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

[Ricky Perrone]

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

While the Tamron 17-50 is an awesome lens its my second favorite, right behind my 24-105L.
Why I like the 24-105
1: Its future proof for a move to FF
2: It is sharper, without a doubt.
3: Its smoother and has a better feel
4: Its weather proof, I didn't think that was very important until I got caugh in a little rain one day
5: It finds focus almost instantly (I often use AF to find my starting focus point quickly)

 

[TheObiJuan]

I wouldn't put money toward f/4 lenses as you are fixed at 1/50th or 1/125th, so f/4 will easily have you hitting high ISOs.

 

[jnmx]

I shot this with a 60d and the 24-105 f/4 lens. it was at 70mm when I shot this.

It has some color correction on it. I warmed the video up and put a vignette around it. I also put a soft focus on it in final cut as well. Pretty awesome results. and if you shot with cinestyle you get some added range in the shadows and that really helps.

But I would say go with the F/4 IS as the IS is well worth it, especially for on the go shooting when you need to be quick. The 24-70 is almost unusable handheld at 70mm. here are two great reviews featuring this lens

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-AR...DvjVQa1PpcFMMrybQFZiCkRNLHYjSJ1PtSztqFOPWzw8=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTlsoTYImjM&feature=relmfu

 

[griplimited]

I wouldn't put money toward f/4 lenses as you are fixed at 1/50th or 1/125th, so f/4 will easily have you hitting high ISOs.

I had the same belief in this as well, but learned my shooting style does not permit alot of time.

I own/owned

- 35mm F1.4
- 85mm F1.4
- 11-16mm F2.8
- 17-50mm F2.8
- 28-70mm F2.8
- 80-200mm F2.8

I found that I was too busy swapping lenses and still shooting at around F4 / 5.6. The 24-105 gave me the range I need, plenty of shallow dop. Has Macro feature, except you need a good distance still. And takes care of all my shots for day. At night, I skip my 2.8 lens and go straight to F1.4.

You might see a couple of the F2.8 for sale.

 

[HeyAndy]

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

I'm just looking for a zoom lens that can produce good enough bokeh for both photography and video.

 

[Samuel H]

if bokeh is your main concern, then I have to change my recommendation: the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 non-VC is a great lens, surprisingly sharp for the price, but bokeh is NOT one of its strengths: http://www.similaar.com/foto/lenstests/bokehtests.html (I don't have many other zooms there, and comparing with the vintage Leitz primes is not fair at all, but I'd guess L zooms should be better than this; a lot more expensive too...) (in any case, if I want good bokeh, I use primes; and not just because they're faster: most of my vintage Leitz primes are f/2.8, and have absolutely lovely bokeh)

 

[mikey50]

i don't own the 24-70 but i do have the 24-105, which has made me money in both video and stills. i've seen the 24-70 make other people money, so either lens will get the job done. i know that doesn't help you make a decision, but I'd give the 24-105 the edge for video because of the IS and it's slightly smaller size for handheld shooting. check out youtube or vimeo for bokeh comparisons, albeit with compressed formats; photography on the net, flickr, dpreview all have multiple threads comparing these two. tough choice indeed. good luck.

 

[Samuel H]

new contender: tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC
it's fast, it has IS, and it's sharper than the canon 24-70 f/2.8L http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/04/quick-tamron-24-70-mtf-data
(no news on bokeh yet, and I still think for APS-C it doesn't make a lot of sense)

 

[iunknown]

What about the sigma 17-50?

 

[Chipgreen]

I had a Tamron 17-50 non VC and didn't care that much for it. It's an affordable starter lens for aps-c shooters and I'd choose it over a kit lens any day. But it's soft edge-wise wide open and a little better stopped down. Overall, it wasn't as good as my 24-70 mkI in sharpness and I ran them side by side. For stills, the 17-50 has an extremely loud whiny autofocus motor that hunts for focus in low light. Very distracting in quiet venues like author readings or lectures. The Canon has far better low light focusing performance and can be used on full frame and crop cameras. Just to mention, in a more comparable APS-C focal length the Canon 16-35mm also blows the 17-50 away in stills, video and low light performance.