Which Lens ?

#1
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM or Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L USM Lens

I've read loads of reviews on these 2 lenses. Has anybody used both lenses and can give "real world" advice ?
 

jarrod248

LE
Gallery Guru
#2
I've not used either of them and it depends what you want to use them for. The 24-105mm would give you more scope for different uses. I'd buy that one personally as it would suit my needs more. Why not go to a shop and try them out? If you have a friend with a similar lens or maybe go to a camera club and try someone elses.
 
#4
Can only comment on the 24-105 F4 L IS lens which sits on one of my cameras nearly all the time. It is a very good lens, in my opinion, and has never failed to deliver outstanding results.

Initially I had the same decision to make as you but went with the 24-105 as it gave me a greater range to play with. For me this was a better option and ment less swapping of lenses in most general situations. Also the lack of speed which the F2.8 would have given me was not as much of an issue as the F4 copes well enough (although a 24-105 F2.8 would have been better!).



Q.
 
#5
Thanks for all the info. I've gone for the 24-70 f/2.8, naturally now I've made my mind up nobody has one in stock and they are all blaming the disaster in Japan.

@Quaker, I'm a bit of a biff at this photography lark so I don't fully understand what you mean by ""Also the lack of speed which the F2.8 would have given me""
 

jarrod248

LE
Gallery Guru
#6
Thanks for all the info. I've gone for the 24-70 f/2.8, naturally now I've made my mind up nobody has one in stock and they are all blaming the disaster in Japan.

@Quaker, I'm a bit of a biff at this photography lark so I don't fully understand what you mean by ""Also the lack of speed which the F2.8 would have given me""
Get the other lens, you'll have more use for it.
 
#7
I'm a bit of a biff at this photography lark so I don't fully understand what you mean by ""Also the lack of speed which the F2.8 would have given me""
The smaller the F-number, the wider the aperture of the lens.

The wider the aperture, the more light it lets in.

The more light the aperture lets in, the faster the shutter speed you can use.
 
#8
You've gone for the right lens in my opinion. As you already have the f2.8 70-200mm range isn't so much of an issue for you, you're looking for the fastest crispest lens with the greatest useability, the f2.8L at 24-70mm will enable you use DoF to great effect in portraits and it's wide enough to make a great landscape lens at smaller apertures, the range and speed makes it a brilliant general walkabout lens too. The f4 would have been a mistake and slight disappointment I reckon.

Quaker has made a typo, he means 'added' rather than 'lack of', the larger aperture f2.8L will always be faster than the f4L
 
#9
You've gone for the right lens in my opinion. As you already have the f2.8 70-200mm range isn't so much of an issue for you, you're looking for the fastest crispest lens with the greatest useability, the f2.8L at 24-70mm will enable you use DoF to great effect in portraits and it's wide enough to make a great landscape lens at smaller apertures, the range and speed makes it a brilliant general walkabout lens too. The f4 would have been a mistake and slight disappointment I reckon.

Quaker has made a typo, he means 'added' rather than 'lack of', the larger aperture f2.8L will always be faster than the f4L
My Bold

Thanks, thats what was confusing me. I've ordered the 24-70 f/2.8.
 
#10
The smaller the F-number, the wider the aperture of the lens.

The wider the aperture, the more light it lets in.

The more light the aperture lets in, the faster the shutter speed you can use.
Thanks, thats what I thought but as CT posted "Quaker" had made a Typo error.

Once again thanks to all for the replies.
 
#11
Neither of these is particularly good IMHO. I am on Nikon (-nikkor), but I use my 18-200 nearly all the time. I have a fixed 50mm for indoor photography, but the use of that is rare. I stopped using the 12-24 and 100-400, both are for sale btw...

You cannot beat something like 18-200 for an occasional photographer such as myself.
 
#12
You cannot beat something like 18-200 for an occasional photographer such as myself.
A lot of pros use them for general work as well. Wonderful all-purpose lens IMO; when the D700x comes out I'll get one and use the 28-300 with it, and keep the D200 and 18-200 as a backup. Both lenses distort a bit but you can tweak it in Photoshop in seconds.
 
#13
Neither of these is particularly good IMHO. I am on Nikon (-nikkor), but I use my 18-200 nearly all the time. I have a fixed 50mm for indoor photography, but the use of that is rare. I stopped using the 12-24 and 100-400, both are for sale btw...

You cannot beat something like 18-200 for an occasional photographer such as myself.
I'm assuming that is some sort of joke, I don't get it though. You are saying in a very broad and sweeping way that Canon's professional L series lenses are not particularly good (which is possibly an ironic joke) but you do rate some other shite which you fail to accurately describe other than giving its focal length, and that's because you prefer to use a Nikon? Nikon also produce some fantastic professional series fast lenses although their range is very limited; would you not be better off telling which of their lenses is, in your opinion, better than the Canon's being described here. That would be constructive.
 
#14
You've gone for the right lens in my opinion. As you already have the f2.8 70-200mm range isn't so much of an issue for you, you're looking for the fastest crispest lens with the greatest useability, the f2.8L at 24-70mm will enable you use DoF to great effect in portraits and it's wide enough to make a great landscape lens at smaller apertures, the range and speed makes it a brilliant general walkabout lens too. The f4 would have been a mistake and slight disappointment I reckon.

Quaker has made a typo, he means 'added' rather than 'lack of', the larger aperture f2.8L will always be faster than the f4L

Sorry, yes I did. Should have read it through before posting. F2.8 is indeed faster than F4. The 2.8 will allow you to use a faster shutter speed as it allows more light in and as chieftiff has said it also allows you to be more creative with it's more shallow depth of field. I have a 50mm F1.4 that I love playing about with.

Regards,

Q.
 
#15
Neither of these is particularly good IMHO. I am on Nikon (-nikkor), but I use my 18-200 nearly all the time. I have a fixed 50mm for indoor photography, but the use of that is rare. I stopped using the 12-24 and 100-400, both are for sale btw...

You cannot beat something like 18-200 for an occasional photographer such as myself.
I'm assuming that is some sort of joke, I don't get it though. You are saying in a very broad and sweeping way that Canon's professional L series lenses are not particularly good (which is possibly an ironic joke) but you do rate some other shite which you fail to accurately describe other than giving its focal length, and that's because you prefer to use a Nikon? Nikon also produce some fantastic professional series fast lenses although their range is very limited; would you not be better off telling which of their lenses is, in your opinion, better than the Canon's being described here. That would be constructive.

What chieftiff said.

viceroy, you cannot seriously be trying to say that your Nikon 18-200 is better than either of the Canon's? Is that just because it is a Nikon?

Granted the 18-200 has a greater focal range but in terms of speed and image/glass quality both the Canon lenses win hands down. The Canon lenses are part of their professional range better built and better glass to give better results. Please explain yor reasoning.

Q.
 
#16
Neither of these is particularly good IMHO. I am on Nikon (-nikkor), but I use my 18-200 nearly all the time. I have a fixed 50mm for indoor photography, but the use of that is rare. I stopped using the 12-24 and 100-400, both are for sale btw...

You cannot beat something like 18-200 for an occasional photographer such as myself.
What an absolute crock of shit.
 
#18
Not in the slightest, but suggesting that Canon's two principle short lenses are 'not particularly good' really is complete idiocy.

As for compacts, I've got two of them, and there's very little wrong with them as a carry round camera.
 
#19
Not in the slightest, but suggesting that Canon's two principle short lenses are 'not particularly good' really is complete idiocy.

As for compacts, I've got two of them, and there's very little wrong with them as a carry round camera.
What compacts do you use ?

At a later date I'm going to look at the Canon G10,11 and 12.
 
#20
I've got a Ricoh CX2 as a slip in the pocket job and a G9 for when I can't be fagged to carry a full dSLR about. I went for the 9 over the 10 or 11 because it has a greater zoom range, the sensor is less cluttered than the 10 and it was the last to offer almost full HD video before the G12. For it's current price (about £150-200) I reckon that it's still one of the best high end compacts on the market, despite its age.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top