Luminous Landscape Forum

Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: nedavve on November 02, 2006, 04:57:15 pm

Title: Lens selection: ef 24-70 vs. 70-200, 2.8 vs. 4
Post by: nedavve on November 02, 2006, 04:57:15 pm
I am a non-professional (soon to be obvious  ) shooting with a EOS 350D, using the ef 50 f/1.8 and the ef 28-200 lenses.  

I have just saved enough invest in my first L-quality lens and would like some hints on the following questions:

1) Where would you think the most noticable difference relative to the 28-200 will be seen, in the low or high focal range, if compared with the 24-70 mm f/2.8 and the 70-200 mm f/2.8?

2) At the low range, any thoughts comparing the ef 24-70 f/2.8  with the ef 24-105 f/4 (I have read the review on this page)?

3) At the long range, any thoughts comparing the ef 70-200 f/4 and the ef 70-200 f/2.8? The MTF charts that canon provide (www.usa.canon.com) look almost identical at f/8, is the difference for other apertures as small (i.e. such that the only improvement would be the one extra stop)?

Thankful for any response.
Title: Lens selection: ef 24-70 vs. 70-200, 2.8 vs. 4
Post by: Ronny Nilsen on November 03, 2006, 02:04:33 am
Quote
2) At the low range, any thoughts comparing the ef 24-70 f/2.8  with the ef 24-105 f/4 (I have read the review on this page)?

[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=83434\")

I did a quick test of those lenses and you can se it [a href=\"http://www.ronnynilsen.com/Photography/Equipment/Test/24-70vs24-105.shtml]here[/url].

IMHO the 24-105 is probably the better choise for general use as it have IS.

I have the 70-200 as well, and really love it.   On a 350D the 24-105 would probably se more use than the 70-200? So maybe get a good lens in that range first? On my 5D i find that the 70-200 is really nice, but the 24-105 is still the walkabout lens.

Unless you only shoot with a tripods, an IS lens will probaly give you better images than a sligthly sharper non IS lens IMHO.
Title: Lens selection: ef 24-70 vs. 70-200, 2.8 vs. 4
Post by: cescx on November 03, 2006, 03:16:26 am
I agree with ronny, I use 24-105 IS and 70-200 2.8 IS in 5D and 1ds II, another factor is the same 77mm filter. If you use a polarizer filter, only need one for all lenses.
Title: Lens selection: ef 24-70 vs. 70-200, 2.8 vs. 4
Post by: nedavve on November 05, 2006, 01:49:26 am
Thanks!
Title: Lens selection: ef 24-70 vs. 70-200, 2.8 vs. 4
Post by: macgyver on November 06, 2006, 08:33:02 pm
24 isnt so wide on that body though.  Have you thought about the 17-40 f/4?  It would fit nicely in a 17-40, 50, 70-200 range.
Title: Lens selection: ef 24-70 vs. 70-200, 2.8 vs. 4
Post by: elkhornsun on November 30, 2006, 08:02:52 pm
Many pros have had problems with the Canon 24-70mm f2.8 lens and have switched to Tamron for what it is worth, and they can take advantage of Canon Professional Services for calibration.

The 24-105 IS lens is well regarded lens providing sharp images over a wider range. Unless your subject is moving, the IS compensates for the f4 speed.
Title: Lens selection: ef 24-70 vs. 70-200, 2.8 vs. 4
Post by: Paulo Bizarro on December 02, 2006, 01:50:51 am
Quote
Many pros have had problems with the Canon 24-70mm f2.8 lens and have switched to Tamron for what it is worth, and they can take advantage of Canon Professional Services for calibration.

And the source for this comes from where? Internet babble? Vapourware?

If this is true, I suppose I am lucky enough to have a no-problems EF 24-70 L lens.
Title: Lens selection: ef 24-70 vs. 70-200, 2.8 vs. 4
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on December 02, 2006, 04:04:59 am
Quote
Many pros have had problems with the Canon 24-70mm f2.8 lens and have switched to Tamron for what it is worth, and they can take advantage of Canon Professional Services for calibration.

What is the basis for this? The only problem with the 24-70 that has ever popped up on user forums with any consistency was an issue with the lens hood retainer ring coming loose, but that was solved with a design change several years ago, and people who experienced the issue were able to send their lenses to Canon for a free fix. I've never had any trouble with mine even though I bought it before the design change, and I've shot tens of thousands of frames with it. Tamron is several steps down the food chain from Canon L in terms of image quality and build quality (no weather sealing, etc. last time I checked). You're giving out bad advice and misinformation here.
Title: Lens selection: ef 24-70 vs. 70-200, 2.8 vs. 4
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on December 02, 2006, 04:26:56 am
Getting back to the original poster:

There isn't much difference between lenses at smaller apertures; most lenses perform pretty well at f/16, but at wider apertures (f/4 and below) the expensive stuff will really distinguish itself from the coke bottles. Faster glass is more expensive, but allows you to shoot in lower lighting conditions successfully, and will autofocus more accurately. If you shoot indoors much, I'd recommend saving extra nickels and working out and buying f/2.8 instead of f/4.

The 24-70/2.8 is a very good lens; mild CA at the wide end (easily corrected in ACR) with a bit of barrel distortion, but again this is easily fixed in PS. I have the 70-200/2.8L IS, and while heavy and expensive, it is sharp at all apertures and zoom settings with only the barest hint of CA and other imperfections (again, easily removed if you can even find them). The f/4 version is also very good quality; the main things you're giving up is the extra stop, some weight, and pain of acquisition. I recommend getting IS if possible; it makes a big difference when shooting handheld in low light, and also when shooting from a tripod in windy conditions.

The 17-40/4 L, 24-70/2.8L, and 70-200/2.8 L (IS and non-IS) all have the same 77mm filter, so that cuts down on the number of polarizers and other filters you need.
Title: Lens selection: ef 24-70 vs. 70-200, 2.8 vs. 4
Post by: aaykay on December 02, 2006, 11:53:02 am
Quote
The 17-40/4 L, 24-70/2.8L, and 70-200/2.8 L (IS and non-IS) all have the same 77mm filter, so that cuts down on the number of polarizers and other filters you need.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=88214\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks for the post.  Also, did you consider the 16-35 f/2.8L at all, instead of the 17-40/4L ?  How does that compare in the 17-35 range with the 17-40 ?
Title: Lens selection: ef 24-70 vs. 70-200, 2.8 vs. 4
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on December 02, 2006, 07:19:16 pm
Quote
Thanks for the post.  Also, did you consider the 16-35 f/2.8L at all, instead of the 17-40/4L ?  How does that compare in the 17-35 range with the 17-40 ?

I got the 17-40 instead of the 16-35 due to budgetary constraints. There's a comparison of these lenses by Michael somewhere on this site; look through the older product reviews.
Title: Lens selection: ef 24-70 vs. 70-200, 2.8 vs. 4
Post by: macgyver on December 02, 2006, 07:55:50 pm
What do you want to shoot the most?  That will determine what to get.
Title: Lens selection: ef 24-70 vs. 70-200, 2.8 vs. 4
Post by: aaykay on December 03, 2006, 10:30:12 am
Quote
I got the 17-40 instead of the 16-35 due to budgetary constraints. There's a comparison of these lenses by Michael somewhere on this site; look through the older product reviews.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=88316\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

True.  The 16-35 seems to be  more than twice as expensive as the 17-40 f/4.  However, I believe these would be used a lot for landscape work, where we typically stop down and thus the wider aperture would not matter much.
Title: Lens selection: ef 24-70 vs. 70-200, 2.8 vs. 4
Post by: Morgan_Moore on December 03, 2006, 11:13:36 am
I wouled always go for the wide apertur pro lenses

Also whqt value is a 24-70 when you have a 50 1.8

24 is not a proper wide on a cropped camera - it would seem to be a bit of a non lense on a cropped camera

16 or 17 is a reasonable place to start at the wide end as suggested before

SMM
Title: Lens selection: ef 24-70 vs. 70-200, 2.8 vs. 4
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on December 03, 2006, 11:26:40 am
Quote
Also whqt value is a 24-70 when you have a 50 1.8

It's a lot handier than the 50mm when you need to shoot @ 24mm...max aperture is not more important than focal length.
Title: Lens selection: ef 24-70 vs. 70-200, 2.8 vs. 4
Post by: Morgan_Moore on December 04, 2006, 03:28:06 am
Quote
It's a lot handier than the 50mm when you need to shoot @ 24mm...max aperture is not more important than focal length.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=88425\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

As posted before "17-40, 50, 70-200 range" is a good combination

I have 14, 20-35, 50 1.2, 80-200 in my D200 bag

I rarely use my 20-35 and if I had to cull one lense from the bag that would be it

I find the wide aperture of the 50 essential to bring any life/character to portraits especially on the small chip camera

If I had full frame it would be a different story as 20 or 24 is a decent wide startpoint the 14 and the 50 would be culled

SMM
Title: Lens selection: ef 24-70 vs. 70-200, 2.8 vs. 4
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on December 04, 2006, 09:39:19 am
Quote
As posted before "17-40, 50, 70-200 range" is a good combination

I have 14, 20-35, 50 1.2, 80-200 in my D200 bag

That's not mentioned in any of your prior posts in this thread, so assuming everyone knows this is a bit confusing.
Title: Lens selection: ef 24-70 vs. 70-200, 2.8 vs. 4
Post by: X-Re on December 04, 2006, 10:23:48 am
Quote
24 isnt so wide on that body though.  Have you thought about the 17-40 f/4?  It would fit nicely in a 17-40, 50, 70-200 range.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83911\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

     I have this exact complement of lenses (except that I have the 50/1.4). I find myself wanting a mid/normal range zoom all the time. This is on a 30D, so I've got a 1.6x crop factor, too. In fact, one of the two L zooms are the next item on my purchase list  

     I'm not going to dump any of those lenses, though - there are plenty of opportunities to use all three, even with a normal range zoom in the bag.... and they're all nice lenses...
Title: Lens selection: ef 24-70 vs. 70-200, 2.8 vs. 4
Post by: Morgan_Moore on December 04, 2006, 03:30:28 pm
Quote
That's not mentioned in any of your prior posts in this thread, so assuming everyone knows this is a bit confusing.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=88573\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

What I have in my bag is not relevant to the original poster - the point I am trying to make is that it is farily normal to want a wide a mid and a tele my system duplicates (almost the mid range with the 20-35 and the 50 -the result being that I dont use the slower darker 20-35 much)

THe oringinal poster has an adequate mid, the 50, so should be looking to fill the other ends

a 24 is not a proper wide on a cropped body

So if they went for a 24+  lense they would end up with two mid lenghts and no wide - apparently an illogical choice compared with getting a 16+ or 17+ as appropriate to thier budget

It may just be personal but I have never (in FF/film days) used a 35-70 either always going for the prime 50 instead

SMM
Title: Lens selection: ef 24-70 vs. 70-200, 2.8 vs. 4
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on December 07, 2006, 04:13:57 am
But you said "as posted before" when you hadn't posted that information before, at least not in this thread.

I have a 50mm prime, but rarely use it because the 24-70/2.8L is very close optically, and f/2.8 is fast enough most of the time for what I shoot. I use primes occasionally when shooting concerts with really crappy lighting, but getting enough DOF to be useful is tough below f/2.8 when the subjects are moving around on stage.

I'd get the 10-22mm EF-S, the 24-70/2.8L, and the 70-200/2.8L IS if I had a 1.6X camera; that covers everything from true wide angle to telephoto with three high-quality lenses. Then I'd get primes to cover special cases where the three zooms were not adequate.
Title: Lens selection: ef 24-70 vs. 70-200, 2.8 vs. 4
Post by: flying kiwi on December 07, 2006, 02:34:35 pm
Here's my personal experience.
After wasting lots of money going to and fro on all kinds of equipment I've finally settled on a Canon 17-40 a Canon 50 1.8  and a 70-200 2.8 Non IS. All are used on a 20D.

Used to have the efs 10-22 but hardly ever used it and found it too wide to use on most shots. You, may have a need for it, only you can decide.

The missing 40 to 50 and 50 to 70 ranges I can usualy zoom with my feet
One   thing I'm planning on is a 24-70 2.8 and then I'm set.

If I had to do it all over again I would have gone for the 24-70 first and then the 70-200
Title: Lens selection: ef 24-70 vs. 70-200, 2.8 vs. 4
Post by: Ed Dubois on December 07, 2006, 09:43:43 pm
Quote
Many pros have had problems with the Canon 24-70mm f2.8 lens and have switched to Tamron for what it is worth, and they can take advantage of Canon Professional Services for calibration.

Elkhornsun this is the second thread in a row I've read where you've been making unsubstantiated statements about pros having problems with Canon lenses. I think if you're going to bash Canon at frequent intervals you could at least provide evidence of your claims.

NEDAVVE,
Depending on the focal length you'll need most for your style of shooting I think you'll be pleased with any of the L series lenses. In any case, getting the IS is very worthwhile.  
Title: Lens selection: ef 24-70 vs. 70-200, 2.8 vs. 4
Post by: Morgan_Moore on December 08, 2006, 12:15:19 pm
Quote
But you said "as posted before" when you hadn't posted that information before, at least not in this thread.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=89166\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I hadnt "macgyver"  had..

"24 isnt so wide on that body though. Have you thought about the 17-40 f/4? It would fit nicely in a 17-40, 50, 70-200 range"

The user original poster is on a budget and already owns a 50 - they should put their efforts towards a proper wide 16 or 17 rather than a nearly wide the 24

(or a proper long 80-200)
Title: Lens selection: ef 24-70 vs. 70-200, 2.8 vs. 4
Post by: gearhead5 on December 09, 2006, 12:58:03 am
Quote
I am a non-professional (soon to be obvious  ) shooting with a EOS 350D, using the ef 50 f/1.8 and the ef 28-200 lenses. 

I have just saved enough invest in my first L-quality lens and would like some hints on the following questions:

1) Where would you think the most noticable difference relative to the 28-200 will be seen, in the low or high focal range, if compared with the 24-70 mm f/2.8 and the 70-200 mm f/2.8?

2) At the low range, any thoughts comparing the ef 24-70 f/2.8  with the ef 24-105 f/4 (I have read the review on this page)?

3) At the long range, any thoughts comparing the ef 70-200 f/4 and the ef 70-200 f/2.8? The MTF charts that canon provide (www.usa.canon.com) look almost identical at f/8, is the difference for other apertures as small (i.e. such that the only improvement would be the one extra stop)?

Thankful for any response.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83434\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If I choose to travel "light" (generally for travel) with my 5D, I carry the 17-40/4, 24-105/4 and 70-200/4 IS. Sometimes I also take the 50/1.4.  If I am in a "it doesn't matter what it weighs" situation, the lenses in my bag are the 17-40/4, 24-70/2.8, and the 70-200/2.8 IS.
Title: Lens selection: ef 24-70 vs. 70-200, 2.8 vs. 4
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on December 09, 2006, 01:11:36 am
Quote
I hadnt "macgyver"  had..

OK, it must be my alzheimer's kicking in. I'm not trying to dispute the notion that 24mm isn't that wide on a 1.6x body, the 10-22mm EF-S lens is more like it if you need true wide angle.
Title: Lens selection: ef 24-70 vs. 70-200, 2.8 vs. 4
Post by: Morgan_Moore on December 09, 2006, 02:47:38 am
Quote
I'm not trying to dispute the notion that 24mm isn't that wide on a 1.6x body, the 10-22mm EF-S lens is more like it if you need true wide angle.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=89511\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hurrah - agreement

Yes even wider than 16 is a good place to start

With the 12 I believe it goes in the bin if the poster upgrades to a 5D in time though

------------

I think I come from a very dated/luddite culture of lense and camera buying

I consider 2.8 to be slow and slower  - unuseable - the only slower lenses I have slower than 2.8 are 'special purpose'; 600 and a 28 rise/fall

I rarely zoom at all

I would on a FF go for primes 24, 50, 135 or 180 - in film days that would have been on two or three bodies, I suppose on a cropped chip that is 14, 35 and the 85

SMM