Lens Advice - Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L or

[Martin Campbell]

after reading all these posts I'm convinced that I should go for the 24-70mm 2.8L!

[Chris Joy]

A little late to the party, but I debated this one myself and I find the IS to be incredibly useful so I bought the 24-105. It really makes a noticeable difference - but I shoot a lot of stuff off the sticks. A lot of my shooting is run-and-gun on a Manfrotto video monopod or a Cowboy Studio shoulder harness thing, I'm constantly moving to get more shots and its usually with the 24-105. All my other lenses are Zeiss primes, and they rarely see action on the Cowboy rig, just the monopod and tripod as there's just too much motion without the IS.

I've shot at night on the street at f4 and only pushed the ISO to 3200 and 6400 - it still looks great. If you're always on a tripod the extra stop would be worth it, but I still like having IS in a zoom. Everyone has different needs, so YMMV. I'm getting the Samyang 35/1.4 and 85/1.4 for a pair of low cost, sharp and fast options for shooting people when there's not a lot of available light - two stops faster than the 24-70 and sharper to boot. The Samyang's rendering is so good, I'm selling my ZE 35/2 as soon as I know I've got a good copy.

[Jon Fairhurst]

I find 35mm and wider on a full frame cam to be fine handheld - when tracking something that's moving. At NAB last year, I shot a lot of stuff where I would start on a logo then move to show a product. I had to do a lot of selective editing to find the most stable takes. On the other hand, when tracking people or moving cranes/dollies, all the footage looked good.

[Wayne Avanson]

Hand held on moving objects always seems to come out well Jon, I've noticed that. It's when you have to hand held on static stuff that I start cringing. Mind you, I saw a news report the other day on TV and i felt sea sick after he'd finished wobbling about the room filming the presenter and guests!

[Jon Fairhurst]

Yeah, tracking movement is one trick. The other is filming in natural environments, rather than in rooms and on streets with lots of vertical and horizontal lines. Those lines not only tell the audience when the camera isn't level, they are like test patterns for rolling shutter.

Of course, one can't film a project about Wall Street in the jungle!

[Ted Ramasola]

On the end of the Mario&Nette 5dmkII promo video,where they show scenes with lenses used they Posted EF 24-70mm f2.8L IS II USM ! Not just once but twice, Does that mena that the New 24-70 NOW has IS ?! whooohoo!


The Canon promo videos and BTS link: Canon?EOS 5D Mark III?Sample Images & Movies

[Nigel Barker]

I have both own the 24-70mm F/2.8L & the 24-105mm F/4L & much prefer the latter. It has a longer reach, it is sharper, it has IS & weighs a lot less than the 24-70mm (670gm vs. 950gm). Losing a stop of light isn't that big a deal on the 5DII as it is already so good in low light. However I also own the 16-35mm F/2.8L II & prefer that out of the three lenses on the basis that you can never have a lens that is too wide & if I need a longer reach then I switch to the 70-200mm F/2.8L II IS.

[Martin Campbell]

Thanks Nigel - I think you have helped sway my decision back to the 24-105mm!!! IS is going to be the critical factor I believe, especially in run and gun work. If you have both and are saying that the 24-105mm is very slightly sharper then that would also go with what I've been researching too. It will also save me a small amount. I could go for the 16-35mm F/2.8L II at a push - but it's a helluva lot of money for it. Is it really worth it? I have a Tokina 11-16 already, all be it that it's a crop sensor lens.

[Jon Fairhurst]

Canon claims that the 5D3 is more sensitive than the 5D2. That makes an f/4 lens more viable on the 5D3.

If it's an honest two stop improvement, an f/4 lens on the Mark II would work in f/2 conditions on the Mark III. That's significant!

[Nigel Barker]

Originally Posted by Martin Campbell

Thanks Nigel - I think you have helped sway my decision back to the 24-105mm!!! IS is going to be the critical factor I believe, especially in run and gun work. If you have both and are saying that the 24-105mm is very slightly sharper then that would also go with what I've been researching too. It will also save me a small amount. I could go for the 16-35mm F/2.8L II at a push - but it's a helluva lot of money for it. Is it really worth it? I have a Tokina 11-16 already, all be it that it's a crop sensor lens.

The extra weight of the 24-70mm F/2.8L makes the 5DII really nose heavy. The camera feels much better balanced with the 24-105mm.

I love the 16mm extreme wide angle look but like to have the option of zooming to a 24-35mm more normal wide angle if necessary. I am mainly shooting weddings & other events so using the 16-35mm in that run'n'gun environment using an extreme wide angle helps with interiors & gives plenty of depth of field so focusing isn't so difficult in low light.

It really depends what your shooting style is as to which lens will suit you.

[Brian David Melnyk]

i know you are looking for a zoom, but i have the 24-105 and a 5D and am looking at the new 24 2.8 IS for run and gun. I find the f4 doesn't cut it indoors, and hand-held run and gun i would rarely be zooming anyway, esp. to 105! i also have the 35 f2.0 which i like, but really wish it had IS.
i think a 24 f2.8 IS with a larger variable ND filter (to avoid possible vignetting) would be great for zooming with the feet to capture both close ups and landscapes, and flexible enough for low light, tightly cramped interior shots. plus it is a little wider than the 35 to also use on my crop T3i. with the 3x video recording ability, it becomes a 38 and a 115 2.8 IS (if my math is right). pretty darn flexible!
as a stills lens, though, the 24-105 rarely leaves the 5D!
anyway, just a thought...

[Federico Perale]

Originally Posted by Nigel Barker

The extra weight of the 24-70mm F/2.8L makes the 5DII really nose heavy. The camera feels much better balanced with the 24-105mm.

I love the 16mm extreme wide angle look but like to have the option of zooming to a 24-35mm more normal wide angle if necessary. I am mainly shooting weddings & other events so using the 16-35mm in that run'n'gun environment using an extreme wide angle helps with interiors & gives plenty of depth of field so focusing isn't so difficult in low light.

It really depends what your shooting style is as to which lens will suit you.

I couldn't agree more. the 24+70 is an amazing zoom, but I swapped it for a 24-105 (+ cash) as the latter is significantly lighter too. the 24-70 weights a ton!
I found myself tired after a while instead that never happens with the 24-105

but hey... it's horses for courses

WHY oh WHY didn't Canon put IS in the new 24-70? they are a piece of work these guys

[Harry Simpson]

I'm still going through this. If Canon indeed came out with a 24-70 f2.8 L IS lens - problem solved. The kicker for me is two fold for my keeping my 24-105 f4. 1. it is IS and 2. the 2.8 will always give a very limited DOF anyway when shooting video. I find I need to stop down the camera to f4 or f5.6 just to get enough DOF especially if I'm flying with the Blackbird. So yes for event photography the 2.8 would be great but for video I feel like I really going to have to go smaller on aperture than 2.8 anyway and the IS sure helps too.