24-70 vs 24-105 for 5DMkII, tough decision...

kelly1

Great to have the 2.8 but 70mm is a bit on the short side. Which would you go for assuming cost isn't a factor?

pixbyjohn

kelly1 wrote: »

Great to have the 2.8 but 70mm is a bit on the short side. Which would you go for assuming cost isn't a factor?

24 - 70 is my choice
You will be surprised that you will use the 24-70 95% of your time snapping.
then buy a 70 - 200 2.8 vr for the odd occasional time you will need it.

ThOnda

24-70/2.8L was my choice. I love it.

I shoot with a 7D (so crop sensor) but I was having the same lens battle in my head a little while ago.

I was using the 17-85 IS USM and decided that although it was an amazing little lens with fantastic quality images (especially considering the price!), that I'd be out and about too much and I'd kinda need the weather sealing offered with an L lens for those days I'm stuck out in the rain.


After weighing up the pros and cons of each lens, I figured that the 24-105 was much more suitable for me. Online searches and reviews were saying the 24-70 has slightly better image quality, but I figured if I was happy with the 17-85, then I'd be happy with either of the L lenses, so I wasn't going to base my decision on chart tests that would have very little affect on real-world shooting.

The big question you have to ask yourself is, would you rather Image Stabilisation or the ability to shoot at f/2.8?

I shoot lots of people at different events, ranging from indoor, outdoor, day and night, 99% of the time, using flash, and I've never once been anywhere near f/2.8 (far too shallow a depth of field for people photos).

My default aperture whenever I walk out the door is f/5.6 (and even at that, with three and four people in a photo it can be easy to accidentally get one of them out of focus).

Any night time stuff I've done out and about, I like to incorporate light streaks (so if i have to photograph a building, etc. I'd rather have the stabilisation). And on top of that, if I do decide to get artistic, as far as I'm aware, I can get a shallower DOF with f/4 at 105mm than I can with f/2.8 at 70mm.


I also like the longer zoom capability. I've found myself at 105 a lot more than I expected I would, and although I sometimes carry the 70-200 with me, it's good to not always have to switch over (I don't like changing lenses out and about if I can avoid it).

Now that said, I already own a Sigma 30mm f/1.4, so if I end up in darkness or out in the streets without flash or whatever, I could change lens, but these situations are few and far between, but I have a lens faster than the 2.8 anyway, so I'm covered for low light stuff.


So yeah. Those are the reasons I settled on the 24-105 over the 24-70. But everyone's photography is different. If I lost my 24-105 and had to make the same purchasing decision again, I'd go with the 24-105 again.


EDIT:

Some photos with the lens (click to view full size on Pix.ie);


1/125, f/5.6, ISO-400, 28mm



1/100, f/5.6, ISO-400, 35mm



1/15, f/4, ISO-3200, 55mm (IS was used here, due to the slow shutter speed. This was one of the rare situations when 2.8 would've been handy, but considering the place is rather dark, I think I did okay with the 105 at f/4 with the IS).



1/30, f/4, ISO-6400, 105mm (IS turned on)



The last two photos are situations where, in my opinion, the f/2.8 of the 24-70 would have made it a better choice (darkness and trying to 'freeze' things) but even though the lens is being use these in situations where it's at it's 'poorest' performance, I still think the photos came out quite well (though I should point out that the first three photos were edited from RAW files, so slight crops down and a little sharpening, too, as would be the norm for a RAW file. The crash photo wasn't edited.) Obviously there was no flash usage in the last two photos.


EDIT again: And two final shots to show the Depth of Field of f/4 at 105mm in a portrait situation (as I believe portraiture is what you mostly focus on, kelly1?)



1/50, f/4, ISO-100, 105mm



1/80, f/4, ISO-160, 105mm

No flash used in either of those (though the first one had a reflector to the left of the frame/right of her face).


Anyway, that's about as much use as I can be. Think long about it though, as they are relatively expensive purchases.

I read lots and lots of reviews on Amazon.co.uk of the lenses to get a feel of what people were saying about them both. I actually bought it from ebay off SimplyElectronics (I know, how dare I!?). It was the only experience I have of them and I thought they were great, and their price was best (can't remember exactly what I paid, but it skirted in and around the €850 area I believe). I bought it through the SimplyElectronics eBay store though as I felt I'd have better chance to stand my ground if someone went wrong, though thankfully nothing did.


I also bought a knock-off 24-70 hood for it (EW-83F) as it only vignettes a tiny bit at 24mm, and it's a bigger hood so offers better protection from rain when out and about, and when turned backwards on the lens in my camera bag, it covers almost the whole lens, so if anything gets knocked or dropped onto it or such, it'll protect the lens. The hood that comes with it is rather small and relatively useless (in my opinion).


Hope that's of some help to you. Best of luck with whichever you decide to go for. Keep us updated

kelly1

Thanks a lot guys. ThOnda and Pixbyjohn, are you using full-frame bodies? KKV, appreciate the time you've put into that answer. Yes portraits is what I focus (pun intended? ) on so that would lean me towards the 105 for that reason alone. I do have a 70-200 but I don't want to be lugging that around in public.

pixbyjohn

kelly1 wrote: »

Thanks a lot guys. ThOnda and Pixbyjohn, are you using full-frame bodies?

Yes, D700 Nikon

I like KKVs answer, very comprehensive

Happy to be able to help out. I'm very fond of the 24-105. It's my most used lens (though I think any lens you end up with in that focal range will be your most commonly used one).

Kelly, if you're ever around the Drogheda area, I'd be happy to let you take a wander about with the 24-105 if you wanted a hands-on before buying one (though I see you're in Kildare, so that may be a little impractical? But the offer is there if you wish to take it up).

(Also, please do keep in mind my camera is not full frame, it's a 7D, so 1.6 crop factor applies to all my photographs and this will obviously have a direct affect on the focal length/reach for you).


EDIT: Also, if you ever do photojournalism stuff or crash scenes (or the emergency services in general), another plus side to the IS is that you can get a slower shutter, meaning that you can try to get both lights of a Garda car/Fire tender/etc. lit up at the same time (rather than one side of the light bar alone). It gives a little extra life to those kinda shots in my opinion (though I do realise that's a very, very particular kinda thing to be doing and not something that would actually really have an effect on your purchasing decision, though I tend to photograph emergency vehicles a fair bit, so it was a nice little bonus for me, personally).

Sorry Kelly, just realised my pix was limiting viewing sizes to 800px on those images above. You can view them at their full sizes now.

And one more last post, here's a few photos I just took of the lens with the two different hoods. The smaller hood comes with the lens (the bigger hood is the one that would come with the 24-70). My 24-70 hood is a generic knock off (though every bit as good as the genuine one, even has the 'felt' fabric interior and same sturdy plastic).

The only downside to using this is a bit of vignetting at 24mm (gone by 30mm) but theres a photo of a white ceiling in there too to show you exactly what I mean;

Here you go; http://pix.ie/chokeslamcena/album/429819


Think that's everything I could cover about the lens. As I say, the 24-105 suits my photography perfectly, but you may find that you prefer the 2.8 (if you'll be needing to freeze action in low light situations a lot, or have no use for the extra reach of the 105, for example, the 24-70 may be better off with you). It's always worth having a think about.

kelly1

Thanks KKV. I had another look at your shots and they look quite sharp to me. I think I'd be quite happy with the 24-105 especially since I'm keen on portraits. I also like the more modest hood of the 105. Appreciate your advice!

Borderfox

If its work then 24-70L without a doubt, at it full time for the past five years and still have the 24-70L such a good workhorse

The Snipe

I've a 24-105 and a mate has a 24-70 we both shoot using a 1D. And I personally prefer my choice of the 24-105 because its lighter, I never really use 2.8 if I do, Its normally with my 200mm and its got IS which I find very very useful a lot of the time in low light stuff, where 2.8 would be too shallow for me.

ThOnda

my 24-70 is on fullframe 5D and having Aperture as the main creative tool (after focus and framing), I cannot be glad enough for the ability to shoot wide open. The pictures look different.
Buying a L lens, you don't need to worry about sharpness almost at all.

5uspect

+1 for the 24-70L. I use it on my 7D. It's simply a more versatile lens IMO.

kelly1

Opinion seems to be fairly evenly divided taking crop factor into account. Guys, I appreciate the advice. I've decided to go for the 24-105 because I want the longer reach for portraits, it's a lighter lens, the hood is smaller and it's cheaper.

I have the 50 1.4 and 70-200 2.8 to fall back on if I need shallower DOF.

Thanks again.

Well hopefully all works out well for you.

A lot of people in here seem to be in favour of the 24-70, but not really detailing why. I suppose it's down to shooting style.

Borderfox

If you use the video on the 5dmk2 then get the 24-105 as the IS is a help in shooting but other than that the extra stop of light from the f2.8 on the 24-70 wins every time. If you shoot f4 on the 24-70 the quality is excellent but at f4 the 24-105 is wide open and even with the L lens quality its not a good as a slight stop down

kelly1

Thanks Keith.

Well I would agree that stopping down would improve the quality (though I imagine it's the same for every lens), but a lot of the time you can just as easily move to a slower shutter speed, which is helped a lot with IS, so I don't personally really see the 2.8's huge appeal there.

That said though, I believe you'd be shooting horse racing and such? So obviously a fast-action sport, especially in dim or dark conditions, a faster lens will always win as your shutter speed will always need to be pretty quick..?

kelly1

Deleted User wrote: »

Well I would agree that stopping down would improve the quality (though I imagine it's the same for every lens), but a lot of the time you can just as easily move to a slower shutter speed, which is helped a lot with IS, so I don't personally really see the 2.8's huge appeal there.

That said though, I believe you'd be shooting horse racing and such? So obviously a fast-action sport, especially in dim or dark conditions, a faster lens will always win as your shutter speed will always need to be pretty quick..?

The 2.8 definitely wins for stopping action.

Borderfox

Deleted User wrote: »

Well I would agree that stopping down would improve the quality (though I imagine it's the same for every lens), but a lot of the time you can just as easily move to a slower shutter speed, which is helped a lot with IS, so I don't personally really see the 2.8's huge appeal there.

That said though, I believe you'd be shooting horse racing and such? So obviously a fast-action sport, especially in dim or dark conditions, a faster lens will always win as your shutter speed will always need to be pretty quick..?

Most times when working indoors with Horses f2.8 isnt even fast enough but as a lens for shooting weddings the 24-70L is superb, the bokeh is really pretty too at f2.8

Borderfox

Borderfox wrote: »

Most times when working indoors with Horses f2.8 isnt even fast enough but as a lens for shooting weddings the 24-70L is superb, the bokeh is really pretty too at f2.8

See, I just think it's too shallow. Admittedly, I haven't actually photographed a wedding, but for parties, general entertainment venue shots of people, etc. i think 5.6 is ideal, and I'd never venture anywhere near 2.8 (especially not at 70mm).

I assume the kinda photos you're talking about are the ones where there's only a single subject/person in the frame at a time (sharp bride with a blurred groom in the background, and vice versa)?

Borderfox

You have to remeber that dof is dependant on distance to subject not just the f stop, you can be at minimum focus distance at 70mm at f2.8 and the dof is quite small but if the subject is 20 feet away at the same setting and the dof is a lot bigger. If I buy a wide aperture lens then about 20-30% of the time it will be wide open depending on what I am shooting.

Oh, I'm aware of how distance affects DOF. I'm usually quite close to people (probably less than 5 feet, on average, I'd say) and shooting at a short enough focal length (most of my people shots take place between 24mm and 35mm) but even at f/5.6 I still find it annoying to see that one or two people can be out of focus in photographs.


Admittedly, it doesn't happen the whole time, and it'd be a rarity at this stage I'd say, but still happens once in a while.

I can see why it'd be useful for sports, but for a wedding, even if you are standing a good bit back, presumably you zoom into the bride/groom and are left with a shallower DOF anyway?

Borderfox

Its less of a problem on the crop bodies than the full frame ones too.

Borderfox

Borderfox wrote: »

Its less of a problem on the crop bodies than the full frame ones too.

Should that not be the other way around?


Surprised there's no 24-105 f/2.8 IS yet to be honest. Surely be a serious money maker for Canon.

Borderfox

dof is less on full frame bodies than the crop bodies, has to do with the size of the sensor.

If I was on a crop body I would have the 17-55 f2.8 IS
I would say the front element on the lens you suggest would be quite large and the weight would increase making it too expensive.

Borderfox

Borderfox wrote: »

dof is less on full frame bodies than the crop bodies, has to do with the size of the sensor.

Oh, I know that, so does that not mean your above sentence should be reversed? Or are we talking about different things?

I was talking about getting a shallow DOF which unintentionally leaves one person out of focus in a photo of a small group of people (3-5). Kinda like doing portraiture with a 3/4 turned head pose, and getting one eye in focus and the other out of focus.

Surely that's more of a problem on a crop body than a full frame, as the crop sensor exaggerates the focal length, thus creating a shallower DOF than a full frame camera?

If I was on a crop body I would have the 17-55 f2.8 IS
I would say the front element on the lens you suggest would be quite large and the weight would increase making it too expensive.

Ah, I doubt it'd be much heavier or more expensive to produce than a 70-200 2.8 IS?

Borderfox

dof is less on full frame bodies, whats wrong with that statement? there's less dof. Smaller sensors have more dof due to the sensor size being smaller.

5uspect

The DoF is the same for the same focal length (the 24-70L at f/2.8 at 70mm on any body for example) but you get a greater cropped image circle with an APS-C sensor.

So in order to get the same field of view as the FF you need a wider focal length ~44mm on the APS-C. At this wider focal length f/2.8 has greater DoF. Therefore the FF has a narrower DoF for the same equivalent foal length.

When you say 'more' do you mean shallower? or the other way around?

Presuming both have the same lens attached, a crop body can deliver a shallower/shorter DOF than a full frame body, right?

Borderfox

less to me means shallower dof

5uspect

Borderfox is correct. By more DoF I mean more in focus. More depth is the opposite of shallow depth of field.

With the same lens attached to a crop body and a FF body you will get exactly the same image, only cropped on the crop body. To get the same field of view you need to zoom out on the crop. Since you're now using a shorter focal length there is greater DoF (more in focus).

kelly1

5uspect got it right. Larger sensors require a longer focal length to achieve the same field of view and as we all know, longer focal length give shallower DOF.

50mm on a cropped sensor or a full-frame give the same DOF, the only difference being the field of view.

Edit: This post was in response to post# 30.

I don't think that's right?! Maybe I'm learning something new.

I assumed; If I put a person in front of me, standing ten feet away, and I shoot at 70mm at f/2.8, I'll have a shallower/narrower/less DOF (whatever way you want to word it) using a crop body than I would with a full frame body?

I actually just checked an online DOF calculator and it agrees with me.

Put any combination of focal length/aperture and subject distance into the calculator, and then flick between a crop sensor camera and a full frame camera (Canon 7D VS Canon 5D for example) and the results will change in accordance to my example above...


http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

(therefore at the same focal length, 50mm as kelly's example above, the crop sensor will deliver a shallower DOF, rather than the same DOF regardless of body used).

For those not in the humour of clicking through;






(I still think we're discussing different things though, for some reason!?)

pete4130

5uspect wrote: »

The DoF is the same for the same focal length (the 24-70L at f/2.8 at 70mm on any body for example) but you get a greater cropped image circle with an APS-C sensor.

So in order to get the same field of view as the FF you need a wider focal length ~44mm on the APS-C. At this wider focal length f/2.8 has greater DoF. Therefore the FF has a narrower DoF for the same equivalent foal length.

so to simplify in layman terms.......

A crop sensor gives a greater DoF than a FF sensor......if the same lens......at the same focal length.....and the same aperture is used....


....so.....cropped sensor gives MORE depth of field.....SIMPLE?

In case anyone is confused....

SMALLER sensors make MORE DoF.

Easy.....right?

5uspect

pete4130 wrote: »

so to simplify in layman terms.......

A crop sensor gives a greater DoF than a FF sensor......if the same lens......at the same focal length.....and the same aperture is used....


....so.....cropped sensor gives MORE depth of field.....SIMPLE?

In case anyone is confused....

SMALLER sensors make MORE DoF.

Easy.....right?

No, it gives the exact same same DoF. But to see the same scene on the crop you have to zoom out on the lens from 70mm to 44mm. And 44mm has more in focus (greater DoF) than 70mm at a fixed aperture. Of course we're all talking in 35 mm equivalent focal length here and not effective focal length.

KKV, think about this. Imagine that instead of a camera you're focusing the lens onto a large piece of card. The card is placed at the position of the focal plane of the camera, .

You're going to see an image circle focused onto the card. The FF and the APS-C are simply going to crop this image circle appropriately but other than that they see the same DoF.

5uspect

5uspect wrote: »

we're all talking in 35 mm equivalent focal length here and not effective focal length.

No, I'm talking a bout effective focal length (as you put it).

Putting the 24-105 lens on the body, and zooming it as much as you can (105mm). Not trying to frame the same scene the same way with two different bodies.

5uspect

What's written on the lens, 24-105 is the 35mm equivalent focal length not the effective focal length. On a crop this lens becomes a 38-168mm which is the effective focal length.

Put a 105mm (35mm equivalent focal length) lens onto any camera and you get the same DoF only cropped according to your sensor size.

hoganpoly

+1 for the 24-70,only thing is that its bloody heavy ,but I like that as you know it must be quality to weigh that much..if your doing portraits consider the cheaper 85mm 1.8 lens

5uspect

5uspect wrote: »

Put a 105mm (35mm equivalent focal length) lens onto any camera and you get the same DoF only cropped according to your sensor size.

A 24-105 f/4 can achieve a shallower DOF on a crop body than it can on a full frame body. That's what I'm trying to say.

Much like a 24-105 f/4 can achieve a greater 'reach' of 'zoom' on a crop body than it can on a full frame body.



I think we're going around in circles?!

5uspect

KKV wrote: »

A 24-105 f/4 can achieve a shallower DOF on a crop body than it can on a full frame body. That's what I'm trying to say.

Much like a 24-105 f/4 can achieve a greater 'reach' of 'zoom' on a crop body than it can on a full frame body.



I think we're going around in circles?!

We are, but you're wrong!
The extra reach is only a crop, just like digital zoom. It has no effect on the optics, how could it?

EDIT: Have a read of this:
http://toothwalker.org/optics/dof.html

kelly1

Deleted User wrote: »

A 24-105 f/4 can achieve a shallower DOF on a crop body than it can on a full frame body. That's what I'm trying to say.

No. The full frame gives a wider angle/field of view. So to include the same view in the frame, you either have to move closer or use a longer focal length.

And moving closer or increasing the focal length is what gives you shallower DOF.

Geddit?

ThOnda

Thanks, pete4130, for nice summary.
The topic of the last two pages was how the images would be affected by the difference in minimal aperture 1/2.8 and 1/4. And it seems clear now.

5uspect

5uspect wrote: »

We are, but you're wrong!
The extra reach is only a crop, just like digital zoom. It has no effect on the optics, how could it?

EDIT: Have a read of this:
http://toothwalker.org/optics/dof.html

I don't have the time to read all that at the moment to be honest.


Well a photography is always a learning experience, and so, I'd be happy to be wrong here and learn something new, but if what you're saying is correct, then why do, for example, DOF calculators disagree with your point (as posted above)?


Also the way you're writing it, sounds like you're saying that the image itself is actually getting cropped, thus, for example, an 10mp 1.6 crop camera and an 10mp full frame camera would produce images that are different actual sizes?

kelly1

Deleted User wrote: »

Well a photography is always a learning experience, and so, I'd be happy to be wrong here and learn something new, but if what you're saying is correct, then why do, for example, DOF calculators disagree with your point (as posted above)?

That DOF calculator doesn't make sense to me.

Think of it this way: You have a lens of some fixed focal length and aperture size and you switch between a full-frame and cropped sensor. How could that possibly affect DOF? You might as well cut out a cardboard "window" of 24x16mm and stick it over the full-frame sensor. It can't possibly have any effect on DOF, can it?

DaireQuinlan

Deleted User wrote: »

why do, for example, DOF calculators disagree with your point (as posted above)?

Read up on 'circle of confusion' and how it pertains to DOF calculations.

kelly1

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Read up on 'circle of confusion' and how it pertains to DOF calculations.

Daire, are you suggesting the photosite size can affect DOF?

5uspect

His DoF calculator is using different (aptly named) circle of confusion sizes for the 7D and the 5D. 0.019 and 0.03mm respectively.

This is a measure of how sharp a point source has to be to appear sharp in an enlarged print. Since a crop is a smaller sensor you have to magnify it more than a FF image to get your enlargement. As you can see there is tighter restriction on the crop so the calculator gives a smaller DoF.

5uspect

kelly1 wrote: »

Daire, are you suggesting the photosite size can affect DOF?

It's the typical resolving power of your lens which should be less than that of your photographic medium. You have to enlarge the image from the crop 1.6 times what you have to enlarge the FF image so your definition for DoF becomes stricter, otherwise the image will look soft.

Unfortunately there are a lot of complicating parameters confusing this discussion. IMO it is better to start with the basics and add these confounding topics as we understand the basics.

kelly1

5uspect wrote: »

It's the typical resolving power of your lens which should be less than that of your photographic medium. You have to enlarge the image from the crop 1.6 times what you have to enlarge the FF image so your definition for DoF becomes stricter, otherwise the image will look soft.

Unfortunately there are a lot of complicating parameters confusing this discussion. IMO it is better to start with the basics and add these confounding topics as we understand the basics.

Thanks. I'd forgotten that DOF was related to the circle of confusion! I was only considering focusing distance, focal length and aperture.

EDIT: OK, it seems I got it wrong again!

From http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/depth-of-field.htm

"Although print size and viewing distance influence how large the circle of confusion appears to our eyes, aperture and focal distance are the two main factors that determine how big the circle of confusion will be on your camera's sensor. Larger apertures (smaller F-stop number) and closer focusing distances produce a shallower depth of field........
............
Note that I did not mention focal length as influencing depth of field. Even though telephoto lenses appear to create a much shallower depth of field, this is mainly because they are often used to magnify the subject when one is unable to get closer. If the subject occupies the same fraction of the image (constant magnification) for both a telephoto and a wide angle lens, the total depth of field is virtually constant with focal length! This would of course require you to either get much closer with a wide angle lens or much further with a telephoto lens"

Apologies for the confusion I've caused! All the books I've read up to now have told me that longer focal lengths give shallower DOF but it's only apparent...

So getting back to the difference in DOF of FF vs Crop, the FF will give shallower DOF if you move closer to the subject to give the same FOV as the cropped sensor.

You live and learn!