Going full frame - 24-70 or 24-105?

Trick

Trick

Trick

Soldato
Joined
7 Oct 2003
Posts
3,910
Location
York
Gents,

I'm going to go from a 450d to a 5D Mk2 in the near future and am thinking about what to replace my 17-55 f2.8 IS with.

A friend with a 5d mk2 and both these lenses has said that, for landscapes (which is what I normally shoot) he'd go with the 24-105 because in his opinion it's corner sharpness is a lot better than the 24-70. In fact, he thinks it's sharper across the frame. There could be many reasons for this and I suspect his 24-70 may be a trifle soft. He says it isn't.

Anyway, has anyone got an opinion on this as to which is going to suit my needs, specifically with regards to sharpness? I can't afford to buy both so I want to make an informed decision. There are plenty of reviews around but I'd like some real-world thoughts to back-up what the various sites say. The barrel distortion that photozone.de mentions on the 24-105 at 24mm is a bit of a concern because I think I'll find my self at the wide end of the range for most of the time.

The IS on the 24-105 f4 would be nice but likewise the f2.8 on the 24-70 would be nice too! I have a 70-200 so don't necessarily need the extra reach of the 105.

Ideally I plan to check them both out first hand before splashing the cash but forewarned can often be forearmed!

Thanks.
 
It's an age old question, and personally and if you ask most pros, most would take the 24-70 as it can be used in more extreme conditions (light wise).

24-105 is better for walk about/outdoor.

People and low light, 24-70.

It really comes down to that, its that simple.
 
Ok, I thought as much. In real world terms are they very much alike in terms of sharpness/contrast/colour rendition? How about comparison across the frame?

To be honest, I'm sure I'll be happy with whatever I get, although it's just occurred to me that given the 5d has such better noise control than the 450d at high ISO, I can pump that up (in conjunction with the 105's IS) to cater for the loss of a stop. Can't do much about the loss of DOF but I'm sure that the extra DOF that ff brings will be a revelation over the 450d!

I think I'm starting to over-analyze things a bit too much!
 
Last edited:
Trick said:
Ok, I thought as much. In real world terms are they very much alike in terms of sharpness/contrast/colour rendition? How about comparison across the frame?

To be honest, I'm sure I'll be happy with whatever I get, although it's just occurred to me that given the 5d has such better noise control than the 450d at high ISO, I can pump that up (in conjunction with the 105's IS) to cater for the loss of a stop. Can't do much about the loss of DOF but I'm sure that the extra DOF that ff brings will be a revelation over the 450d!

I think I'm starting to over-analyze things a bit too much!
Click to expand...

One point to make is the DOF change is roughly the same as the crop factor. So using a Canon 50mm f1.4 on a 5D and a 30mm f1.4 on a 7D you'll get 1.6x more DOF with the 7D. This mostly down to the fact the physical aperture is 1.6x bigger on a 50mm f1.4 than a 30mm f1.4

So we could say a 135mm f2 and an 85mm f1.2 have about the same background blur wide-open. However the difference is that one the same format the 135mm will frame tighter. Therefore you will be closer with the 85mm f1.2 and the DOF will be smaller.

But if the 135mm was on FF and the 85mm on a crop camera, they would frame the same and have ~ the same DOF.

I keep bringing maths on the photography and video forum. It's not a trend I'm going to break. :D

Lesson II (possibly III?) :rolleyes: :p
To Calculate the aperture:

Focal Length = Actual aperture size
Aperture


I'm guessing I don't need to write how to understand and calculate the crop factor. :D
 
No need to try and be a smart-arse - I'm actually wondering why you bothered bringing maths to this thread to be honest... pretty unnecessary. Looking back at my post I realise that I didn't actually write what I meant and that I should have said "I'm sure that the thinner DOF that the ff brings will be a revelation over the 450d". Pointing that out would have been quite a bit simpler and a whole lot less patronising!
 
Last edited:
Trick said:
No need to try and be a smart-arse - I'm actually wondering why you bothered bringing maths to this thread to be honest... pretty unnecessary. Looking back at my post I realise that I didn't actually write what I meant and that I should have said "I'm sure that the thinner DOF that the ff brings will be a revelation over the 450d". Pointing that out would have been quite a bit simpler and a whole lot less patronising!
Click to expand...

Sorry :D Besides who doesn't love a bit of maths. :confused: ...


:p
Anyways, TBH it wasn't entirley intended just for your reading- I'm guessing several forumers are probably looking at going FF at the mo' and I thought it might be a handy thing for them to read. :D
 
I've been using a 24-105 since I got my MkII and its a fantastic allrounder lens. However I would probably change to the 24-70 given the opportunity as I found out that from a couple of indoor evening shoots that despite IS giving you a 3 stop advantage in camera shake it can never freeze action and as a result of that a large % of the photos taken had to be scrapped due to people moving/motion blur.

Obviously the 24-105 has the weight/size advantage and if you do decide to go down that route, I would get a 50mm 1.4 to compliment it for those situation as you can pretty much buy both those lens for the price of a 24-70.
 
mcc49 said:
I've been using a 24-105 since I got my MkII and its a fantastic allrounder lens. However I would probably change to the 24-70 given the opportunity as I found out that from a couple of indoor evening shoots that despite IS giving you a 3 stop advantage in camera shake it can never freeze action and as a result of that a large % of the photos taken had to be scrapped due to people moving/motion blur.
Click to expand...

I've been saying that for AGESSSS, yet people keep banging on the IS drums, they obviously never shoot people :p
 
For that reason my 35L is firmly mounted on the 5D 90% of the time. Such a great lens, focal length is suitable for most things I shoot and being a prime, I dont have the luxury of zoom so it also encourages me to move around for composition :)
 
Having owned both I don't think you'd notice too much difference in image quality using typical apertures for landscapes, the extra reach from the 24-105 is handy.

The barrel distortion at the wide end is a bit of a pain on the 24-105, it gets better quite quickly as you move away from 24mm (similarly the distortion on the 17-40 is pretty bad at the widest end, much better at 20/21mm)

If I was to pick again, I'd stick with the 24-105 as it suits me very well. At 24mm I use a 24 TSE mkII which is absolutely spectacular

If you've got enough budget for a new 24-70L you could probably pick up a used 24TS-E mkI & a Tamron 28-75 for roughly the same price
 
Thanks for that! Interesting stuff. I think I'm going to temporarily postpone worrying about it for a couple of months and see if some of the rumours that are floating around about a 24-70 f2.8 IS come true.
 
I have both of these. The 24 - 70 is heavier than the 105. Both are great bits of kit though, especially the 24 - 70 in low light (in use with 5D).
 
with the canon lens you can use the included software and load up a lens setting which auto corrects I believe? also the barrel distortion is only most noticeable on FF cameras?

looking at getting a 24-105 myself this month
 
At this focal range, 2.8 is much nicer to have IMO.

Its not just the extra stop of light, its the ability to further throw background out of focus. The difference between 70 and 105mm is not important.
 
I'd go with the 24-70 personally but then I need the 2.8 rather than the extra reach. If I was shooting outdoors in good light then the 24-105 would probably be my choice.

If I wanted a walkabout general lens then the 24-70 would still win, it's amazing just how often you need to open up to 2.8 because you're being limited with ISO and shutter speeds.
 
Last edited:
Trick said:
Thanks for that! Interesting stuff. I think I'm going to temporarily postpone worrying about it for a couple of months and see if some of the rumours that are floating around about a 24-70 f2.8 IS come true.
Click to expand...

If/when the IS version is released it will cost the same as both lenses put together, if Canon's recent pricing is anything to go buy.

I'd have the 24-70 over the 24-105. F/4 just isn't fast enough for the majority of stuff, regardless of IS.

If it were me I'd just have a 35mm 1.4L, 50mm 1.4 and your 70-200. That'd cover you for everything aside from the ultra wide.

The 24L and 35L are really superb.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom