Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 11 Dec 2012 (Tuesday) 22:20
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Canon 24-70 2.8 vs 24-70 f4 or the Tammy ?

 
Angelmia
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
254 posts
Joined Jul 2011
Location: Florida
     
Dec 14, 2012 19:07 |  #16

Ok, got my thoughts straightened out and went ahead and ordered the Canon 17-55 as it seems to be the favorite of many and will cover exactly what I need. Thanks all for helping me decide !! :)


5D Mark III, 7D, T2i -10-22, 100 L macro, 50-1.4, 40mm f/2.8 ,18-55 IS, 17-55mm, 24-105 Is L, 70-300 IS, 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II, 300mm 2.8 IS II, 2xIII, Canon 580EX II, Canon S100
Liza

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
FuturamaJSP
Goldmember
Avatar
2,227 posts
Likes: 81
Joined Oct 2009
     
Dec 17, 2012 10:38 |  #17

Dasani wrote in post #15356048 (external link)
24-70 f4 IS is the dumpest lens canon ever made imo.

You know for over 1500 bucks or 1200 if you get it with the 6D it has to be something magical about this lens, right? I mean it's about 70 grams or 2.4 oz lighter which is totally amazing and offers a magnificent maximum magnification of 0.7x at a focusing distance of 0.38m! well there must be some kind of magic involved to get that high magnification while maintaining that distance I mean the now obsolete and often criticized 24-70 f2.8L has the same minimum focus distance but yet only gives a magnification of 0.29x !!


They asked me how well I understood theoretical physics. I said I had a theoretical degree in physics. They said welcome aboard! - Fallout New Vegas
blah blah blah
DA (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mike ­ cabilangan
Goldmember
Avatar
1,378 posts
Joined Apr 2010
Location: Metro Manila
     
Dec 17, 2012 17:45 |  #18

FuturamaJSP wrote in post #15376992 (external link)
You know for over 1500 bucks or 1200 if you get it with the 6D it has to be something magical about this lens, right? I mean it's about 70 grams or 2.4 oz lighter which is totally amazing and offers a magnificent maximum magnification of 0.7x at a focusing distance of 0.38m! well there must be some kind of magic involved to get that high magnification while maintaining that distance I mean the now obsolete and often criticized 24-70 f2.8L has the same minimum focus distance but yet only gives a magnification of 0.29x !!

there's a 6D 24-70 f/4 IS combo? i thought it was only paired with the 24-105.

the MFD of the new 24-70 changes when a macro switch is engaged.


camera bag reviews (external link)
flickr (external link)gearLust

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nightdiver13
Unabashed nerd!
Avatar
2,272 posts
Likes: 38
Joined May 2010
Location: Bigfoot Country
     
Dec 17, 2012 17:52 |  #19

FuturamaJSP wrote in post #15376992 (external link)
You know for over 1500 bucks or 1200 if you get it with the 6D it has to be something magical about this lens, right? I mean it's about 70 grams or 2.4 oz lighter which is totally amazing and offers a magnificent maximum magnification of 0.7x at a focusing distance of 0.38m! well there must be some kind of magic involved to get that high magnification while maintaining that distance I mean the now obsolete and often criticized 24-70 f2.8L has the same minimum focus distance but yet only gives a magnification of 0.29x !!

I thought it sounded like a dumb idea too until I read about the macro abilities. That's quite a bonus to have in a standard zoom. I'm still very happy with the added reach of the 24-105, but that macro would mean I could stop carrying around tubes sometimes. Hmm... decisions.


Neil

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mike ­ cabilangan
Goldmember
Avatar
1,378 posts
Joined Apr 2010
Location: Metro Manila
     
Dec 17, 2012 17:53 |  #20

Nightdiver13 wrote in post #15378721 (external link)
I thought it sounded like a dumb idea too until I read about the macro abilities. That's quite a bonus to have in a standard zoom. I'm still very happy with the added reach of the 24-105, but that macro would mean I could stop carrying around tubes sometimes. Hmm... decisions.

yeah, i thought it was dumb too. but canon must be doing something right because i'm torn between the f/4 IS and the tammy.


camera bag reviews (external link)
flickr (external link)gearLust

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
oklaiss
Senior Member
471 posts
Joined Nov 2011
Location: San Francisco, CA
     
Dec 17, 2012 23:21 |  #21

Dasani wrote in post #15356048 (external link)
24-70 f4 IS is the dumpest lens canon ever made imo.

This, especially since you said you need the fast shutter speed that an f/2.8 will help you with to capture moving subjects. I'd go used canon 24-70 mki


5D Mark II Gripped, 60D Gripped, 450D, 24-105 f/4L, 85 1.8, 70-200 f/4L IS, Nifty Fifty, 28 1.8, B+W/Lee/Cokin/Hitech filters, 430ex II x2
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SiaoP
Goldmember
Avatar
1,406 posts
Joined Dec 2009
Location: Bay Area
     
Dec 17, 2012 23:26 |  #22

I vote for 24-70 f/2.8 mark I. Save yourself some money. The f/4 is a ridiculous idea.


My Flickr (external link) | Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kobeson
Goldmember
Avatar
1,075 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jun 2010
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Dec 18, 2012 05:17 |  #23

SiaoP wrote in post #15379988 (external link)
I vote for 24-70 f/2.8 mark I. Save yourself some money. The f/4 is a ridiculous idea.

Why so?


1Dx | 5D III | 1D IV | 8-15 | 16-35L II | 24-70L II | 70-200L II | 400L II | 1.4x III | Σ85 | 100L | 3 x 600EX-RT | ST-E3-RT
website  (external link)facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Gutterscum
Goldmember
1,030 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 8
Joined Nov 2011
Location: Victoria, Australia
     
Dec 18, 2012 07:16 |  #24

Is there such a difference with the 24-70 2.8 versus the Tamron 17-50 2.8? I had a thread discussing it but new stuff brought up here...


Canon 60D gripped,70-200 2.8 IS, Tokina 11-16 f2.8, Tamron 15-55 2.8 non VG

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Roroco
Senior Member
647 posts
Joined Oct 2010
     
Dec 18, 2012 16:00 |  #25

kobeson wrote in post #15380504 (external link)
Why so?

Because you can get a sharp 24-105 f/4 IS for a street price of $750. Why would you pay twice that for a 24-70 f4 IS. Sure it could be a bit sharper and the IS might be a bit more effective, but I doubt the marginal improvements will be worth it.


Roger
Gear List: 5D Mark III -- 50mm f/1.4 -- 85mm f1.8 -- 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro -- 17-40mm f/4L -- Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC -- 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II -- 2.0X III TC

Lights -- Alien Bees B800 -- 580 EX II -- Yongnuo YN-560 II & YN-568EX -- Mother Nature -- RF 602s

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mike ­ cabilangan
Goldmember
Avatar
1,378 posts
Joined Apr 2010
Location: Metro Manila
     
Dec 18, 2012 16:43 |  #26

Roroco wrote in post #15382662 (external link)
Because you can get a sharp 24-105 f/4 IS for a street price of $750. Why would you pay twice that for a 24-70 f4 IS. Sure it could be a bit sharper and the IS might be a bit more effective, but I doubt the marginal improvements will be worth it.

it might be dumb/ridiculous for YOU. but it's not dumb/ridiculous for everybody.

but to answer your question:

1) because it has the better IS mechanism (also includes reliability)
2) macro mode
3) might have less distortion
4) might be sharper

first one is why i didn't get a 24-105, everyone i know personally with a 24-105 has had the IS repaired/replaced.


camera bag reviews (external link)
flickr (external link)gearLust

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TheLensGuy
Senior Member
598 posts
Joined Sep 2012
     
Dec 18, 2012 17:31 |  #27
bannedPermanent ban

24-70 F4 is such a ridiculous lens.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Roroco
Senior Member
647 posts
Joined Oct 2010
     
Dec 18, 2012 18:17 |  #28

mike cabilangan wrote in post #15382823 (external link)
it might be dumb/ridiculous for YOU. but it's not dumb/ridiculous for everybody.

but to answer your question:

1) because it has the better IS mechanism (also includes reliability)
2) macro mode
3) might have less distortion
4) might be sharper

first one is why i didn't get a 24-105, everyone i know personally with a 24-105 has had the IS repaired/replaced.

Not my money, but you can get a new (white box) 24-105 for 750, and pay for the IS repair several times before you get to the 24-70 f4 IS price. It is a ridiculous lens at that price. It may work for you, but unless Canon discontinues the 24-105, that lens will be a flop.


Roger
Gear List: 5D Mark III -- 50mm f/1.4 -- 85mm f1.8 -- 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro -- 17-40mm f/4L -- Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC -- 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II -- 2.0X III TC

Lights -- Alien Bees B800 -- 580 EX II -- Yongnuo YN-560 II & YN-568EX -- Mother Nature -- RF 602s

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kobeson
Goldmember
Avatar
1,075 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jun 2010
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Dec 18, 2012 18:37 |  #29

Roroco wrote in post #15382662 (external link)
Because you can get a sharp 24-105 f/4 IS for a street price of $750. Why would you pay twice that for a 24-70 f4 IS. Sure it could be a bit sharper and the IS might be a bit more effective, but I doubt the marginal improvements will be worth it.

It's amazing the hatred for this lens - I looked through SiaoP's flickr account, and there weren't any photos in there that suggested the 24-70 f4 would be a bad lens choice for him/her.

I rented a 24-105 followed directly by a 24-70 II. I was amazed at how much better the mk II performed. The 24-105 was soft on the edges, the center was ok, but nothing else (in comparison). If this new 24-70 f4 has optics almost as good as the mk II, then it will be one incredible lens.

There are plenty of shooters who don't need f2.8 in a zoom, and I am one of them. I need a zoom lens to cover group portraits in dim light - no whay will I ever be shooting groups any wider than f4, I usually stick to f4 for 2 people, 5.6 for 4-6 and f8 for larger groups. When I rented the 24-70 II I didn't shoot at f2.8 much at all. I have primes for narrow DOF, this 24-70 f4 IS suits me perfectly.

IMO the difference in size and weight plus IS make it a brilliant alternative to the mk II - assuming the optics will be close to that amazing lens' quality.


+1 to what mike cabilangan said also.

Roroco wrote in post #15383135 (external link)
Not my money, but you can get a new (white box) 24-105 for 750, and pay for the IS repair several times before you get to the 24-70 f4 IS price. It is a ridiculous lens at that price. It may work for you, but unless Canon discontinues the 24-105, that lens will be a flop.

Your opinion doesn't mean it will be a flop, I am sure Canon have some idea on target market for their lenses by now.


1Dx | 5D III | 1D IV | 8-15 | 16-35L II | 24-70L II | 70-200L II | 400L II | 1.4x III | Σ85 | 100L | 3 x 600EX-RT | ST-E3-RT
website  (external link)facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
16,116 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 6182
Joined Sep 2007
     
Dec 18, 2012 19:13 |  #30

mike cabilangan wrote in post #15382823 (external link)
it might be dumb/ridiculous for YOU. but it's not dumb/ridiculous for everybody.

but to answer your question:

1) because it has the better IS mechanism (also includes reliability)
2) macro mode
3) might have less distortion
4) might be sharper

first one is why i didn't get a 24-105, everyone i know personally with a 24-105 has had the IS repaired/replaced.

from what I recall, lensrental says that the 24-105 is a reliable lens that ages well.

the reason the 24-105 does so well for a lot of folks is that it's sharpness using FF is sufficient, and the range is excellent. Once you give up the range, there's nothing special about it. It loses it's main selling point.


Sony A7riii/A9 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - SY 24/2.8 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 17-28/2.8 - 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

13,137 views & 0 likes for this thread
Canon 24-70 2.8 vs 24-70 f4 or the Tammy ?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is mjp321kia
989 guests, 295 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.