lens canon 24-70 or 24-105?

[usayit]

I shoot mostly kids, and some adults/family.....
....I never do landscape or products (stuff that doesn't move)......
.....it didn't have a lower f-stop...... the window light...... I don't like to shoot high ISO's either. I want my clean 100. I hate grain.

I still recommend the 24-70 f2.8L judging from your previous post....

For me, I prefered the 24-105mm f4L but my intended purpose for a medium zoom is different from yours. One thing you should know when it comes to recommendations on equipment is that ultimately YOU have to make the decision. Most people's recommendations are biased towards what they have or shoot... which is not necessarily inline with what you shoot. I personally wanted one of the best general all-around flexible medium zooms on the market... hence the 24-105mm f4L... but you are different.

If you are looking for a black and white answer, A is definitely better than B, you are going to have a difficult time. If someone tries to convince you other wise... they are niave.. Perhaps the best way for you to decide is to rent both... there are online renting companies.. or local stores.

 

[Seefutlung]

I'd go for speed over IS.

The 2.8 is something that will be used every time you mount the lens to the camera. In low light ... for sure ... but also it makes for a brighter viewfinder which is always nice and more importantly the 2.8 kicks in a better and quicker central focus. With less than a max aperture of 2.8 your central focus looks like this "l" (one sensor) with 2.8 and greater it looks like this "+" (two sensors.)

In my book 2.8 is something that I would use all the time ... the IS, although very handy indeed, is something that would be used only some of the time. Remember that a tripod not only replaces but is superior to IS (I'm aware that a pod can't be used everywhere). Additionally, IS will not stop subject movement (only camera/hand shake). So if you're shooting a subject which moves, IS will capture all the static object crisp and sharp ... but if something moving ... it will reflect the same amount of blur as if you shot the subject on a tripod with the same shutter speed.

The bottom line is that it is a win-win situation ... both lenses are super performers, both will deliver images so sharp that you'll need gloves to handle them for fear of cutting yourself.

Gary

 

[soylentgreen]

Don't get scared. You will not be dissapointed with either lens. Both are incredibly sharp. Just choose the one that fits your shooting needs. I posted the exact questions and got the same replies. It's down to your shooting preference and needs! I settled on the 24-105 f/4 L IS due to versatility and range because I shoot nature photos outdoors handheld. The IS helps greatly in this respect. I didn't want the extra weight since I already carry my 70-200 f/2.8 L IS and 300 f/4 L IS.

 

[usayit]

... more importantly the 2.8 kicks in a better and quicker central focus. With less than a max aperture of 2.8 your central focus looks like this "l" (one sensor) with 2.8 and greater it looks like this "+" (two sensors.)

huh??

You will also want to know how DOF is affected when shooting at f2.8....

 

[Shannon]

Thanks everyone. I am deciding to go with the 24-70 2.8
I want the speed and it's my subjects that are moving, not me. I like shallow depth of field anyhow.
Thanks for joining my inner thoughts debate

 

[Groupcaptainbonzo]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seefutlung
... more importantly the 2.8 kicks in a better and quicker central focus. With less than a max aperture of 2.8 your central focus looks like this "l" (one sensor) with 2.8 and greater it looks like this "+" (two sensors.)

huh??


See your "huh??" and raise you a "Wha???

 

[forzaF1]

24-70mm just because of the f/2.8.