Quote from: FD-amateur on May 22, 2010, 13:32

Quote from: lisafx on May 22, 2010, 11:43

For me it used to be the 24-70 L.  It certainly has the best image quality of any lens I own, but I often find I need a bit more reach.  Now I am using the 24-105 more often.

Did you find any quality (esp. sharpness) difference between the 24-105 and the 24-70?

I get very sharp images with both lenses.  No noticeable difference.  Maybe the 24-70 is a bit more contrasty.    The main difference is low light shooting, and depth of field, where obviously the f2.8 is better. 

For my shoots the extra reach trumps the advantage of the wider aperture.  Another advantage is the lighter weight of the 24-105.  When shooting for 5-6 hours straight that makes a difference in my arm and shoulder.   

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.

This one is completely out of left field.

Leica R 35 1.4. I had to file down the back metal of the lens so it fits the 5D II but together with the shortest extension tube from canon is my ultimate one lens solution for pictures and video. Out of focus softness is nothing like you have ever seen. Shoot wide open as you like. Being fixed to 1/30s exposure with video you can shoot at available darkness levels at base ISO. No funny colors around contrasty borders. LOVE IT.

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.

Does anyone have any experience with a Tamron 70-200 f2.8 on a Canon 5DII? The thing I'm attracted to is the closer minimum focus distance compared to the Canon f4 or 2.8 (not to mention its half the price of the Canon 2.. I'm looking to put together a kit that's as versatile as possible while keeping the total weight reasonable.

I'm looking more to be able to do closeup shots than macro really, so don't think I really need a macro lens, but getting closer than 1.2m might be handy.

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

Does anyone have any experience with a Tamron 70-200 f2.8 on a Canon 5DII? The thing I'm attracted to is the closer minimum focus distance compared to the Canon f4 or 2.8 (not to mention its half the price of the Canon 2.. I'm looking to put together a kit that's as versatile as possible while keeping the total weight reasonable.

I'm looking more to be able to do closeup shots than macro really, so don't think I really need a macro lens, but getting closer than 1.2m might be handy.

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!

The new 70-300 L ( white one),  is brillant. with closest focals at 1.2, meters. I find myself using this one more then the 70-200L.IS.2.8.

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.

Quote from: holgs on November 05, 2010, 22:11

Does anyone have any experience with a Tamron 70-200 f2.8 on a Canon 5DII? The thing I'm attracted to is the closer minimum focus distance compared to the Canon f4 or 2.8 (not to mention its half the price of the Canon 2.. I'm looking to put together a kit that's as versatile as possible while keeping the total weight reasonable.

I'm looking more to be able to do closeup shots than macro really, so don't think I really need a macro lens, but getting closer than 1.2m might be handy.

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

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...



 

Quote from: Mantis on November 13, 2011, 17:36

Quote from: SNP on November 13, 2011, 14:30

Quote from: lagereek on November 13, 2011, 12:38

The new 70-300 L ( white one),  is brillant. with closest focals at 1.2, meters. I find myself using this one more then the 70-200L.IS.2.8.

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

This is a good point.  The bokeh on some lenses just sucks.  Opt for quality, not price.

Unfortunately with optics, you do get what you pay for. I use the Nikon 80-200 as well, its good but nowhere near the Canons tele-zooms, the new 70-300 L. is actually known for its fine bokeh. Canon have always led the tele and tele-zoom race, Nikons speciallity is wideangles and wide-angle zooms plus normal zooms

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.