'm doing out in the woods and weather is very important.

In the end of the day full frame lenses are more versitlle and for some reason which I can't explain, produce a fatter image that is just more appealing to me. You'll also be future proof if you choose to go with a full frame body down the road.

Cheers,
Pete
 
Samuel H said:
L zooms for APS-C don't make a lot of sense, you're much better off with the tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (non-VC) or the canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS, if you don't need the lens to work on full frame
Click to expand...
I agree that you will want to be wider than 24mm on an aps-c 60D. The Tamron 17-50 non vc is a great lens but if you have the cash burning a hole in your pocket and want a canon L lens. the 16-35 f2.8 is a great lens, a little wider than the 17mm zooms and you will get to use it on a ff camera later.
 
c3hammer said:
I'd get the 24-105 for the IS alone. Then with the savings you can get a 50 f1.4 vintage and another 28 or 35 f2 to fill in when there's no light. The f4 is a struggle when indoors and you can't set up lighting. That's where the vintage primes do really well for the money and how often you really need them.

I'm a big fan of L glass on the crop cams. Yes they're way more expensive, even used, but they are a bit sharper than even the very best crop lenses and they have a phenomenal build quality, which for what i'm doing out in the woods and weather is very important.

In the end of the day full frame lenses are more versitlle and for some reason which I can't explain, produce a fatter image that is just more appealing to me. You'll also be future proof if you choose to go with a full frame body down the road.

Cheers,
Pete
Click to expand...

I don't really understand this bit. What do you mean you can't set up lighting?
 
I think he means the f/4 is a struggle when you're indoors and you can't set up lighting


what I don't understand is the call that L zooms are "a bit sharper than even the very best crop lenses"
you can say that they're more future-proof, better built, and have weather sealing, but, better IQ? not really

while I wait for someone to point to some actual tests supporting that L zooms are better, I'll post a few that say the standard-range ones actually are significantly softer than, say, the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 non-VC:

the only same-camera comparison at tdp is with the 17-40 f/4L, and it's clearcut:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=2
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

MTF numbers at f/4: the Tamron beats both the 24-70 f/2.8L and the 24-105 f/4L IS at both 24mm and 35/40mm:
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/184-canon-ef-24-70mm-f28-usm-l-test-report--review?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/188-canon-ef-24-105mm-f4-usm-l-is-lab-test-report--review?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/2...pherical-if-canon-test-report--review?start=1

and if you care just a bit about corner sharpness, there's no contest with the 16-35 f/2.8L:
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/175-canon-ef-16-35mm-f28-usm-l-lab-test-report--review?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/2...pherical-if-canon-test-report--review?start=1

of course you can complain about build quality, weather sealing (even, on this one, focusing direction); but sharpness? no way
and don't forget that this is a $500 lens: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B000EXR0SI
 
Last edited:
Boncrek said:
I see so it really depends on your shooting style and subject.
How would you advise someone who still uses the DVX on what lenses would be best for their first DSLR?
Lets assume they live in a third world country without much options to rent.
Click to expand...

I would defiantly start with something that is 17 or 18mm on the wide end. I think that is where you will see the biggest difference with jumping formats. If you want to mimic the focal length as closely as you can a couple zooms covering 17-50mm and 70-200mm will cover everything except special cases. Even kit lenses aren't the worst. It's a good place to start especially if you are new to the world of ASP-C shooting and don't really know what you want yet.

@ Samuel & ROCKMORE: Again guys, it comes down to shooting style and preference. Glad you're providing an alternate viewpoint but please don't think in absolutes here. Like I said, personally I can count the number of times I have reached for my 18mm over the past two months on one of my hands. Not everyone shoots the same way.

And to the topic of L glass, well I think it's a bit like spices. Yes, I'm sure other lenses have better corner sharpness, better vingetting characteristics, better center sharpness, etc. But this isn't always what makes you like an image. After using a lot of L glass I can say I personally find many other qualities quite appealing. The coatings and the way flares are rendered (Especially on the 24-105) I love. The bokeh and transition from in focus to out of focus regions I love. The way microcontrast is rendered on faces I love. Others might not, and it's great you can get as sharp or sharper lenses for lower cost then L glass. But sharpness is plainly just not everything to consider when looking at glass. And thankfully, the market is well catered for!
 
Well I see these tests much differently than many of you. Inspite of the many glowing reviews of the Tamron and it's sharpness, I don't particularly like the look of the images it creates.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=2

I don't think the 17-40L or the 16-35L were part of the discussion from the OP. The 24-105mm with IS and great sharpness are part of the discussion and what I was recomending.

Cheers,
Pete
 
c3hammer: on that tdp link, you're comparing a shot taken with a 50D to a shot taken with a 1Ds3
put both lenses on the same APS-C body, and you'll see the Tamron is actually a lot sharper
Rockmore did that: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?272987-Tamron-17-50-VS-Canon-24-70-L

I completely understand there's a lot more to image quality than just looking at sharpness tests; most of my lenses are Leitz primes, and I love them for lots of reasons other than sharpness; also, you'll find a link to my bokeh tests in my signature (with 30 lenses compared right now)
L zooms may excel in these other areas, and that would explain what William has found in his first-hand work; but don't say L zooms are sharper, it's just not true



edit: and I'm not talking about L primes, just L zooms, normal and wide end (below 70mm)
 
Samuel H said:
...edit: and I'm not talking about L primes, just L zooms, normal and wide end (below 70mm)
Click to expand...
But that wasn't the original question! You're recomending a lens in a different range completely. What can you recomend in the 24-105 range that is sharper than L glass? How about 24-70mm? There's nothing there. L glass is sharper and it has huge advantages in other ways as well.

That's like me saying drop all that for a 24mm L f/1.4 II. It's the best lens ever made for a Canon crop camera IMHO but, it's not part of the original question :)

If I had to pick four lenses for a crop cam I'd go with a Tokina 11-16, a 24mm L F/1.4 II, 50mm F/1.4 and a 70-200 L F/4 IS. There are no sharper lenses in their relm of price vs. performance for sharpness and image quality IMHO, but these weren't part of the original question. Neither was the Tanron 17-50!

Cheers,
Pete
 
Last edited:
I thought he was looking for a standard zoom, but no problem: then my answer would be: Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 non-VC and Samyang 85mm f/1.4 - or Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and a 70-200 (either Canon 70-200 f/4L IS or Tamron 70-200 f/2.8)
 
c3hammer said:
But that wasn't the original question!
Click to expand...

He asked a question and needs advice. A suggestion that a wider lens range than a 24mm for an APS-c camera is sound advice.
I did also suggest a 16-35L may be a better choice than a 24-70 or 24-105
 
Rockmore, I know you're not digging on L glass and the suggestion to go wider may well be the better way to go for HeyAndy.

From the original question between the 24-70 and 24-105 I assumed he might have a super wide already or other options down there. The discussion devolved immediately into why L glass is not the best choice on the crop cams from some quarters. That advice is plain and simply wrong. L glass at every focal length has a clear and present effect on image quality. Sharpness at the focal lengths he asked about is one of them. We really have no idea where he's coming from or trying to get to.

There are many options to get higher image quality. There are also advantages to premium kit that go beyond what we see on the screen in the end of the day. Often those advantages are what gets us to where we want to go.

Cheers,
Pete
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top