 Eileen Broderick |
Canon 24-105 f/4 IS vs. 24-70 f/2.8 Ok--I have seen this posted once before but there were few responses. I am looking at buying either a Canon 24-70 f/2.8 lens or Canon 24-105 f/4 with IS. I really want the greater zoom but am nervous to give up the 2.8. I am shooting weddings. I have Canon's 70-200 2.8 IS lens. Love it but it is so, so heavy that I use it primarily for the ceremony. Just too bulky and heavy for how active I am during the reception and getting ready shots. I have a wider Sigma, 17-50mm 2.8 so I can go wider but I don't feel like I spend most of my time shooting wide...I am most interested in feedback from anyone who owns the f/4 and has used it indoors (i.e. at a wedding.) I've read a million reviews and most people who own it love it. I looked through a large sample of my recent wedding shots and it turns out many of my shots are at f/4 anyway! Ugh...This is so hard. (I will also appreciate that it is slightly lighter--my hand and wrist get crampy after 8 hours!)
|
|
|
|
||
|
John G. Clifford Jr |
As a general rule, lenses are at the best stopped down a little... so I'd expect the 24-70/2.8 to be sharper at f/4 than the 24-105/4 would be at f/4. Nevertheless, you're shooting weddings, not landscapes, and most people don't want super-sharp images that show every flaw in the bride's complexion. I have the Sigma 18-50/2.8 also, as well as their 70-200/2.8. I also have their new 50-150/2.8 and this is a great lens for a dSLR. The 50-150 weighs just over half of what the 70-200 weighs... about what a classic 35mm 70-210 zoom weighs... and makes a great walk-around lens that is perfect for portraits and candids. With the 50-150/2.8 you can still shoot many of your shots at f/4, but you can go a stop wider if needed. If you really want to lighten your load, get Sigma's TC14 1.4x teleconverter, and now you'll have a 70-210/4 zoom that can be used in place of your huge 70-200/2.8 lens. Well, now you really have some hard (fun) choices.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Bernard |
Hey John! I use the Sigma 18-50/2.8 and the 50-150/2.8, could you tell me about your experiances with Sigma's TC14 1.4x teleconverter? the good points, but most concern with the drawbacks, your assisstance would be very helpful. Thank you in advance.
|
|
|
|
||
|
John G. Clifford Jr |
I don't have any drawbacks with the TC14 teleconverter. When I'm using it on my 70-200/2.8 or the 50-150/2.8 it doesn't seem to have any adverse effect... it just makes the image larger. Except, of course, that you trade 40% more focal length for one less f-stop. I'm sure there is some degradation of the image, but if there is I haven't seen it. In short, having the TC14 plus my 70-200/2.8 has removed any incentive I have for buying the 100-300/4 lens.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Bernard |
John! thanks for the info
|
|
|
|
||
- Ken Smith Contact Ken Smith Ken Smith's Gallery |
I originally purchased the 24-70, F2.8 lens. Then, several BPers asked "why didn't you get the 24-105 F4, IS? Well, I hadn't done as much research. I went to our main camera store, and the main salesman told me that they hardly sold the 24-70 anymore, because of the popularity, and similar price, as the 24-105mm. The salesman said the F4 IS was comparable to the F2.8. Sooo, I traded in my 24-70 and got the 24-105mm, which gives me a broader range for my camera, in the zoom area. I did not do comparison photos between the two lenses. I'm sure the 24-70mm is a super lens. But I am extremely happy with the 24-105mm lens.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Eileen Broderick |
Thanks for the input. I actually ordered the 2.8. I felt I couldn't risk giving up an extra stop for available light shots. I just knew I'd kick myself if I ran into trouble there. The lens was here after work on Thursday and I used it today. Lookin' good. Thanks again...
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||