Canon 24-105 on 5D

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Joe, Jun 25, 2006.

  1. Joe

    Joe Guest

    I am surprised by the amount of people that seem to opt for the 24-105 f/4
    as opposed to the 24-70 f/2.8 on the 5D.

    I know that the 24-105 has a longer reach and IS, but I would have thought
    the 24-70 would have been more popular as a general lens due to the 2.8
    aperture, which is obviously better for portraits and low light.

    Maybe the main decider is the size/weight of the 24-70?
    Joe, Jun 25, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Joe

    Jim Weaver Guest

    The "IS" was the deciding factor for me and I luv this lens.


    "Joe" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    >I am surprised by the amount of people that seem to opt for the 24-105 f/4
    >as opposed to the 24-70 f/2.8 on the 5D.
    >
    > I know that the 24-105 has a longer reach and IS, but I would have thought
    > the 24-70 would have been more popular as a general lens due to the 2.8
    > aperture, which is obviously better for portraits and low light.
    >
    > Maybe the main decider is the size/weight of the 24-70?
    >
    Jim Weaver, Jun 25, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Joe wrote:
    > I am surprised by the amount of people that seem to opt for the 24-105 f/4
    > as opposed to the 24-70 f/2.8 on the 5D.
    >
    > I know that the 24-105 has a longer reach and IS, but I would have thought
    > the 24-70 would have been more popular as a general lens due to the 2.8
    > aperture, which is obviously better for portraits and low light.
    >
    > Maybe the main decider is the size/weight of the 24-70?


    The decider will more likely be what people want to do with it. A
    "general" lens isn't one that takes portraits and low light shots, at
    least not for me. I rarely, if ever, take portraits. IS, an extra 35mm
    at the long end and 30% lighter: it's a no brainer for me. Well, it
    would be if the SO would let me drop the £££... ;o)

    --
    <a href="http://www.derekfountain.org/">Derek Fountain</a> on the web at
    http://www.derekfountain.org/
    Derek Fountain, Jun 25, 2006
    #3
  4. Joe

    Phil Wheeler Guest

    Joe wrote:
    > I am surprised by the amount of people that seem to opt for the 24-105 f/4
    > as opposed to the 24-70 f/2.8 on the 5D.
    >
    > I know that the 24-105 has a longer reach and IS, but I would have thought
    > the 24-70 would have been more popular as a general lens due to the 2.8
    > aperture, which is obviously better for portraits and low light.
    >
    > Maybe the main decider is the size/weight of the 24-70?
    >
    >



    Or maybe IS and reach.
    Phil Wheeler, Jun 25, 2006
    #4
  5. On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 18:50:17 +0100, "Joe" <> wrote:

    >I am surprised by the amount of people that seem to opt for the 24-105 f/4
    >as opposed to the 24-70 f/2.8 on the 5D.
    >
    >I know that the 24-105 has a longer reach and IS, but I would have thought
    >the 24-70 would have been more popular as a general lens due to the 2.8
    >aperture, which is obviously better for portraits and low light.
    >
    >Maybe the main decider is the size/weight of the 24-70?
    >


    It is pretty much a perfect 'walking around' lens, in my opinion.
    Scott in Florida, Jun 25, 2006
    #5
  6. Joe

    Bill Guest

    Dumb question perhaps........What does IS stand for?




    "Scott in Florida" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 18:50:17 +0100, "Joe" <> wrote:
    >
    >>I am surprised by the amount of people that seem to opt for the 24-105 f/4
    >>as opposed to the 24-70 f/2.8 on the 5D.
    >>
    >>I know that the 24-105 has a longer reach and IS, but I would have thought
    >>the 24-70 would have been more popular as a general lens due to the 2.8
    >>aperture, which is obviously better for portraits and low light.
    >>
    >>Maybe the main decider is the size/weight of the 24-70?
    >>

    >
    > It is pretty much a perfect 'walking around' lens, in my opinion.
    >




    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com
    Bill, Jun 26, 2006
    #6
  7. Joe

    Kinon O'cann Guest

    IS and range did it for me, no question. The difference between 70 and 105
    is huge, and greatly adds to the utility of the lens. It's a fabulous chunk
    of glass.

    "Joe" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    >I am surprised by the amount of people that seem to opt for the 24-105 f/4
    >as opposed to the 24-70 f/2.8 on the 5D.
    >
    > I know that the 24-105 has a longer reach and IS, but I would have thought
    > the 24-70 would have been more popular as a general lens due to the 2.8
    > aperture, which is obviously better for portraits and low light.
    >
    > Maybe the main decider is the size/weight of the 24-70?
    >
    Kinon O'cann, Jun 26, 2006
    #7
  8. Joe

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >Joe wrote:
    > I am surprised by the amount of people that seem to opt for the 24-105 f/4
    > as opposed to the 24-70 f/2.8 on the 5D.
    >
    > I know that the 24-105 has a longer reach and IS, but I would have thought
    > the 24-70 would have been more popular as a general lens due to the 2.8
    > aperture, which is obviously better for portraits and low light.
    >
    > Maybe the main decider is the size/weight of the 24-70?


    I have a 1Ds and 1D Mark II and both the older 28-70 f/2.8 L and 24-105
    f/4 L IS ... I *really* like the 24-105 but rarely used the 28-70
    because of the narrow focal range and weight. For me the 24-105 gets
    used because of the 4:1 zoom range, the IS feature and because it's
    smaller and lighter than the 28-70, which I'm selling. I find I have
    to stop the 24-105 down a bit at 24 mm to clean up the vignetting but
    other than that it's a very useful lens.

    For portraits I prefer something a bit longer than 70 mm. I would use
    either my 85 f/1.8 or 100 mm macro or, most likely, 70-200 f/2.8 ...
    for low light the 85 f/1.8 is the ticket.

    Bill
    Bill Hilton, Jun 26, 2006
    #8
  9. Joe

    Bill Hilton Guest


    > Bill wrote:
    > Dumb question perhaps........What does IS stand for?


    "Image Stabilization" ... lets you hand-hold about 3 stops slower than
    you could without it as it filters out camera shake.
    Bill Hilton, Jun 26, 2006
    #9
  10. Joe

    Mark² Guest

    Joe wrote:
    > I am surprised by the amount of people that seem to opt for the
    > 24-105 f/4 as opposed to the 24-70 f/2.8 on the 5D.
    >
    > I know that the 24-105 has a longer reach and IS, but I would have
    > thought the 24-70 would have been more popular as a general lens due
    > to the 2.8 aperture, which is obviously better for portraits and low
    > light.
    > Maybe the main decider is the size/weight of the 24-70?


    I own both these lenses and the 5D.
    Guess which I carry 90% of the time?

    2.8 is nice, but remember that on a full frame sensor, 70mm is about the
    minimum for portraits, and on the shorter lens, that leaves basically no
    wiggle room. Moving closer screws up perspective and proportions in the
    face, and you've got no more mm to crop more tightly. This is why I prefer
    closer to 100 for portraits...or at least a range that includes 100. With
    the FF sensor, I've even been pulling out my 70-200 2.8 IS for portraits.
    :) And you're right...the 24-70 is definitely quite a bit larger/heavier
    than the f4 IS. Also... many who have moved from a cropped sensor to the
    FF 5D are already re-adjusting their eyes to the lack of perceived
    enlargement that comes with FF. So for many, the 24-70 on a FF just seems
    too short a range for what they've become accustomed to. I would love to
    have 2.8 in the 24-105, but I'm usually willing to give it up for IS at all
    apertures...less weight...and a much more versatile range of extension.

    -Mark²

    --
    Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    www.pbase.com/markuson
    Mark², Jun 26, 2006
    #10
  11. Joe

    Mark² Guest

    Bill Hilton wrote:
    >> Joe wrote:
    >> I am surprised by the amount of people that seem to opt for the
    >> 24-105 f/4 as opposed to the 24-70 f/2.8 on the 5D.
    >>
    >> I know that the 24-105 has a longer reach and IS, but I would have
    >> thought the 24-70 would have been more popular as a general lens due
    >> to the 2.8 aperture, which is obviously better for portraits and low
    >> light.
    >>
    >> Maybe the main decider is the size/weight of the 24-70?

    >
    > I have a 1Ds and 1D Mark II and both the older 28-70 f/2.8 L and
    > 24-105 f/4 L IS ... I *really* like the 24-105 but rarely used the
    > 28-70 because of the narrow focal range and weight. For me the
    > 24-105 gets used because of the 4:1 zoom range, the IS feature and
    > because it's smaller and lighter than the 28-70, which I'm selling.
    > I find I have to stop the 24-105 down a bit at 24 mm to clean up the
    > vignetting but other than that it's a very useful lens.
    >
    > For portraits I prefer something a bit longer than 70 mm. I would use
    > either my 85 f/1.8 or 100 mm macro or, most likely, 70-200 f/2.8 ...
    > for low light the 85 f/1.8 is the ticket.
    >
    > Bill


    Wow.
    I just noticed your post after posting my own...
    -I do believe there's an echo in here...
    :)

    Oh...and my 24-70 is for sale, too.
    -Anyone want a basically brand new 24-70 2.8 L??

    --
    Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    www.pbase.com/markuson
    Mark², Jun 26, 2006
    #11
  12. Joe

    mogur2 Guest

    Hi,
    Last year I borrowed a friend's 24-70 and felt constrained. I went back to my car and
    substituted my Canon EF 28-300 IS L which, while quite heavy, was much more useful.

    I did buy the Canon 24-105 mm L USM since then and find it quite useful when
    photographing small gatherings.

    Even though it is not a macro lens, I have gotten some great images with it.

    http://www.pbase.com/choco1/lilies

    I try to remember to bring along the 500D filter so I can get even closer if desired.

    Great lens!

    Mogur2


    On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 18:50:17 +0100, "Joe" <> wrote:

    >I am surprised by the amount of people that seem to opt for the 24-105 f/4
    >as opposed to the 24-70 f/2.8 on the 5D.
    >
    >I know that the 24-105 has a longer reach and IS, but I would have thought
    >the 24-70 would have been more popular as a general lens due to the 2.8
    >aperture, which is obviously better for portraits and low light.
    >
    >Maybe the main decider is the size/weight of the 24-70?
    >
    mogur2, Jun 26, 2006
    #12
  13. Joe

    Dmac Guest

    Mark² wrote:
    > Bill Hilton wrote:
    >
    >>>Joe wrote:
    >>>I am surprised by the amount of people that seem to opt for the
    >>>24-105 f/4 as opposed to the 24-70 f/2.8 on the 5D.
    >>>
    >>>I know that the 24-105 has a longer reach and IS, but I would have
    >>>thought the 24-70 would have been more popular as a general lens due
    >>>to the 2.8 aperture, which is obviously better for portraits and low
    >>>light.
    >>>
    >>>Maybe the main decider is the size/weight of the 24-70?

    >>
    >>I have a 1Ds and 1D Mark II and both the older 28-70 f/2.8 L and
    >>24-105 f/4 L IS ... I *really* like the 24-105 but rarely used the
    >>28-70 because of the narrow focal range and weight. For me the
    >>24-105 gets used because of the 4:1 zoom range, the IS feature and
    >>because it's smaller and lighter than the 28-70, which I'm selling.
    >>I find I have to stop the 24-105 down a bit at 24 mm to clean up the
    >>vignetting but other than that it's a very useful lens.
    >>
    >>For portraits I prefer something a bit longer than 70 mm. I would use
    >>either my 85 f/1.8 or 100 mm macro or, most likely, 70-200 f/2.8 ...
    >>for low light the 85 f/1.8 is the ticket.
    >>
    >>Bill

    >
    >
    > Wow.
    > I just noticed your post after posting my own...
    > -I do believe there's an echo in here...
    > :)
    >
    > Oh...and my 24-70 is for sale, too.
    > -Anyone want a basically brand new 24-70 2.8 L??
    >


    If you get more than 2 people wanting it, give me a call I've got a
    couple for sale too!

    --
    From Douglas...
    My photographic site: http://www.douglasjames.com.au
    Canvas Archival and Metallic Prints: http://www.canvasphotos.com.au
    Dmac, Jun 26, 2006
    #13
  14. Joe

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >Mark² (lowest even number here) wrote:
    >
    > Wow.
    > I just noticed your post after posting my own...
    > -I do believe there's an echo in here...
    > :)


    So you are back from the Ukraine? Did you post any pics? Any problems
    traveling with the photo gear?
    Bill Hilton, Jun 26, 2006
    #14
  15. Joe

    Mark² Guest

    Bill Hilton wrote:
    >> Mark² (lowest even number here) wrote:
    >>
    >> Wow.
    >> I just noticed your post after posting my own...
    >> -I do believe there's an echo in here...
    >> :)

    >
    > So you are back from the Ukraine? Did you post any pics? Any
    > problems traveling with the photo gear?


    I'm not TO Ukraine yet, so we'll see about gear-toting troubles...
    I leave late tonight. When I return, I'll definitely post some
    images--though I'll be working on non-photography stuff most of my time
    there. I'll be back by July 22 or 23, so until then...take care, and try
    not to be eaten by lions or grizzlies... :)

    -Mark²



    --
    Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    www.pbase.com/markuson
    Mark², Jun 26, 2006
    #15
  16. Joe

    Bill Hilton Guest


    >Mark² (lowest even number here) wrote:
    > I'm not TO Ukraine yet, so we'll see about gear-toting troubles...
    > I leave late tonight. When I return, I'll definitely post some
    > images--though I'll be working on non-photography stuff most of my time
    > there. I'll be back by July 22 or 23, so until then...take care, and try
    > not to be eaten by lions or grizzlies... :)


    My one and only trip to mother Russia was thrilling ... the American
    part-owner of the hotel I was staying at was murdered, gunned down a
    few yards from the front of the hotel, in a dispute with his Russian
    "partners" the day I arrived. Broad daylight but no one saw a thing,
    not even his three body guards. A CNN crew was staying at the same
    hotel, covering (I think) Yeltsin's heart attack and on the elevator I
    heard Peter Arnett say one of the camera men had been beaten and robbed
    just outside the hotel the previous night. This was at a luxury
    Raddisson hotel ... I feel more comfortable around lions and grizzlies
    than I did there :)

    Bill
    Bill Hilton, Jun 27, 2006
    #16
  17. Joe

    Mark² Guest

    Bill Hilton wrote:
    >> Mark² (lowest even number here) wrote:
    >> I'm not TO Ukraine yet, so we'll see about gear-toting troubles...
    >> I leave late tonight. When I return, I'll definitely post some
    >> images--though I'll be working on non-photography stuff most of my
    >> time there. I'll be back by July 22 or 23, so until then...take
    >> care, and try not to be eaten by lions or grizzlies... :)

    >
    > My one and only trip to mother Russia was thrilling ... the American
    > part-owner of the hotel I was staying at was murdered, gunned down a
    > few yards from the front of the hotel, in a dispute with his Russian
    > "partners" the day I arrived. Broad daylight but no one saw a thing,
    > not even his three body guards. A CNN crew was staying at the same
    > hotel, covering (I think) Yeltsin's heart attack and on the elevator I
    > heard Peter Arnett say one of the camera men had been beaten and
    > robbed just outside the hotel the previous night. This was at a
    > luxury Raddisson hotel ... I feel more comfortable around lions and
    > grizzlies than I did there :)
    >
    > Bill


    Well thank you, Bill, for those great words of encouragement!
    :)
    Fact is...it is still a very volotile place over there, with a lot of
    serious crime and organized crime.
    One of the Ukrainians we had staying with us two years ago had a brother in
    law who was stabbed one evening. -He crawled across the snowy street and
    banged on the door of a gas station, crying for help. The man inside was
    too afraid of recrimination, and so he let the guy slowly bleed to death on
    his doorstep.
    Hmmm...
    I'm traveling alone...speak no Russian or Ukrainian...and will be carrying
    expensive gear...
    -A recipe for disaster.
    :(
    Just in case I end up murdered on the sidewalk... Be well, and I'll see you
    on the other side!
    ;)
    -Mark²



    --
    Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    www.pbase.com/markuson
    Mark², Jun 27, 2006
    #17
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. J. Cod
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    400
    J. Cod
    Sep 29, 2004
  2. Derek Fountain

    Canon 28-105 vs Canon 28-135 lenses

    Derek Fountain, Mar 10, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    525
    David Griffin
    Mar 12, 2005
  3. Joel Dorfan

    Old vs New Canon EF 28-105 f/3.5 - 4.5 II USM Lens

    Joel Dorfan, Aug 17, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    901
    Joel Dorfan
    Aug 17, 2005
  4. Mark²

    Yipe! Canon 24-105 big $

    Mark², Sep 3, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    38
    Views:
    761
    Mark²
    Sep 6, 2005
  5. deryck  lant

    Canon 24-105: A User Report

    deryck lant, Sep 4, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    274
    Dirty Harry
    Sep 15, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page