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

[Martin Campbell]

EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM or EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM

I'm looking to upgrade to an L lens and trying to decide between these two. I do a lot of run & gun stuff which goes indoors and outdoors and the f/4 concerns me as I've been used to a f2.8 for so long. Also would I get good DOF with the f/4? The obvious advantage is the IS and again I have been so used to having this on my previous lens.

Has anyone ever noticed any difference in sharpness between these two, and for a video/photography combination what would you say is the better lens?

any advice most welcome. thanks

[Brad Ballew]

If it were me, I would go for the 2.8L. An f4 is going to make some indoor/night shots tough without having to raise your iso considerably, or using a lot of artificial light. It is amazing the difference between 2.8 and 4. IS is nice, but there other ways of dealing with stability. You can get a Glidecam for a decent price and use that for moving shots. I think my glidecam 2000 cost around $300, which I feel it was worth it.

Besides 24-70 is a pretty good range for video. A lot of the draw of these DSLRs when it comes to video is their lowlight capabilities, but you aren't going to be able to take advantage of it without a fast lens.

[Buba Kastorski]

wait for Tamron 24-70mm IS, test it , and then you'll decide,
I am definetly going to take very close look at it as soon as it's available

[Sareesh Sudhakaran]

24-70 2.8 without a doubt. And add another 70-200 2.8 later and you have the two best zoom lenses that Canon can offer.

The extra stop makes a lot of difference in the real world.

[Martin Catt]

Go with the F/2.8. A larger aperture is ALWAYS the better choice. I've got the 24-105, and frequently lament it only opens to f/4.

Martin

[Martin Campbell]

thanks guys. Very interesting - I was sure everyone was going to say go with the 24-105mm!

I've come across posts and reviews saying that the 24-105mm is slightly sharper too. But, I have seen footage of the 24-70 and it was excellent - very sharp.

[R Geoff Baker]

Well, to play devil's advocate ...

There is only a one stop difference between 2.8 and 4 -- but you gain image stabilization. Handheld, that's a big gain, and stop-wise ... a modest price. All else being equal, a stop is a stop -- but the absence of IS on the 2.8 lens has to be considered if you often shoot off the sticks.

Cheers,
GB

[Martin Campbell]

Aww Geoff....you've just gone and thrown a spanner in the works now!!! lol
If only it was a simple case of Black n White!! Ideally I should really get my hands on one and try it indoors.

I know it's stills, but this video review of both lenses and the 24-105mm is sharper. (5.00 in)

Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L vs 24-105mm f/4 L vs Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 G - YouTube

[Sareesh Sudhakaran]

Originally Posted by Martin Campbell

I know it's stills, but this video review of both lenses and the 24-105mm is sharper. (5.00 in)

I'm not sure if that is very relevant. These lenses, including the non-L series ones, are optimized for higher resolution stills. Video only uses 2MP of it, and it should be impossible for someone to tell the difference between the two as far as 'sharpness' is concerned, at least on HDSLRs. On a camera like the C300, the differences will be far more pronounced.

At f/8, it's tough to tell the lenses apart even in stills mode. This also applies to non-L glass. There are other limitations of glass that tilt the balance, but that's a different topic.

When you find yourself shooting in low light, you'll be extremely glad you have that extra stop. One stop is not just one stop - it's the ability to shoot at half the light from the previous stop. For video work, this is critical. To look at it another way - you'll need double the light to shoot at f/4. This boils down to striking a balance between aesthetics and the lighting budget.

The advantage of owning an f2.8 is that you can always shoot at f4. The extra throw on the zoom lens isn't that great a difference, in my opinion. If it is for you, why not check reviews to see if the lens really performs very well at 105mm? If the difference isn't too great, how hard would it be to move the camera a few feet forward to get the same FOV?

Questions to ask yourself:
1. Do you like the look of f2.8 or f4?
2. Will you always have enough light to shoot at f4, or will you find yourself needing more light?
3. If you will need more light, can you afford more lights, or would you prefer the extra stop?

Hope this helps.

[Martin Campbell]

thanks Sareesh - great post.

I think the answer is probably yes - I will need that extra stop. I'm definately going to get my hands on a F2.8 and at least try it out.

I'm really surprised that the new version of this lens (soon to be released) is not an IS. But the price of it alone?......................OOOOOUUUUUUUCCCCHHHHHH!!!!!!!

[Jon Fairhurst]

A good partner for the 24-70 would be the 100/2.8L IS. Same speed, close focus, long reach, and (great hybrid) IS.

[Martin Campbell]

I already have a 70-200mm IS lens Jon so I'm not sure if the 100/2.8L IS would so different to make it worth spending that much - then again, I could be soooooo wrong!

I was thinking on the 24-70mm L, and also picking up a wide 16-35mm L lens. Also a 50mm 1.4 and I think the set would be complete?!!

[Jon Fairhurst]

If you already have the zoom, there's no need for the 100L, unless you want a macro or prefer to travel with a smaller lens.

I have a 70-200L II IS at work and when we got it, I thought it would be awesome. I quickly found it to be big, heavy, and flashy for using on the street. That's why I chose the 100L for my personal kit.

Nothing against the 70-200 quality, of course. When the size, weight, and flash aren't an issue, it's great!

[Wayne Avanson]

I have the 24-70 2.8 and the 70-200 2.8 an they work great as a set. ( I also have the 50mm 1.4 which is a lovely addition) I haven't used the 24-105 but have seen a lot of nice stuff shot with it.

Also, I had the 16-36 for a short while but due to not getting to use it much I had to sell it. I remember it was an excellent lens though.

Re sharpness, a mate of mine has the 70-200 F4 and I would say his stuff on video is slightly sharper than my 2.8.

We have shot quite a few plays together standing in the auditorium about 30 feet away. Typically at F5.6 or so, 640 ISO. Both 5D2s set up exactly the same in terms of F stop, colour balance picture style etc. And his is always just a tad sharper.

I mention because maybe it's the same for the 24-70 too.

[John Vincent]

Originally Posted by R Geoff Baker

Well, to play devil's advocate ...

There is only a one stop difference between 2.8 and 4 --

Well one stop is double the amount of light...

I have the need for speed yo.