General zooms have my head zooming. Just shoot straight with me...

[berkleymtoddphotography]

Hello all,

New to this forum and looking forward to any help I can give, and what help others can provide. I consider myself an enthusiast photographer who is just starting to try going semi-pro. I'm at the point where I'm upgrading my gear, and mostly know what I'm getting, but I'm completely stuck in one area....deciding on a general, walk-around zoom lens. I will be using this lens for just about everything from travel to landscape, but I especially need it to perform well in low light for weddings. Here's what I'm torn between. And I've been torn for a LONG TIME. So I'm hoping that folks can just rank what they'd recommend in order of what they use, like, and would think would be the least limiting for me. I've got a couple shoots coming up, and need to have this in hand soon. Price is not a major factor. Here are my options:

Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II - At first, I was dead set on this lens. It seemed like a no brainer. But then, after using a friend's, I find that my hands aren't quite as steady as I'd like them to be on a lens with no IS. I'm sure it'll perform well in low light, and realize that IS is only so great with moving targets, but I do plan to use this lens for travel. If you're someone with slightly unsteady hands, have you found the lack of IS on this lens in a wedding setting has been problematic? I do love the sharpness and extra stop of light over the f/4...

Canon 24-105 f/4L II - The reason this is in the mix is because it has IS, and because of the extra zoom capabilities. However, I will be purchasing the new Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC g2, so my focal length will be covered there...just realize there are benefits to having it on an extra lens. But though it has IS, I'm worried about f/4 in low light....

Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC - I thought this lens was going to be my saving grace. f/2.8 WITH IS!!! Should make a huge difference for me, right? But then upon reading reviews, its sharpness is nowhere near that of the Canon f/2.8, it's a bit slower to focus, has bad distortion (fixable in LR, but that could further degrade sharpness), and has a weird layered bokeh. Does anybody use this lens in the real world and find that these issues are not as major as you'd think? Or are they definitely issues?

For the record, I will be shooting on a 5D Mark IV. I just need to make this decision, and at this point I'm practically to the point of taking votes. I'm SURE I'm not the only one who has been stuck in this position. TL;DR a bit here, so thanks to those that stuck it out....Help, please?

 

[Derrel]

Weird,onion bokeh often goes with aspherical zoom lens designs, so if you like those lighted bokeh balls, the aspherical Tamrons of the prior generation are not the best bets for those specific types of photos.

Here's something peopole do not want to hear: most zoom lens shots made at f/2.8 SUCK. Not enough DOF. Bad corner sharpness on FX sensors and high-megapixel cameras. Prime lenses with 5,6,7,8 elements and f/1.4 or f/1.8 max apertures can be pretty good at f/2.8;but how good are 21- to 23-element zooms wide-open at f/2.8 on 24,36,50 MP sensors? The limitations show up! Ergo: Canon, and Nikon both have introduced PRO-level, NEW-design f/4 lenses in the 16-35, and 24-70,and 70-200 categories. Not consumer lenses, not 20-years-old designs, but ALL-new, high-grade f/4 lenses.

24-70mm f/2.8. Big, but not long enough really, and not much range either, really. Just when you need more focal length, the lens is at 70mm, and 70mm is not long enough to really blow out the backdrops for portraiture. This is why the 24-85 and 24-105mm lenses were designed, and why Nikon and Canon have "kitted" full-frames with 24-85mm or 24-105mm or 24-120mm lenses for some time now.

In-lens stabilization is VERY handy for shooting hand-held, tripod-free, on landscape and scenic/travel images, stopped well down to f/11 or f/13 in the 1/20 to 1/8 second range indoors or in low light. it is also fantasrtic for slow-speed panning, and for use on boats, buses, ferries, tour busses, and when shooting while out of breath or under exhertion. VR or IS works and works well, and is a valuable addition to most longer lenses, and it has now come to shorter zooms like 24-70mm.

You need to realize that we've finally arrived to a point in time where ISO is more valuable than f/2.8. Especially in shorter lens from 24mm to 200mm in length. The f/4 lenses available now are NOT the old, second-tier lenses of the prior 30 years. The f/4 16-356 and 24-70 and 70-200 lenses are the NEW designs, the ones designed for the high-megapixel cameras, and for the newer, better sensors.

I would go Canon 24-105 L IS USM as the all-in-one choice, Canon 70-200 f/4L IS USM--or the new Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 G2, Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L-II, Tamron 24-70 VC.

 

[berkleymtoddphotography]

Here's something peopole do not want to hear: most zoom lens shots made at f/2.8 SUCK. Not enough DOF. Bad corner sharpness on FX sensors and high-megapixel cameras. Prime lenses with 5,6,7,8 elements and f/1.4 or f/1.8 max apertures can be pretty good at f/2.8;but how good are 21- to 23-element zooms wide-open at f/2.8 on 24,36,50 MP sensors? The limitations show up! Ergo: Canon, and Nikon both have introduced PRO-level, NEW-design f/4 lenses in the 16-35, and 24-70,and 70-200 categories. Not consumer lenses, not 20-years-old designs, but ALL-new, high-grade f/4 lenses.

...

You need to realize that we've finally arrived to a point in time where ISO is more valuable than f/2.8. Especially in shorter lens from 24mm to 200mm in length. The f/4 lenses available now are NOT the old, second-tier lenses of the prior 30 years. The f/4 16-356 and 24-70 and 70-200 lenses are the NEW designs, the ones designed for the high-megapixel cameras, and for the newer, better sensors.

I would go Canon 24-105 L IS USM as the all-in-one choice, Canon 70-200 f/4L IS USM--or the new Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 G2, Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L-II, Tamron 24-70 VC.

Unfortunately, primes just don't make as much sense to me at this point. I have a 50mm prime already, and that will cover my bases for now. I get what you're saying though, regarding better ISO performance. Is the quality and loss of bokeh from f/2.8 to f/4 going to be noticeable in a wedding setting though? That extra stop makes sense to me.

 

[Derrel]

The extra stop makes no sense, unless you want crap images shot at f/2.8 with a wide-open zoom that has substandard image quality. Loss of bokeh is not an issue from f/2.8 to f/4; the idea is to get professional-quality images that have things in focus, not shooting wide-open with a compromised image quality. Apparently you've missed the point I was trying to make: images shot with zooms at f/2.8, like the 24-70mm f/2.8, at indoor distances suck. Not recommending primes, but trying to make you see the difference between 30-year-old ways of thinking( f/2.8 is BEST!) and the new way of thinking, and the all-new lenses Canon has designed for high-MP digital cameras. Better optics, adequate DOF for actual photo situations, and one stop more ISO is the new-era way of making professional photos.

Using a zoom lens set at f/2.8 for events is a rookie move, IMHO. Time to start thinking about producing a truly quality image by focusing in on the very useful f/4.2 to f/6.3 range of apertures, depending on the light levels and the ISO level in use, and flash or no flash, etc..

You said you wanted us to "shoot straight" with you. If this sounds harsh, it was not meant to be. Just telling you the truth: you cannot consistently, all day long, or in all situations, deliver good images with a zoom at f/2.8 in an event-type setting. ISO is MORE valuable today than f/2.8 is.

 

[KmH]

Is the quality and loss of bokeh from f/2.8 to f/4 going to be noticeable. . . ?

No. Because bokeh doesn't change, regardless the lens aperture used.

You are asking about depth-of-field (DoF).
Bokeh and depth-of-field are not the same thing.
Bokeh is not adjustable.
The only way to change the bokeh is to use a different model/make lens.

Using a DOF calculator will show in quantifiable terms how lens aperture, point of focus distance, and image sensor size will effect DoF.
There are no bokeh calculators because bokeh is not a quantifiable property.

 

[berkleymtoddphotography]

Is the quality and loss of bokeh from f/2.8 to f/4 going to be noticeable. . . ?

No. Because bokeh doesn't change, regardless the lens aperture used.

You are asking about depth-of-field (DoF).
Bokeh and depth-of-field are not the same thing.
Bokeh is not adjustable.
The only way to change the bokeh is to use a different model/make lens.

Using a DOF calculator will show in quantifiable terms how lens aperture, point of focus distance, and image sensor size will effect DoF.
There are no bokeh calculators because bokeh is not a quantifiable property.

Thanks!

 

[berkleymtoddphotography]

The extra stop makes no sense, unless you want crap images shot at f/2.8 with a wide-open zoom that has substandard image quality. Loss of bokeh is not an issue from f/2.8 to f/4; the idea is to get professional-quality images that have things in focus, not shooting wide-open with a compromised image quality. Apparently you've missed the point I was trying to make: images shot with zooms at f/2.8, like the 24-70mm f/2.8, at indoor distances suck. Not recommending primes, but trying to make you see the difference between 30-year-old ways of thinking( f/2.8 is BEST!) and the new way of thinking, and the all-new lenses Canon has designed for high-MP digital cameras. Better optics, adequate DOF for actual photo situations, and one stop more ISO is the new-era way of making professional photos.

Using a zoom lens set at f/2.8 for events is a rookie move, IMHO. Time to start thinking about producing a truly quality image by focusing in on the very useful f/4.2 to f/6.3 range of apertures, depending on the light levels and the ISO level in use, and flash or no flash, etc..

You said you wanted us to "shoot straight" with you. If this sounds harsh, it was not meant to be. Just telling you the truth: you cannot consistently, all day long, or in all situations, deliver good images with a zoom at f/2.8 in an event-type setting. ISO is MORE valuable today than f/2.8 is.

Sorry - just wasn't clear on what you were saying before, and now I get it. And this is actually super helpful. Thank you. Points for the f/4 - and the 5DIV is pretty incredible on ISO performance. Any reason you feel I should consider the 24-70 f/4L instead of the 24-105? I will be getting a 70-200mm lens as well, so I have that focal length covered. Not sure if maybe there's a major difference in image quality given that it doesn't zoom as far. I hadn't really considered that lens, but might now if you think it's worth doing more research on.

 

[Derrel]

Look at the size and weight figures of any zoom lens you plan to use for extended periods of time, to begin with. How light and easy to use is the lens? Does the lens balance well on your camera, as you shoot the camera? Gripped cameras can balance very differently than non-gripped cameras. If the lens is longer, it might tend to nose-dive a bit on an ungripped,light camera body. On a big, heavy camera (1D series for example) the weight of the battery and the big, tall grip can act as a counter-balance.

On a three- to eight-hour shoot, weight and nose-dive begin to be real factors; this is where say a 44-ounce lens can become a real chore to lug around, and where a much lighter 35mm or 50mm or 85mm lens might be preferrable.

I dunno...look at the weight of the 24-70 f/4-L and compare the focal length range against that of the 24-105 f/4 L. One has more top end zoom, and is available used for low-ish cost, like $550-$600 or so, depending. The issue with 24-70 and 70-200 is: you will OFTEN need to switch lenses to get anything from 71mm to 106 mm. This is why the 24-105 was invented.

It's always worth doing research on lenses, and that includes handling the lenses on the camera you plan to use them on. Some people prefer lighter weight lenses, some people have weaker hands, etc.. "Nose-dive" is worse than sheer weight if the weight balances well on the camera. A small camera with no grip, and a 44-48 ounce lens might create tremendous torque on the wrist which over hours will become a lot of strain; ADDING a heavy grip or camera might make the forward nose-dive lower, and make a heavier camera or a gripped one be less-tiring.