Zoom for new 5D Mark II -- 24-70 or 24-105

[stevevihon]

About to pull the trigger on the 5D Mark II. I had started another post thread about primes and appreciate everyone's input related to L and non L lenses (including non Canon manual lenses).

I have thought a bit about lenses, I think I will need a zoom in addition to some primes. For those who have owned / used both the 24-70 and 24-105, which do you think is a better option for the 5D Mark II?

Usage will be family shooting (uncooperative four year old daughter, casual vacation shooting to visit in-laws) by both my wife (happy with cell phone shots or the s95) and I. Planning on adding primes for my more serious hobby shooting, but think that a zoom would be versitle for the family to use for casual shots.

Thanks in advance,
Steve

 

[alipaulphotography]

Depends if you want a great focal range or a greater aperture. One is not better than the other, it entirely depends on what the user wants from it.

 

[stevevihon]

Hi Ali -- fair point. In this instance, I am interested only about lens performance between the two. I have read their respective reviews on photozone.de as well as looked at them on the DXOMARK site. Seem to have good performance for a zoom, but not as steller as say the 17-55 is viewed on Canon APS-C sensors.

 

[Halfrack]

Change the thought to 24-70 or 24-105 with flash. Playing 'catch a kid' you'll either need the faster glass or more light.

 

[Canon 14-24]

Uncooperative kids that like to run around? I honestly would go for the 70-200 2.8 is ii zoom if you have the $.

Combine that with a 17-40 for your wide angle architecture/travel/family group shot needs and 50 1.4 prime and you are set.

I always felt I was sacrificing/compromising something with a standard range zoom and it appears you don't need a 1 lens solution compromise, as you are willing to shell out for some primes to interchange.

 

[jcns]

no kids of my own but plenty of nephews and nieces.
I have a 24-70 L 2.8. Some say it's heavy. I tell them, hit the gym.
At 2.8, it's not super sharp all around. Set it between 4-5.6 and I can catch the fastest of my rug rats, I mean nephews or nieces.
Some argue that the 24-70 lacks IS; I tell them, work on your technique and skill.
The 24-70 I consider a great walk around lens. I do miss some of the reach from my previous 28-135, but that's less than 5% of the time(maybe even less).
With the 24-70 I don't need a flash. If you get the 24-105, you may need to get a flash for indoor/darker places.

 

[Isaac]

Go with the 24/105mm f/4 - better reviews and a wonderful all-round lens.

Enjoy.

 

[alipaulphotography]

Hi Ali -- fair point. In this instance, I am interested only about lens performance between the two. I have read their respective reviews on photozone.de as well as looked at them on the DXOMARK site. Seem to have good performance for a zoom, but not as steller as say the 17-55 is viewed on Canon APS-C sensors.

I really doubt you'll see much of a visible difference between the two.

I have never been a pixel peeper and am a strong believer in the content of a photograph than, say "the corner sharpness" etc.

Rather than buying all the lenses for your new camera in one go, perhaps just start with a 50mm and go from there.

You say you 'think' a zoom would be more useful for casual shots, but you might find that you are perfectly happy with a prime lens and could save yourself £1000. I am perfectly happy with just a 50mm and I only have my other lenses for work.

Something to think about before you get the dreaded 'gear acquisition syndrome'.

 

[Loswr]

Depends if you want a great focal range or a greater aperture. One is not better than the other, it entirely depends on what the user wants from it.

Hi Ali -- fair point. In this instance, I am interested only about lens performance between the two. I have read their respective reviews on photozone.de as well as looked at them on the DXOMARK site. Seem to have good performance for a zoom, but not as steller as say the 17-55 is viewed on Canon APS-C sensors.

There's really not going to be much real-world IQ difference between the two lenses. The only thing that might cause an occasional issue is the field curvature of the 24-70mm. Also, I'm not convinced that's the right approach. If you need f/2.8 for a 1-stop shutter speed advantage in order to stop motion, a slightly less-sharp lens at f/2.8 will produce better results than a slightly sharper f/4 lens that gives you subject motion blur. With indoor ambient light shooting, overcoming subject motion can be a struggle.

It really does come down to aperture vs. focal length. I do find that with the 24-105mm f/4L IS, I often need a flash to shoot my daughters indoors. But my experience with the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II suggests that sometimes just the one extra stop is not enough - I often use the 35mm f/1.4L for indoor shooting with ambient light.

One other consideration is the amount of OOF blur, which will be greater with the f/2.8 lens. If your daughter is anything like my two (ages 2 and 4), your family shooting 'around the house' will probably be against a certain level of background clutter. An f/2.8 lens can render that clutter as a pleasing, colorful blur.

I do think that for a travel/general use lens, the 24-105mm f/4L IS is a better choice. But I have been quite tempted by the 24-70mm f/2.8L, as I often find myself switching to the 70-200/2.8 II and using it at 70mm in the house.

 

[ZSuttonPhoto]

Perhaps I'm not normal...but I hardly ever use my 24-70 with my 5dmkII. Its all about the 70-200 2.8 for me...

 

[Drizzt321]

I've got the 24-105, love it, best general lens I've used. However, at f/4 it's quite slow in low light. Although, I've found I can pretty easily go up to ISO 2000-2500 on the 5Dm2 and still get pretty usable photos in most cases which does help. The extra stop could help, and if you have an active kid running around the IS won't make much of a difference because that only helps for camera shake, not moving subjects.

So really it comes down to, do you need the extra 35mm of focal length and IS for camera shake reduction, or do you need the 1 stop faster aperture?

 

[Caps18]

Another option is the 16-35mm with a 50 or 85 prime... that is the way I went, but I also take more landscape pictures than fast moving people pictures.

I would chose the 24-70 for the faster glass. Did Canon ever create a new one with IS?

 

[Mark1]

I haven't used the 24-70 but do own a 24-105 which I use with a 5D mk1. It's an absolutely outstanding all rounder. If you're going mainly for primes and want just one zoom I'd pick the 24-105 every time. longer range, lighter, IS is a massive differentiator considering you want an all-rounder.

I have a 2 year old who tears around the house and usable shots of him with ANY lens camera combo are going to be few and far between regardless of your technique. Without a 50mm 1.4 or something you'll get 90% failure rate so I wouldnt decide between the 24-70 and 24-105 purely on low light rug rat shots!

As I say, the 24-105 continues to please and surprise me with its performance even after 4 years of use. It's got to be more versatile than the 24-70 in every way bar a stop or two of bokeh but as any well read photographer will tell you - you need to pay attention to your background.

 

[alipaulphotography]

I haven't used the 24-70 but do own a 24-105 which I use with a 5D mk1. It's an absolutely outstanding all rounder. If you're going mainly for primes and want just one zoom I'd pick the 24-105 every time. longer range, lighter, IS is a massive differentiator considering you want an all-rounder.

I have a 2 year old who tears around the house and usable shots of him with ANY lens camera combo are going to be few and far between regardless of your technique. Without a 50mm 1.4 or something you'll get 90% failure rate so I wouldnt decide between the 24-70 and 24-105 purely on low light rug rat shots!

As I say, the 24-105 continues to please and surprise me with its performance even after 4 years of use. It's got to be more versatile than the 24-70 in every way bar a stop or two of bokeh but as any well read photographer will tell you - you need to pay attention to your background.

How much different is the bokeh from 70mm @ f/2.8 to 105 @ f/4?

 

[Loswr]

How much different is the bokeh from 70mm @ f/2.8 to 105 @ f/4?

Well, first off, technically bokeh is the quality of the OOF blur, and I think you're asking about quantity. For the same subject distance, the DoF will be shallower at 105mm f/4 (more OOF blur) than 70mm f/2.8. But that's not usually very practical. For the same framing, DoF will be shallower at 70mm f/2.8. Practically, aperture determines DoF - if you frame a head/shoulders shot at 70mm f/2.8, you could get a shallower DoF at 105mm f/4, but then you'd be cutting off your subjects hair and neck - no t the same picture. If you back up to get the same framing, the increased distance exactly compensates for the longer focal length in terms of DoF, so it reduces to just aperture - and f/2.8 will give more OOF blur than f/4.

 

[Ryusui]

I was actually in the exact same position as you just a couple weeks ago. I just upped to the 5DII, and was torn on whether I should go with the kit and get the 24-105 for the length, or go body only and buy the 24-70 for the speed. My regular arsenel is going to consist of four lenses:

• 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM
• 85mm f/1.2L II USM
• 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM

And either of the 24s. I chose the 105 because, for my purposes, I feel the 24-105 would be my chosen lens in most situations if I was going to have just one lens with me. It's a good zoom with decent range on both ends, and at f/4, it's not exactly slow. I felt having the extra 35mm would work better for me than the extra stop.

Also, if you're looking for a lens to shoot your daughter, figure this...
Let's assume that using the 24-70 on the widest end you're about 5-7 feet away from her. At f/2.8, that's a DoF of roughly 3-6 inches max. I don't know exactly how "uncooperative" she is, but if she moves around a lot you might have a hard time keeping her within the acceptable range of focus. Or maybe not. Maybe you're much better at tracking a subject than I am. Regardless, I think it's something to consider.

 

[Loswr]

Let's assume that using the 24-70 on the widest end you're about 5-7 feet away from her. At f/2.8, that's a DoF of roughly 3-6 inches max.

That's at 70mm. At 24mm f/2.8, DoF is well over a foot. That's one reason I like my 35L for indoor ambient shots - at 35mm and 6', even at f/1.4 I've got a 10" DoF to work with.

The OP didn't mention whether use would be more indoors or out. Outside, the 24-105 is a great choice. I just spent an evening shooting indoors, trading between the 24-105/4 and the 70-200/2.8 II, and wanting f/2.8 but with a wider angle (but not so wide as my 16-35/2.8 II). I must say...I'm very, very close to ordering the 24-70mm...New England winters are long, with lots of time spent indoors.

 

[Ryusui]

That's at 70mm. At 24mm f/2.8, DoF is well over a foot. That's one reason I like my 35L for indoor ambient shots - at 35mm and 6', even at f/1.4 I've got a 10" DoF to work with.

Yes, sorry. That's what I meant when I said "using the 24-70 on the widest end". Looking at that sentence again, it seems I didn't structure it properly to convey my thought. It should have read, "Let's assume that you're using the 24-70 on the widest end, and you're about 5-7 feet away from her."
My assupmtion was based on wanting to have her framed roughly at waist level and be as far away as possible to allow her to run freely and not concentrate on daddy.

The OP didn't mention whether use would be more indoors or out. Outside, the 24-105 is a great choice. I just spent an evening shooting indoors, trading between the 24-105/4 and the 70-200/2.8 II, and wanting f/2.8 but with a wider angle (but not so wide as my 16-35/2.8 II). I must say...I'm very, very close to ordering the 24-70mm...New England winters are long, with lots of time spent indoors.

You make a good point, here. If the OP is going to be indoors, the 24-70 could be a better choice. I guess I just made the assumption that with his daughter he'd mostly be outside.
I guess I've just been watching too many sappy, "go-for-the-heartstrings" television commercials where parent and child are joyfully playing outside in a Nirvana-like setting.

 

[stevevihon]

I'm the OP - more indoor than outdoor shooting. Great points on DOF and trade offs with both lenses. Thanks!