FS7: Canon 24-70mm or 24-105mm on FS7 with Metabones Speedbooster

M

mrchirster

Well-known member
Hey guys,
our trusty 24-70mm broke on a recent shoot and I'm debating wether to get a 24-105mm or 24-70mm.
I often feel like I'm stuck at 70mm when I want to go a bit tighter and together with the Speedbooster I hope this is a good combo.
I'm still not sure if we should get a new 24-70mm because we also own the 16-35mm and the 70-200mm, both 2.8. Workflow wise I think it will be weird having one lens in the mix that is darker.
Any thoughts on this?
 
I have decided to go for the 24-105 with the Speedbooster, and think it is the bread and butter combination for me. The lins is not darker as long as you will not go to the limit. But the zoom is what you really need for framing your footage.
 
I just used the Canon 24-105 on a normal metabones (non speedbooster) and I have to say I'm just not a fan of the lens. First it gets darker as you zoom in and that's just a PITA when you are moving fast . Secondly I and a few other people have found surprising and disturbing CA when used with speedbooster. I don't know if it has anything to do with that combination but it shocked me to see bad CA on a railing at the front of a building in sunshine. I would try the Sigma first and I'm very happy with the Tamron 24-70 except for the reach of course. However I'm really intrigued by the upcoming Sony 18-110. Great zoom range , par focal and a real iris. Who knows how natural the focus ring will be and of course its f4 without the option of speedbooster plus its $3500. So I'm thinking its my go to run and gun lens but if I need the speed I always have the 24-70 with speedbooster to grab 2 more stops. I'll often run at 1/24 sec sec when I need the stop though. No one's every noticed anything.
 
I have the 24-105 f4 with speed booster and I think it's not fast enough when the sun has gone down. I really need an f2.8 (even with the speed booster) to manage.
 
Lenilenapi said:
I just used the Canon 24-105 on a normal metabones (non speedbooster) and I have to say I'm just not a fan of the lens. First it gets darker as you zoom in and that's just a PITA when you are moving fast . Secondly I and a few other people have found surprising and disturbing CA when used with speedbooster. I don't know if it has anything to do with that combination but it shocked me to see bad CA on a railing at the front of a building in sunshine. I would try the Sigma first and I'm very happy with the Tamron 24-70 except for the reach of course. However I'm really intrigued by the upcoming Sony 18-110. Great zoom range , par focal and a real iris. Who knows how natural the focus ring will be and of course its f4 without the option of speedbooster plus its $3500. So I'm thinking its my go to run and gun lens but if I need the speed I always have the 24-70 with speedbooster to grab 2 more stops. I'll often run at 1/24 sec sec when I need the stop though. No one's every noticed anything.
Click to expand...

The 24-105 will get darker UNLESS you shoot wide open. I use a speedbooster + 24-105 + Heliopan Variable ND. No, VariND's are not always ideal, but this is for relatively run'n'gun situations.

TLDR: Shoot wide open and you won't lose any light when zooming in. Stop down even just 1/3 and you'll lose a lot when zooming.
 
The Canon 24-105 is my most frequently used lens, and my least favorite lens I own.

I do not agree with above comment that shooting at wide open yields constant aperture, that lens is not a constant aperture at all. It's a rather pain in the arse to be frank.

A friend of mine bought the sigma 24-105 and his footage is sharp, and the lens does not lose any light when zooming in.... but the focus ring and zoom ring are swapped in position compared to the canon. Way PITA as well.

I'm banking on this new zeiss 21-100 being the lens I want. But the speed boosted 24-105 range is 17-75, so It probably won't be ideal either.




to the OP - I would say stick with the 24-70, it's nice having that bit of extra length on the 24-105 but it does come with a cost. If you're shooting style lets you use the 70-200, anything on that lens will look worlds better than the 24-105, (in regards to the 70-105 range where they are overlappable).

-Just my 2 cents
 
I don't know if it's just our lens or if it's related to the speedbooster but the 24-70mm gets almost a stop darker on the 70mm end as well so I'm kind of used to it. I picked up a 24-105 from our trusted rental shop to check it out for the next week. I would buy the new Mk2 when it comes out but the 24-70 is also going on sale in 2 weeks (according to the rental shop). I have the feeling I will stick with the 24-70mm but I'll give it a week of shooting with the 24-105 to decide. thanks for all your feedback!
 
Lenilenapi said:
I just used the Canon 24-105 on a normal metabones (non speedbooster) and I have to say I'm just not a fan of the lens. First it gets darker as you zoom in and that's just a PITA when you are moving fast .
Click to expand...
and
Essami said:
I have the 24-105 f4 with speed booster and I think it's not fast enough when the sun has gone down. I really need an f2.8 (even with the speed booster) to manage.
Click to expand...
Depends on your requirements I think. For me it the Canon 24-105 f4 was fine with a speedbooster (what adds 1 more stop).

Taylor Rudd said:
The 24-105 will get darker UNLESS you shoot wide open. I use a speedbooster + 24-105
Click to expand...
Why should the 24-105 f4 become darker?
 
Im using the tamron 24-70 with speedbooster and the f2.0 makes me (kind of) confident shooting interiors with available light. That extra stop is where it often counts IMO. Of course grab a light if you can and stop down to get a sharper image, but for me its very usefull to feel that you can roll in dim ambient light.
 
wschmid said:
and

Why should the 24-105 f4 become darker?
Click to expand...

Well obviously it shouldn't. But it does. Very well known issue ... lens would be so much better if it worked properly.

That said, almost all Canon zooms have transmission loss when the aperture is stopped down. But the 24-105 is like 2/3 of a stop, just ridiculous.
 
Has the new Canon 24-105 hit the streets yet? I *think* they've claimed to remedy this issue; does anyone know if that is accurate? If so, I wonder if the Sigma or Canon v2 would be the better lens?
 
wschmid said:
Why should the 24-105 f4 become darker?
Click to expand...

The aperture (F-stop) only measures the ratio/size of the iris, not the amount of light passing through. Other factors like lens design and quality of the glass all affect the amount of light which can pass through the iris at any given focal length. The Canon 24-105 is notorious for having a large loss of light transition at the telephoto end, due to these design factors.

Photography lenses (which have much less need for continuity from shot to shot) are rated only for their F-stop. Cinema lenses, which do require shot-to-shot consistency, area rated by a T-stop instead. A T-stop also measures the amount of light coming through the Iris. The same amount of light will (theoretically) reach the sensor using any lens at any focal length as long as the T-stop is the same. It allows DOP's to maintain continuity when changing lenses or framing. Of course, those lenses usually have a few extra zero's on the end of the price tag, hence why most of use are happy to live with the compromises of photo lenses.
 
Wes. said:
I do not agree with above comment that shooting at wide open yields constant aperture, that lens is not a constant aperture at all. It's a rather pain in the arse to be frank.
Click to expand...

I'm by no means a 24-105 apologist, though I would recommend trying it out for yourself. Yeah, if you pull out the scopes you may see a slight dip, but certainly usable compared to if the lens were stopped down.
 
deltoidjohn said:
The aperture (F-stop) only measures the ratio/size of the iris, not the amount of light passing through. Other factors like lens design and quality of the glass all affect the amount of light which can pass through the iris at any given focal length. The Canon 24-105 is notorious for having a large loss of light transition at the telephoto end, due to these design factors.

Photography lenses (which have much less need for continuity from shot to shot) are rated only for their F-stop. Cinema lenses, which do require shot-to-shot consistency, area rated by a T-stop instead. A T-stop also measures the amount of light coming through the Iris. The same amount of light will (theoretically) reach the sensor using any lens at any focal length as long as the T-stop is the same. It allows DOP's to maintain continuity when changing lenses or framing. Of course, those lenses usually have a few extra zero's on the end of the price tag, hence why most of use are happy to live with the compromises of photo lenses.
Click to expand...
And what exactly are the other factors?
Just some "mythbusting" here haha
 
I have no means to check this aperture ramping at tele of my Canon 15-35 and 24-70 by themselves (i.e. w/o Speed Booster), but I thought neither ramps by itself and the darker tele is caused by the Speed Booster; having read your comments I guess I must apology to my adapter..

Piotr
 
Taylor Rudd said:
I'm by no means a 24-105 apologist, though I would recommend trying it out for yourself. Yeah, if you pull out the scopes you may see a slight dip, but certainly usable compared to if the lens were stopped down.
Click to expand...
I've tried for myself quite a few times, and i still very much dislike it. That said, I have to admit it's my most frequently used lens. The effective 17-75 range on super 35 sensors is the best I've got right now. I don't love the lens, but I use it plenty.

There simply isn't a perfect lens yet, every option comes with it's caveat, so you just pick your poison for doc style s35. You are either changing lenses more frequently, or dealing with some gotchya of a better range. Soon will be the day when I can stop saying this. I can't wait! lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top