Canon vs. Canon

"Lagonda" <lagonda8.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:

>24-70/2.8
>vs.
>24-105/4 IS.
>
>Anybody? Lens will be att. on Canon 5D camera.
>
>Pros and cons.
>Sharpness?
>AF accuracy?
>General picture quality?
>
>Thank you.
>


The 24-70mm f/2.8 L is a surprisingly poor performer at the wide end.
Think of it as a 28-70mm with an extension to 24mm for emergencies. On
the plus side, it has f/2.8, and very low distortion from 28 to 70mm.

The 24-105mm f/4 L is an excellent performer throughout its range,
with only moderate vignetting at the 24mm end. On the downside, there
is some barrel distortion at 24mm and slight pincushion at 105mm. And
its maximum aperture is only f/4.

I have owned both. I kept the 24-105mm f/4 L. Instead of the 24-70mm
f/2.8 L I use Carl Zeiss (Contax) and Leica R fixed focal length
lenses with adapters on my EOS 5D bodies, although I have had to have
the 5Ds' mirrors modified, along with a couple of the lenses.
 >> Stay informed about: Canon vs. Canon 

"Eatmorepies" <jcf.DeleteThis@ali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5vtr51F1ae877U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> I've got them both. The 24 to 105 lives on one camera body (30D) most of
> the time. I like the extra zoom range and the IS. It sees quite a bit more
> use than the 24-70. It's also cheaper than the 24-70.
>
> BUT - the 24-70 is not for sale. It goes on when I don't need the extra
> focal length and might need the wider apeture. At 50 to 70mm it makes a
> superb studio portrait lens.
>
> I don't notice a difference in the image quality, but having said that I
> usually use the 24-70 at f2.8 to f3.5 and the 24-105 at f4.5 to f5.6. So
> not a fair comparison.
>
> This place;
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx...I=0&API
> lets you campare the lenses with shots taken in a controlled situation.
> If you want general purpose you'll get a lot more use out of the 24-105mm.
>
> John


Yes, it's true. This extra 35mm is useful. But it is not so very very
important to me as sharpness etc. Although, on this page I see that 24-70
@2.8 is sharper than 24-105 @4. Or am I seeing something wrong? I read about
ISO chart. Hm.
I got confused sometimes. I have seen some tests between those lenses. And
24-105 end up as a winner.
Maybe I do not look this chart as I should.
 >> Stay informed about: Canon vs. Canon 

These lenses are designed with different primary usages in mind.
If you know what you will be using the lens for then your decision should be
clear.
Which is more important: f2.8 or a longer zoom range?
Do you intend to use this as the primary lens on your camera (why you would
do that with a Canon 5d is up to you)?
Do you have an issue where the IS is important for you at this zoom range (a
genuine consideration for many users)?
Its really not about sharpness or AF accuracy. In this digital world
absolute measures of lens sharpness are far less significant because of the
way the final output is created . . .
 >> Stay informed about: Canon vs. Canon 

Lagonda <lagonda8.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:
> 24-70/2.8
> vs.
> 24-105/4 IS.

> Anybody? Lens will be att. on Canon 5D camera.

> Pros and cons.

faster versus longer.
No IS versus IS

> Sharpness?

Yes.

> AF accuracy?

F/2.8 is needed for any high-accuracy AF some Canon cameras offer.

> General picture quality?

Yes.

-Wolfgang
 >> Stay informed about: Canon vs. Canon 

"Lagonda" <lagonda8.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
fncbhr$eu7$1@ss408.t-com.hr...
> 24-70/2.8
> vs.
> 24-105/4 IS.
>
> Anybody? Lens will be att. on Canon 5D camera.
>
> Pros and cons.
> Sharpness?
> AF accuracy?
> General picture quality?
>
> Thank you.
>
>
> --
> "Gravitation cannot be held responsible for people falling in love..."

I had the 24-70 and sold it to get the 24-105. Although I regret selling
the 24-70 it is not because I would use it more, it is simply because I
could have given it to my daughter as a better lens than what she now have.
I used it on one trip and got great pictures BUT many times, I wanted a
longer focal lenght, the 24-105 along with IS is a better travel lens and a
better all around lens, it is the one I keep on my camera most of the time.

The drawbacks to the 24-70 are: size and weight and a somewhat intimidating
look when the lens hood is used, it is so big everyone thinks it's a
telephoto and you are taking a picture of their noses when it's actually at
it's widest.

So far I have not missed the wider aperture with my 24-105, the IS makes up
for that in low light. On my camera (40D), I don't use the lens shade, the
front element is smaller and does not look as vulnerable as the front
element of the 24-70 on which I had the lens shade on most of the time,
especially for protection.

Both lenses give (gave) me equal picture quality, both focus fast and both
have great build quality.

Jean
 >> Stay informed about: Canon vs. Canon 

"Lagonda" <lagonda8.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fncbhr$eu7$1@ss408.t-com.hr...
> 24-70/2.8
> vs.
> 24-105/4 IS.
>
> Anybody? Lens will be att. on Canon 5D camera.

Neither of the above. Tamron 28-75/2.8.

> Pros and cons.
> Sharpness?
> AF accuracy?
> General picture quality?

The Tamron produces the sharpest images I get from my 5D, including several
primes and "L" lenses. It's cheap, light, sharp, and fast. The Canon lenses
are expensive and heavy.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
 >> Stay informed about: Canon vs. Canon 

"Lagonda" <lagonda8.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote in news:fncbhr$eu7$1@ss408.t-com.hr:

> 24-70/2.8
> vs.
> 24-105/4 IS.
>
> Anybody? Lens will be att. on Canon 5D camera.
>
> Pros and cons.
> Sharpness?
> AF accuracy?
> General picture quality?
>
> Thank you.
>
>

I have the 24-105 as the "always on" lens with my 5D. I am quite satisfied
with it in every respect, except (1) it is rather long, and with the flash
mounted on the camera, you can get a shadow in the lower part of the
photograph. No problem - just use a flash bracket. (2) in low light with
low-contrast subjects it sometimes hunts for autofocus.

It's been worth the weight and money to me. ~Ray
 >> Stay informed about: Canon vs. Canon 

>
> Yes, it's true. This extra 35mm is useful. But it is not so very very
> important to me as sharpness etc. Although, on this page I see that 24-70
> @2.8 is sharper than 24-105 @4. Or am I seeing something wrong? I read
> about ISO chart. Hm.
> I got confused sometimes. I have seen some tests between those lenses. And
> 24-105 end up as a winner.
> Maybe I do not look this chart as I should.

I see the same as you. In real use I don't see a difference in the sharpness
of my pictures. Probably because I use rarely use maximum apeture.

If you want a very sharp Lens (even wide open) then have a look at the
70-200mm f4 IS L.

John
 >> Stay informed about: Canon vs. Canon 

"Eatmorepies" <jcf DeleteThis @ali.co.uk> wrote:
>
>If you want a very sharp Lens (even wide open) then have a look at the
>70-200mm f4 IS L.


.... although it performs quite badly in the
range 24-70mm, except at exactly 70mm.


 >> Stay informed about: Canon vs. Canon 

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 08:48:45 -0800, "flambe" <fac187.DeleteThis@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>These lenses are designed with different primary usages in mind.
>If you know what you will be using the lens for then your decision should be
>clear.
>Which is more important: f2.8 or a longer zoom range?
>Do you intend to use this as the primary lens on your camera (why you would
>do that with a Canon 5d is up to you)?
>Do you have an issue where the IS is important for you at this zoom range (a
>genuine consideration for many users)?
>Its really not about sharpness or AF accuracy. In this digital world
>absolute measures of lens sharpness are far less significant because of the
>way the final output is created . . .
>

I've been reading this newsgroup for a few weeks and noticed the heavy
criticism of Canon lenses. I was planning to buy the Olympus E3 but
saw the D40 at a price nearly $500 cheaper. And since I've only read
positive reviews of it I was considering the D40 over the Olympus even
though Olympus lenses are really decent. How are the Canon fixed
lenses for the D40? Thanks...
 >> Stay informed about: Canon vs. Canon 

In article <ak8ps3hls1q9a1uka50auhtp6av09703tn RemoveThis @4ax.com>,
<braceup RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:

> I've been reading this newsgroup for a few weeks and noticed the heavy
> criticism of Canon lenses. I was planning to buy the Olympus E3 but
> saw the D40 at a price nearly $500 cheaper. And since I've only read
> positive reviews of it I was considering the D40 over the Olympus even
> though Olympus lenses are really decent. How are the Canon fixed
> lenses for the D40?

if you mean the nikon d40, canon lenses will not work. if you mean the
canon 40d, they'll work fine. it would help if you had specific lenses
in mind, since canon makes lenses from $100 to $100k...
 >> Stay informed about: Canon vs. Canon 

On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 02:28:48 GMT, braceup.DeleteThis@yahoo.com wrote:
: On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 08:48:45 -0800, "flambe" <fac187.DeleteThis@hotmail.com>
: wrote:
:
: >These lenses are designed with different primary usages in mind.
: >If you know what you will be using the lens for then your decision should be
: >clear.
: >Which is more important: f2.8 or a longer zoom range?
: >Do you intend to use this as the primary lens on your camera (why you would
: >do that with a Canon 5d is up to you)?
: >Do you have an issue where the IS is important for you at this zoom range (a
: >genuine consideration for many users)?
: >Its really not about sharpness or AF accuracy. In this digital world
: >absolute measures of lens sharpness are far less significant because of the
: >way the final output is created . . .
: >
:
: I've been reading this newsgroup for a few weeks and noticed the heavy
: criticism of Canon lenses. I was planning to buy the Olympus E3 but
: saw the D40 at a price nearly $500 cheaper. And since I've only read
: positive reviews of it I was considering the D40 over the Olympus even
: though Olympus lenses are really decent. How are the Canon fixed
: lenses for the D40? Thanks...

The D40 is a Nikon and takes Nikon, not Canon, lenses. Best not to shell out
any $$$ until you're totally clear on that.

Bob
 >> Stay informed about: Canon vs. Canon 

In article <ak8ps3hls1q9a1uka50auhtp6av09703tn.RemoveThis@4ax.com>,
braceup.RemoveThis@yahoo.com wrote:

> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 08:48:45 -0800, "flambe" <fac187.RemoveThis@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >These lenses are designed with different primary usages in mind.
> >If you know what you will be using the lens for then your decision should be
> >clear.
> >Which is more important: f2.8 or a longer zoom range?
> >Do you intend to use this as the primary lens on your camera (why you would
> >do that with a Canon 5d is up to you)?
> >Do you have an issue where the IS is important for you at this zoom range (a
> >genuine consideration for many users)?
> >Its really not about sharpness or AF accuracy. In this digital world
> >absolute measures of lens sharpness are far less significant because of the
> >way the final output is created . . .
> >
>
> I've been reading this newsgroup for a few weeks and noticed the heavy
> criticism of Canon lenses. I was planning to buy the Olympus E3 but
> saw the D40 at a price nearly $500 cheaper. And since I've only read
> positive reviews of it I was considering the D40 over the Olympus even
> though Olympus lenses are really decent. How are the Canon fixed
> lenses for the D40? Thanks...

D40 as in The Nikon camera?

--
Reality is a picture perfected and never looking back.
 >> Stay informed about: Canon vs. Canon