MicrostockGroup

Im surprised , i  used 3 or 4 copies of both and every copy of 24-70 was way better  in sharpens , and every copy of 24-105 had more or less little CA problems. I really don't know why but I still use 24-105 more often.

I have to say 70-200 eats them both , and its my absolute favorite lens , only not so usable for stock.

24-105 L but sometime use longer.

Hi All,

Tough choice. It is either the 24-105 or the 70-200. Can't I choose both

Best,
Jonathan

The 24-105, gives a slight better bokeh, then the 24-70 and with less CA. However, dont forget the super-sharp Canon 100L 2.8. regarded as possibly the best Macro-lens available.

That's a hell of a thing to do to a Summilux and I don't get why you'd need to file it if you are going to use it on a tube. Your maximum focus distance will also be severely constrained, the same as it would be with a Canon 35mm on a tube. Isn't the rear element the thing that protrudes furthest from the back in that design?

Not sure how you shoot video at 1/30s, either.

I used to have that Tamron lens back when I was first starting out and shooting with 20D's.  It was a good lens for the money but my advice is to save the extra dough and get the Canon IS version.  It's much better in my opinion and well worth the money.  In theory if you are shooting with a 5D Mark II the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS should pay for itself in short time.

Mat

I don't have the Tamron, but I have a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 and absolutely love the IQ! I picked up a used copy for $600USD and couldn't be happier. The person that I bought it from upgraded to the Canon for the faster focus times, but for me, the Sigma is great!

comparatively speaking, I prefer the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 D series, it shoots beautifully and it's more substantial than the new fx lenses. clean, nice bokeh, and less expensive since it's older

Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro. It works as a 100mm prime as well as macro.

Nikkor 24-70.

Good advice, but unfortunately a little late!

I've had the Tamron for a while now - its really sharp and a great lens for the money, but the focus is just too slow, so its now on the upgrade list. The close focus distance is far less useful than I thought, because the whole lens is unwieldy at that range, and the slow focus makes it really difficult to get usable results. Now I'm still weighing up the Canon 70-200 f4 IS vs the 2.8 IS...



 

I can't say anything about the Canon 70-300L Christian. But I think you might be mistaken on the 80-200. it has nothing to do with getting what you pay for. the price in this case indicates the age of the lens versus newer technologies. it isn't like both lenses were released simultaneously at various price points. the 80-200 produces images that in my humble experience are far superior to what I got when I tested out the 70-200 fx series for Nikon with all their nano-coating bells and whistles. the 80-200 produces a far nicer bokeh in my opinion, at various apertures and it produces way less vignetting. the focal points are sharper too and its body is more substantial. yes, heavier, but with a large zoom, who cares. they're all heavy, I feel safer with it than I would with the newer, crappy thinner plastic 70-200 fx exterior.

I hate my 24/70. The CA drives me nuts in post processing. Anyone wanna buy it.?? My 100 mm prime  with IS is my getter done right lens. It just rocks for macro or portrait. That 24/105 sounds good.  Hopefully the CA is not as bad. Would appreciate opinions.