• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Canon 5DII: Lens Selection...

GTaudiophile

GTaudiophile

Lifer
Yes, the eternal debate!

Anyone here have experience with both of these lenses?

Comments appreciated.

I think I would go for the 24-70 but its weight is indeed a turn off.
 
i have the 24-70L my gf has the 24-105L, and i like using her lens more... we're both on the 5d mk2, and my biggest gripe about the 24-70 f/2.8L is the soft results, whered it's like winning the lottery to get a sharp copy!

plus the extra reach and IS makes me lean towards the 24-105... sure i would like to have the extra stop, but 1 stop is a good compromise!
 
I can't comment on the 24-70, but I have the 24-105 IS and it is by far my favorite lens. I use it most of the time when I am walking around because it is so versatile. Having said that, I find the F4 limiting. Even with the IS enabled, a tripod is a must with this lens in low light situations.
 
daniel1113 said:
I can't comment on the 24-70, but I have the 24-105 IS and it is by far my favorite lens. I use it most of the time when I am walking around because it is so versatile. Having said that, I find the F4 limiting. Even with the IS enabled, a tripod is a must with this lens in low light situations.
Click to expand...

Well, if I got the 24-70 I would probably have at least one prime in the mix.
 
I have used both and prefer the 24-105 for the IS and portability.

Personally I am waiting for a new 24-70 with IS and better optics (this hasnt been announced yet but I am hoping by the end of the year there will be news)

24-105
Smaller
Lighter
Better range
IS
Usually sharper (in my exerience)

24-70
2.8
Images less distored at 24mm
 
I greatly prefer the 24-70. The extra stop is always preferable to me over IS. I like the weight..I think it's balanced nicely on my 5D+grip. Never had an issue with sharpness.
 
Well, after going back and forth, going to a local store to handle various lenses, I am down to this decision I think:

5DII
17-40 F4L
70-200 F4L IS (already own)
35 1.4L
85 1.8
$4850.00


OR


5DII
16-35 F2.8L II
24-105 F4L IS
70-200 F4L IS (already own)
85 1.8
$5,000.00
 
I can't believe you're not considering the 24-70 F/2.8. From my experience, it is godlike on a full-frame sensor, and worlds ahead of the 24-105.
 
it's NOT world's ahead of the 24-105. Like I said earlier, I have the 24-70, my gf has the 24-105. Her results are generally sharper, and nails the focus MUCH more consistently than my 24-70. But then again, it could be my copy. The range on the 24-105 is worth the sacrifice of the stop of light!

But don't forget the godly 135 f/2L... they rank this about the same as the 85 f/1.2L
 
I'd wait a bit and look at that Sigma 85/1.4. Do consider the 135, but if its between 135 and 85, I think both are nice lenses, but the 85 will get far more use. Think of it that way. Which one will you use more?
 
Yeesh. That's a hard choice between the two scenarios. It is very hard to say. Personally, I would make a compromise:

5DII
17-40 f/4L
24-105 f/4L
70-200 f/4L
50mm f/1.4 (Sigma version if you can swing it)
85mm f/1.8

Of course you knew that's what I was going to recommend.... it's practically what I own already! (Only swap the Sigma for the Canon... which I would, if I could, and I will sometime, depending on whether Canon gets a new 50/1.4 out soon, as is rumored.)

Rationale: A) I don't think you'd be happy with just the one prime, and a telephoto at that. A 50mm prime is much more versatile. The 35mm/85mm combo would be better than the 50mm/85mm, but you're looking at a lot more money for the 35 than for the 50.
B) I don't think you'd be happy without a normal zoom. The 24-105 is just... nice. 24mm is wide enough that I don't often feel the need to swap to the 17-40. 105 is decently long... not as long as I'd like it to be, but definitely quite a bit better than 70mm.
C) You'd be giving up the 16-35 for the 17-40, thereby saving $700... which is more than enough to buy the 50/1.4! A little more and you could also buy the 28/1.8 which would give you a nice trio of fast primes in wide, normal and tele.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top