Which short zoom for the Canon 5D MkII

[allenbirnbach]

I just got my 5d MkII body (not the kit).  I want to replace my old 28-70 f2.8L lens because I did a test comparing it against a 24-105 f4L on my 50D and the 24-105 was much better in both contrast and sharpness.

The question is whether the ability of the 24-105 is going to be an issue with the AF system of the 5D MkII since it cannot take advantage of the center sensors which work with f2.8 or faster lenses, something the 24-70  f2.8 L lens could do.  Since I often am working with people in lifestyle or sports types of situations, I wonder if that would be an issue.  I like the idea of the longer reach of the 24-105, and the IS, but focusing ability is certainly the most important issue in my work.

Anyone out there have these three items and tested the results yet?

[marcmccalmont]

When I bought my 5D I bought a 24-70 2.8, within a few months I sold it and purchased a 24-105 IS
Once corrected by DxO the 24-105 is the equal to the 24-70 and more versatile.
If most of your shooting is on a tripod get the 24-70
If a large amount is handheld get the 24-105 IS
Marc

[allenbirnbach]

Thanks for the feedback.  So your experience was that the focusing of the 24-105 was not significantly different than with the 24-70?  I just read the white paper Canon put out on the 5D MkII (http://tinyurl.com/64nmy7), and they talk about the added ability with lenses of f3.8 and faster.  I just can't tell how much of a difference this would really make.

When I bought my 5D I bought a 24-70 2.8, within a few months I sold it and purchased a 24-105 IS
Once corrected by DxO the 24-105 is the equal to the 24-70 and more versatile.
If most of your shooting is on a tripod get the 24-70
If a large amount is handheld get the 24-105 IS
Marc

[Geoff Wittig]

I just got my 5d MkII body (not the kit).  I want to replace my old 28-70 f2.8L lens because I did a test comparing it against a 24-105 f4L on my 50D and the 24-105 was much better in both contrast and sharpness.

The question is whether the ability of the 24-105 is going to be an issue with the AF system of the 5D MkII since it cannot take advantage of the center sensors which work with f2.8 or faster lenses, something the 24-70  f2.8 L lens could do.  Since I often am working with people in lifestyle or sports types of situations, I wonder if that would be an issue.  I like the idea of the longer reach of the 24-105, and the IS, but focusing ability is certainly the most important issue in my work.

Anyone out there have these three items and tested the results yet?

I own both lenses and a Canon Eos-1Ds III, and each lens has its strengths and drawbacks. Which you'll want depends on what you're doing. The 24 - 70 f:2.8 is optically excellent (at least my copy is), sharp right out to the corners with that nice bright aperture. On the other hand, it always seems like you're running out of zoom at the long end for a lot of subjects. The 24 - 105 f:4 is a lot more convenient with a very useful long end and the IS function, but it's not quite as good optically. The difference is subtle but real; giant prints like 24x36" will be just a bit softer with the 24 - 105. And the 24 -105 vignettes badly; this is its Achilles heel. Corners go visibly dark at anything wider than f:8 or even f:10, to the point where stitched panoramics are very problematic.

So most of the time the 24 - 70mm f:2.8 lives on my camera, which is in a bag with the 70 - 200 f:2.8 and lots of other stuff. I shoot mostly landscapes from a tripod, so the modest but real optical advantages trump convenience. On the other hand, I use the 24 - 105 mm f:4 when I'm hiking with a single camera and lens, or just walking around, or if I'm shooting people. (Umm, photographically.) The 24 - 70 f:2.8 just isn't long enough for convenient portraits.

[allenbirnbach]

Though I've worked with the 1DsMkIII, I only rent them, so I can't remember if it has the Peripheral Illumination Correction that the 50D and 5DMkII have.  If so, it sounds like that hasn't helped with the vignetting issue.

With the 45 point AF of the 1DsMkIII, there is still the bias with some of the AF points being more sensitive to lenses of f2.8.  Have you noticed any real difference between the 24-70, and 24-105 in how quickly, and well they focus?  Thanks.

I own both lenses and a Canon Eos-1Ds III, and each lens has its strengths and drawbacks. Which you'll want depends on what you're doing. The 24 - 70 f:2.8 is optically excellent (at least my copy is), sharp right out to the corners with that nice bright aperture. On the other hand, it always seems like you're running out of zoom at the long end for a lot of subjects. The 24 - 105 f:4 is a lot more convenient with a very useful long end and the IS function, but it's not quite as good optically. The difference is subtle but real; giant prints like 24x36" will be just a bit softer with the 24 - 105. And the 24 -105 vignettes badly; this is its Achilles heel. Corners go visibly dark at anything wider than f:8 or even f:10, to the point where stitched panoramics are very problematic.

So most of the time the 24 - 70mm f:2.8 lives on my camera, which is in a bag with the 70 - 200 f:2.8 and lots of other stuff. I shoot mostly landscapes from a tripod, so the modest but real optical advantages trump convenience. On the other hand, I use the 24 - 105 mm f:4 when I'm hiking with a single camera and lens, or just walking around, or if I'm shooting people. (Umm, photographically.) The 24 - 70 f:2.8 just isn't long enough for convenient portraits.

[sojournerphoto]

Though I've worked with the 1DsMkIII, I only rent them, so I can't remember if it has the Peripheral Illumination Correction that the 50D and 5DMkII have.  If so, it sounds like that hasn't helped with the vignetting issue.

With the 45 point AF of the 1DsMkIII, there is still the bias with some of the AF points being more sensitive to lenses of f2.8.  Have you noticed any real difference between the 24-70, and 24-105 in how quickly, and well they focus?  Thanks.

 I shoot with a 1Ds3 and a 5D1 and the 24-105 focuses well on each camera. I've produced 36 by 24 prints from handheld shots using the 24-105 with the raw processed in DXo and the output is far better than I was expecting. On the 1Ds3 I find the o[ptimum aperture is abuot f8, so slightly smaller than my primes that tend to be used at aruond 5.6 for the best resolution in the focus plance. The lens is actually very good, but suffers from various distortions and vignetting.

The vignettign is corrected by DPP and DXo, which also corrects the distortions really well. The nice thing about using the 1Ds3 (and rpesumably the 5D2) with DXo is that it reads the foucs distance from the exif data with the right lenses.

Mike