Toronto Photography Meetup Group

Hi...need some input on these two lenses. Someone told me that the 24-105mm f4 has a better AF and is better suited for low light conditions than the 24-50mm f2.8. Is that true?

I thought a lens with a lower f stop is "better" for low light as it is wide open? Primary uses would be events like parties or weddings.

Thanks guys,
Toolz

I'm guessing you mean 24-70mm F2.8L.. Don't take advice from that person again. 24-70 is the lens for you. It let's in more light and is better at acquiring focus. That is generally true but the 85L F1.2 is really slow. 24-70 is the go to lens for wedding photogs on full frame cameras.

I forgot to add. I have had both and although the reach is nice on the 24-105 and autofocus is not an issue I liked the colour on the 24-70 and with low light the 24-70 focuses faster. If only they put out a 24-105 F2.8L.

IMHO Fast image stabilized lenses are what you want. Unfortunately neither lens is perfect as f2.8 is not image stabilized while the f4 is an a 3 stop image stabilized lens but it is one stop slower (lets in half the light so needs to double the shutter times). Assuming your camera is good at high ISO then it becomes a toss up,

I've have used both 24 to 70mm and the 24-105mm and find the 2.8 has the edge for studio work and the 24-105 IS has the edge for everything else. Never had any problems with auto focus speed on either lenses.

Neither of them compare to f1.4 to f2 prime lenses but you would need at least a couple of bodies. F1.2 lenses because of the shallow depth of field can result in focus hunting, they are more suitable for static and portrait work then for weddings not to mention cost.

Hmm...interesting points. I know it's not an issue for me now as I won't be buying it for the next 'lil bit but it'd be good to get the information and feedback from you guys since you're probably the most experienced.

I'm currently using the Canon 10D. I know it's ancient but it was a major upgrade from my Lumix FZ50 bridge camera.

Btw, yes, I meant the L 24-70mm f2.8.

I didn't realize the 24-70mm isn't IS. It'd be nice to have the IS since in low light there will be a lot of movement. But I suppose with the an aperture of f2.8, it helps compensate and allows for faster shutter speeds? As opposed to the 24-105mm with IS, it takes in half the light, slower shutter but the IS compensates. Hmm...

Vistek rents both lenses it might be a good idea to try each before you buy.

I suppose I could rent it and try them out. Hehehe...maybe I'll crash a wedding with them.

I tried the 24-70. Beautiful pictures but it's heavy and doesn't have IS, and I don't have the most stable hands in the world.

I use the 24-105 now and you can tell where the IQ suffers.

A 24-70 IS would be nice... but probably $2500 nice.

Oh that's odd. I actually prefer heavier lens. My hands shake less with heavier gear.

I've never held a 24-70mm before but I saw it this past weekend during my buddy's wedding. It IS huge.

They don't call it "The Brick" because it is light!

Interesting thread indeed. Hrrmm...I wonder how they'd perform on a crop body. Unfortunately, I only have the 10D so getting the 17-55 f2.8 is no good as it is an EF-S lens. Hrrmm........

If you have a crop body then the 17-55 is the way to go. I use mine with my 40D and it is outstanding. 24-70 or 24-105 would be too long on my crop for day to day but YMMV.

The 10D will only accept EF lenses.

Holy - that is news to me - I figured since it was a crop body it would accept EF-S lenses.

I wish. It at least opens up options for me if I decide to get a 7D. But alas...my camera is ancient. It restricts me to EF lenses only...which means I can upgrade to a 5D!! Yay!! LOL!!

Get a 5D and couple it with either of the 24-70(105) that have been discussed here, you will not regret the upgrade but your wallet might

Yes...I definitely won't regret it. Hmm...well...I might as well sell my car since I use the public transportation 90% of the time. hahahaha!!

On a 10D you can use the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 or Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 if you're looking for similar range to the 17-55mm. Both of those have EF mount even though they have reduced image circle, and the Tamron also has a version with VC (their name for stabilization) however neither have USM motors...

i've used the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 on my A300 before. great lens and good price.

Agreed I had a 10D and never ever worried about EF-S these seem to be little more than a side note in lenses. the standard never really caught on.

This is probably a good deciding factor as I remember the 10D was not especially known for its AF, and with the f2.8 you'd at least activate both cross-type sensors to help in that respect.

Tamron 17-50 f2.8 like others have said is probably your best choice. a 24-70mm is a strange focal length on a crop body, as is a 24-105mm. Plus it's a lot smaller and cheaper.

Oh...after talking to Eric last night, I've decided to get the Tammy 17-50mm f2.8 and just save up for a 5D and the revised 24-70 L IS that will come out later.