Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: Lens selection: ef 24-70 vs. 70-200, 2.8 vs. 4  (Read 12452 times)

nedavve

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5
Lens selection: ef 24-70 vs. 70-200, 2.8 vs. 4
« 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.
Logged

Ronny Nilsen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 361
    • The Quiet Landscape
Lens selection: ef 24-70 vs. 70-200, 2.8 vs. 4
« Reply #1 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]

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.
Logged
Ronny A. Nilsen
www.ronnynilsen.com

cescx

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 65
    • http://
Lens selection: ef 24-70 vs. 70-200, 2.8 vs. 4
« Reply #2 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.
Logged
Francesc Costa

nedavve

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5
Lens selection: ef 24-70 vs. 70-200, 2.8 vs. 4
« Reply #3 on: November 05, 2006, 01:49:26 am »

Thanks!
Logged

macgyver

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 510
Lens selection: ef 24-70 vs. 70-200, 2.8 vs. 4
« Reply #4 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.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2006, 08:33:34 pm by macgyver »
Logged

elkhornsun

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 58
Lens selection: ef 24-70 vs. 70-200, 2.8 vs. 4
« Reply #5 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.
Logged

Paulo Bizarro

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 6402
    • http://www.paulobizarro.com
Lens selection: ef 24-70 vs. 70-200, 2.8 vs. 4
« Reply #6 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.

Jonathan Wienke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5829
    • http://visual-vacations.com/
Lens selection: ef 24-70 vs. 70-200, 2.8 vs. 4
« Reply #7 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.
Logged

Jonathan Wienke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5829
    • http://visual-vacations.com/
Lens selection: ef 24-70 vs. 70-200, 2.8 vs. 4
« Reply #8 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.
Logged

aaykay

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 359
Lens selection: ef 24-70 vs. 70-200, 2.8 vs. 4
« Reply #9 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 ?
Logged

Jonathan Wienke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5829
    • http://visual-vacations.com/
Lens selection: ef 24-70 vs. 70-200, 2.8 vs. 4
« Reply #10 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.
Logged

macgyver

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 510
Lens selection: ef 24-70 vs. 70-200, 2.8 vs. 4
« Reply #11 on: December 02, 2006, 07:55:50 pm »

What do you want to shoot the most?  That will determine what to get.
Logged

aaykay

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 359
Lens selection: ef 24-70 vs. 70-200, 2.8 vs. 4
« Reply #12 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.
Logged

Morgan_Moore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2356
    • sammorganmoore.com
Lens selection: ef 24-70 vs. 70-200, 2.8 vs. 4
« Reply #13 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
Logged
Sam Morgan Moore Bristol UK

Jonathan Wienke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5829
    • http://visual-vacations.com/
Lens selection: ef 24-70 vs. 70-200, 2.8 vs. 4
« Reply #14 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.
Logged

Morgan_Moore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2356
    • sammorganmoore.com
Lens selection: ef 24-70 vs. 70-200, 2.8 vs. 4
« Reply #15 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
Logged
Sam Morgan Moore Bristol UK

Jonathan Wienke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5829
    • http://visual-vacations.com/
Lens selection: ef 24-70 vs. 70-200, 2.8 vs. 4
« Reply #16 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.
Logged

X-Re

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 143
Lens selection: ef 24-70 vs. 70-200, 2.8 vs. 4
« Reply #17 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...
Logged
Dave Re
dave@daverephoto.com website: [u

Morgan_Moore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2356
    • sammorganmoore.com
Lens selection: ef 24-70 vs. 70-200, 2.8 vs. 4
« Reply #18 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
Logged
Sam Morgan Moore Bristol UK

Jonathan Wienke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5829
    • http://visual-vacations.com/
Lens selection: ef 24-70 vs. 70-200, 2.8 vs. 4
« Reply #19 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.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up