April 20, 2014, 05:19:53 AM

Author Topic: 24-70 f/2.8L vs. 24-105 f/4L  (Read 3342 times)

UrbanImages

  • PowerShot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 36
    • View Profile
24-70 f/2.8L vs. 24-105 f/4L
« on: March 03, 2012, 03:21:12 PM »
I need some opinions. I currently own a 24-105 f/4L that I switch between a 5D II and a 60D. I do a lot of night photography with low lights and it doesn't seem up to par. Anyone feel that selling it and replacing it with the 24-70 is a good move? And I'm not looking at the Mark II either. Any input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!!
5D III, 5D IIx2.... 24-70L, 70-200L II, 70-300L, 35-350L, 17-40L, 28-135, 50-1.4, 85-1.8, 40-2.8, 100-2.8 Macro, Sigma 15 Fisheye... 600 EX, 580 EX IIx3, 430 EX II and a bunch of other toys...

canon rumors FORUM

24-70 f/2.8L vs. 24-105 f/4L
« on: March 03, 2012, 03:21:12 PM »

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • *******
  • Posts: 12789
    • View Profile
Re: 24-70 f/2.8L vs. 24-105 f/4L
« Reply #1 on: March 03, 2012, 03:40:54 PM »
Look at your EXIF to see if one stop will make enough difference.  Personally, I use the 35mm f/1.4L as a nighttime walkaround lens on my 5DII.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

dirtcastle

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 391
    • View Profile
    • Eric Nord Flickr Page
Re: 24-70 f/2.8L vs. 24-105 f/4L
« Reply #2 on: March 03, 2012, 05:09:29 PM »
As I see it, the 24-70mm f/2.8 L is a good option for indoor low light situations. I'm considering it myself. I find the 24-105mm practically useless indoors without a flash.

For outdoor at night, I would also prefer a prime in the f/1.2 to f/1.8 range. But it is true that good ISO performance can get you a few extra stops.

I'm also considering the 35mm f/1.4 L, but more for the IQ, bokeh, and low distortion (compared to my 16-35mm f/2.8 L II), than for its low light performance.

One thing to consider... let's say that you need an f/2.8 depth of field... well, then your ability to shoot in low light is primarily going to be a function of ISO and IS. That's something to think about. Just because you have a wide aperture, doesn't mean that the resulting depth of field will suit your needs.

JesseG

  • Guest
Re: 24-70 f/2.8L vs. 24-105 f/4L
« Reply #3 on: March 03, 2012, 05:12:32 PM »
I'd agree that a fast prime would be a better choice considering you already have a great lens with more versatility than the 24-70L.


JesseG

  • Guest
Re: 24-70 f/2.8L vs. 24-105 f/4L
« Reply #4 on: March 03, 2012, 05:21:29 PM »
I'd also look at the Sigma 28-75.
There's some variability between copies, but if you get a good one, you're lucky and still have $800 in your pocket.
http://www.amazon.com/review/R2GNWJ4M60OFY0/ref=cm_srch_res_rtr_alt_1

MikeHunt

  • Guest
Re: 24-70 f/2.8L vs. 24-105 f/4L
« Reply #5 on: March 03, 2012, 05:35:02 PM »
I need some opinions. I currently own a 24-105 f/4L that I switch between a 5D II and a 60D. I do a lot of night photography with low lights and it doesn't seem up to par. Anyone feel that selling it and replacing it with the 24-70 is a good move? And I'm not looking at the Mark II either. Any input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!!


I have a 24-70mm Mk I on a 7D and I still use it at night, instead of reaching for my 50 f/1.4. See video below that reviews performance of EF 24-70mm f/2.8L at midnight:

Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 L hands-on review Small | Large

UrbanImages

  • PowerShot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 36
    • View Profile
Re: 24-70 f/2.8L vs. 24-105 f/4L
« Reply #6 on: March 03, 2012, 05:51:04 PM »
I should've also added that I do a lot of fire photography where there isn't always adequate available light. I do have the 50 f/1.8, 85 f/1.8 and 100 f/2.8 macro that I use for regular shooting which I do just as much of. I have found that many times the 24-105 doesn't cut it at an f stop of 4. I have considered using a prime on one camera and a zoom on the other, but the limits on how close one can get to take effective photographs varies.
5D III, 5D IIx2.... 24-70L, 70-200L II, 70-300L, 35-350L, 17-40L, 28-135, 50-1.4, 85-1.8, 40-2.8, 100-2.8 Macro, Sigma 15 Fisheye... 600 EX, 580 EX IIx3, 430 EX II and a bunch of other toys...

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 24-70 f/2.8L vs. 24-105 f/4L
« Reply #6 on: March 03, 2012, 05:51:04 PM »

dirtcastle

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 391
    • View Profile
    • Eric Nord Flickr Page
Re: 24-70 f/2.8L vs. 24-105 f/4L
« Reply #7 on: March 03, 2012, 06:21:48 PM »
You just answered your question, I think.

If you have primes and they don't get the job done, then you would probably be better suited with an f/2.8 zoom and high ISO performance. You might consider your post-processing technique as well, to reduce artefacts in dark areas when you boost fill/exposure/brightness.


Rob Wiebe

  • PowerShot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 32
    • View Profile
    • J D Robert Wiebe Photography
Re: 24-70 f/2.8L vs. 24-105 f/4L
« Reply #8 on: March 03, 2012, 06:25:06 PM »
1DX, 5D Mark III, Sony A7R, Sony RX100 II and lots of " L" lenses

briansquibb

  • Guest
Re: 24-70 f/2.8L vs. 24-105 f/4L
« Reply #9 on: March 03, 2012, 06:31:18 PM »
I need some opinions. I currently own a 24-105 f/4L that I switch between a 5D II and a 60D. I do a lot of night photography with low lights and it doesn't seem up to par. Anyone feel that selling it and replacing it with the 24-70 is a good move? And I'm not looking at the Mark II either. Any input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!!

Can you define more clearly what is wrong?

I regularly shoot at night with the 24-105 - providing there is an area of contrast then AF works fine.

ISO and aperture only impact shutter speed so the other suggestions of other lens will only impact shutter speeds.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 24-70 f/2.8L vs. 24-105 f/4L
« Reply #9 on: March 03, 2012, 06:31:18 PM »