Just say I had the money....

squizza

squizza

Eeyore
Messages
2,855
Edit My Images
Yes
for either of these. Which would you choose. I would be using it as a walk around lens, and also for weddings when I assist my other half at his wedding bookings.

Canon 24-70 L
Canon 24-105 L

Thanks in advance

Sarah
 
ive been looking at both lenses too. I believe the 24-105 is the choice lens for walkabout type stuff, but given that most weddings are generally in lowly lit registry offices/churches/temples I have decided to go for the 24-70 purely because of the 2.8 aperture. I would have loved the range the of 24-105.

But having said that, if you manage ok with your 70-200 L (in terms of capturing enough light and freezing action) then you should be better off with the 24-105. In my experience I need fast lens, so I limit myself to 2.8.
 
Hmmmm that's actually a hard one! I would have to say I'd be tempted to go for the 24-70mm because it's f2.8. Especially on a crop body. I love the 24-105mm for the range on FF even though it's f4.

I think for 2nd shooter duties the 24-70mm f2.8 on a crop body would give you more scope to shoot indoors and a fair bit IS indoors.

HTH
 
If its for your 50D and have no plans to go full frame I would choose neither and get the 17-55mm IS f2.8

I can't help feeling both of these are a compromise on a crop body. Just my opinion though.
 
I was looking at the lensesforhire web site yesterday and specifically the 24-105mm lens.

I was interested to see their write up:

Canon's Image Stabilized midrange zoom is a favourite "walkaround" and vacation lens.

Many people have trouble choosing between this lens and the 24-70mm f/2.8 L. There's no simple answer; they're both great lenses. The advantages of this lens compared to the 24-70 are that it's smaller and lighter, it has a longer range, and it has Image Stabilization. On the other hand it's a full stop slower, may be a little less sharp, and exhibits some barrel and pincushion distortion at the extreme wide end of its range on full frame cameras. The 24-70 is probably more at home in the studio, and this is the one for when you're out and about.
Click to expand...


http://www.lensesforhire.co.uk/canon-ef-24-105mm-f4-l-is-usm-25-p.asp


 
Just a thought Squizz. What does lens Ryan mainly shoot with at weddings? I would assume you would/might want something of a different length.
 
Paulie-W said:
Just a thought Squizz. What does lens Ryan mainly shoot with at weddings? I would assume you would/might want something of a different length.
Click to expand...

Hi Paulie!

Well he shoots with a 24-70 on one body and a 70-200 on his other.... good point about wanting something different.

Also, I plan on staying with cropped sensor cameras for the range as I love my wildlife photography.

I guess my main problem is that I'm always shooting with at least the 70-200 on plus converter so I'm used to getting those focal lengths, and the Tamron 17-55 I've got now, although a good lens, it bugs me slightly that it feels really short. Hmm I think I may have answered my own question.... only thing is...the 24-105 is a stop slower. Why can't they make a 2.8 24-105L :bang:
 
squizza said:
Hi Paulie!

Well he shoots with a 24-70 on one body and a 70-200 on his other.... good point about wanting something different.

Also, I plan on staying with cropped sensor cameras for the range as I love my wildlife photography.
Click to expand...

Hey you :D

Which on which Squizz, or does the b****r run 2 D700`s now?
 
squizza said:
2 D700s .... jammy b****r. Lol:D Alright for some hey!
Click to expand...

Gahh well i'm gonna have to shaft him on flickr now :lol: But seriously though, in tha case i would go 24-70 on your cropped shiny new 50D :D
 
squizza said:
Also, I plan on staying with cropped sensor cameras for the range as I love my wildlife photography.
Click to expand...
I dont understand this comment...why would you want to capture less of the image???

As for lens choice, I compared the 24-70 with the 24-105 on a 5DmkII at the NEC this year and the 24-105 just felt "right" (this is probably why canon bundle these together).

The IS helps keep things sharp, provided there's no/little subject movement, and I think it has a great range (wide and long enough). I shot a friend's wedding a couple of weeks ago with the 24-105 on the 5DmkII and was very pleased with the combo - though I would like a 70-200 2.8 IS too :)).
 
I went for the 24-70, my thinking being that the 2.8 is more useful to me than the IS. I can handhold reasonably slow, but the brighter viewfinder and faster AF, combined with shallower DOF won out.

Plus I rarely find I need the extra 35mm of reach, if I'm looking at that sort of togging the 70-200 is on already

In the end it's a personal preference thing, like Nikon vs Canon, Matte vs Gloss, beef vs pork
 
I have both of them and to me the 24-70 walks it, I only got the 105 for travel and never used it since.
 
nfulcher said:
I dont understand this comment...why would you want to capture less of the image???

As for lens choice, I compared the 24-70 with the 24-105 on a 5DmkII at the NEC this year and the 24-105 just felt "right" (this is probably why canon bundle these together).

The IS helps keep things sharp, provided there's no/little subject movement, and I think it has a great range (wide and long enough). I shot a friend's wedding a couple of weeks ago with the 24-105 on the 5DmkII and was very pleased with the combo - though I would like a 70-200 2.8 IS too :)).
Click to expand...

Neil surely with the cropped sensor wildlife appear larger in the frame and thus bigger? The 1.6 crop magnifies the image on Sarah's 70-200 giving her more reach - no?
 
ryanyboy said:
Neil surely with the cropped sensor wildlife appear larger in the frame and thus bigger? The 1.6 crop magnifies the image on Sarah's 70-200 giving her more reach - no?
Click to expand...
Chop the 5dmk2 image down to a 1.6 crop and you are left with about 8MP make your own mind up.:D
 
ryanyboy said:
Neil surely with the cropped sensor wildlife appear larger in the frame and thus bigger? The 1.6 crop magnifies the image on Sarah's 70-200 giving her more reach - no?
Click to expand...

The 1.6 crop doesnt magnify the image, it justs cuts down how much of the projected image is captured.

Think of it as projecting a slide onto a screen, then swapping the screen for a smaller one. The subject will appear the same size, just less backgound.
 
nfulcher said:
The 1.6 crop doesnt magnify the image, it justs cuts down how much of the projected image is captured.
Click to expand...

Not quite true.....

A 12 MP full frame sensor and a 12MP 1.6 crop sensor, both at say 200mm focal distance, will capture exactly the same amount of information. 12 million pixels worth! You're not throwing any information away at all by using a crop sensor camera.

The only difference being that the crop sensor will "appear" like it's (roughly) at a 300mm focal length rather than 200mm.

It's a fair amount of reading but this might help you understand: http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=152870&highlight=crop+sensor

The 1.6 x crop happens in the camera, it's very different to cropping in photoshop etc!!

Hope this helps!:thumbs:
 
Slimbert said:
Not quite true.....

A 12 MP full frame sensor and a 12MP 1.6 crop sensor, both at say 200mm focal distance, will capture exactly the same amount of information. 12 million pixels worth! You're not throwing any information away at all by using a crop sensor camera.

The only difference being that the crop sensor will "appear" like it's (roughly) at a 300mm focal length rather than 200mm.

It's a fair amount of reading but this might help you understand: http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=152870&highlight=crop+sensor

The 1.6 x crop happens in the camera, it's very different to cropping in photoshop etc!!

Hope this helps!:thumbs:
Click to expand...

Thats why I like crop sensor. Apart from the fact that I cannot afford to go full frame. My budget will only stretch to a lens, not a new full frame body and wildlife lenses to go with it. (unfortunately)
 
squizza said:
Thats why I like crop sensor
Click to expand...

That's why I like it too! And I suspect that's why Ryan was talking about dumping one of his D700's for a D300!!

I think some people get mixed up about crop sensors, mainly by thinking the crop is the same as croping in photoshop etc when you would obviously lose all those precious pixels. In camera cropping losses you nothing at all, not a single pixel!!!
 
Oh, I forgot to mention Sarah, between the 24-70 and 24-105, I'd sell all your Canon gear and move over to Sony!! You know it's the only way to go!!!:D
 
Slimbert said:
Oh, I forgot to mention Sarah, between the 24-70 and 24-105, I'd sell all your Canon gear and move over to Sony!! You know it's the only way to go!!!:D
Click to expand...

That would be cuckoo! :cuckoo: Moving to Nikon would be bad enough :D:lol:
 
Oh, also forgot to mention, the BBQ starts about 7:30 onwards tonight and you are both more than welcome!:thumbs:

You might be able to enjoy the party this time!!!!
 
Hi mate - Thanks ever so for the invite. We'll come if Sarah can get the night off - Sarah??
 
Slimbert said:
Not quite true.....

A 12 MP full frame sensor and a 12MP 1.6 crop sensor, both at say 200mm focal distance, will capture exactly the same amount of information. 12 million pixels worth! You're not throwing any information away at all by using a crop sensor camera.

The only difference being that the crop sensor will "appear" like it's (roughly) at a 300mm focal length rather than 200mm.

It's a fair amount of reading but this might help you understand: http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=152870&highlight=crop+sensor

The 1.6 x crop happens in the camera, it's very different to cropping in photoshop etc!!

Hope this helps!:thumbs:
Click to expand...

Sorry nfulcher - I'm with Slimbert on this. If the sensor excludes the edges of the frame (which it does) then what's left will appear larger (magnified) than it would have if the edges weren't discarded. And the image is still at 12mp. I can understand you being a bit confused by it - it does take some time to get your head around it.

HTH

Ryan
 
Back to the lens..... I'm leaning toward the 24-105.......

Is there a mark 1 and 2 etc for this lens or has only one ever been released?
 
ryanyboy said:
Sorry nfulcher - I'm with Slimbert on this. If the sensor excludes the edges of the frame (which it does) then what's left will appear larger (magnified) than it would have if the edges weren't discarded. And the image is still at 12mp. I can understand you being a bit confused by it - it does take some time to get your head around it.

HTH

Ryan
Click to expand...

Regarding this, a crop sensor would best suit my 'style' anyway because I love tight crops and don't like too much background in my pictures. ????
 
Slimbert said:
Not quite true.....

A 12 MP full frame sensor and a 12MP 1.6 crop sensor, both at say 200mm focal distance, will capture exactly the same amount of information. 12 million pixels worth! You're not throwing any information away at all by using a crop sensor camera.
Click to expand...

Ignore post cropping, the OP said she preferred 1.6 crop factor as this was suited to wildlife photography, implying that she got closer to the subject.

My contention is that the lens decides how close you get, the crop sensor picks up only some of that image compared to full frame (this is supported by the image below - from your link).

Are you suggesting that, with the same pixel density, you get a magnified image with a crop sensor????

Am I missing something:thinking:
Flash In The Pan said:
This should help.....

crop-factor-photo.jpg
Click to expand...
 
nfulcher said:
the OP said she preferred 1.6 crop factor as this was suited to wildlife photography, implying that she got closer to the subject
Click to expand...

It does in a way. Crop sensors increase the effective focal distance of a lens by whatever the crop of the sensor is, so a 300m focal distance on a full frame sensor is 300m, 300m focal distance on a 1.6 crop sensor is 300mm x 1.6 which is effectively 480mm (or what would be 480mm on a full frame). 300mm on a 1.5 crop sensor would be (full frame equivalent) 450mm and so on.........

It's not simply a case of whatever light isn't hitting the sensor is wasted, it's that it isn't needed.

If me with my 1.5 crop, and Mr A with a full frame (both sensors 10MP), take the exact same picture (say the wider 36x24mm red box in the picture you posted), Mr A uses a focal length of 300mm, I would only need a focal length of 200mm. The exact same picture, the exact same result, with the exact same file size and the exact same number of pixels. Different actual focal lengths (me 200mm, Mr A 300mm), but the same effective focal length (300mm for both).

nfulcher said:
My contention is that the lens decides how close you get
Click to expand...

Correct! But the maths are different for full frame and crop sensors.

nfulcher said:
Are you suggesting that, with the same pixel density, you get a magnified image with a crop sensor????
Click to expand...

No, the density of the pixels is increased with a crop sensor. The pixels in a crop sensor are obviously squashed together more than they are for a full frame sensor for the same amount of MP's, which is where the problem of high ISO noise with crop sensors comes into the mix!!

Wether 12MP crop sensor or 12MP full frame sensor, both are still 12MP! And both sensors capture 12MP worth of information when you take a photo with them.

--------------------------------------

Sorry for going off topic again Sarah!
 
:lol:

You're getting a lot of free bumps though Squizza!!

I hereby withdraw from this thread (no I don't), and with me goes my HUGE knowledge of Canon L lenses (I have no knowledge on Canon L lenses). You will never hear from me again (yes you will).........

I've read that the 50D handles noise pretty well, so I'd go with the 24-105mm and up the ISO a little rather than lose the 71-105mm range to gain f2.8. I'm sure all the L range lenses are sharp, so I wouldn't worry about the 24-70mm being a bit sharper.

How much do you shoot in the 71-105mm range? And how often do you want for f2.8?
 
Slimbert said:
No, the density of the pixels is increased with a crop sensor. The pixels in a crop sensor are obviously squashed together more than they are for a full frame sensor for the same amount of MP's, which is where the problem of high ISO noise with crop sensors comes into the mix!!

Wether 12MP crop sensor or 12MP full frame sensor, both are still 12MP! And both sensors capture 12MP worth of information when you take a photo with them.
Click to expand...

This would be true if the sensors were both 12MP.

My Canon 400D has a sensor 14.8 x 22.2mm with a pixel density of 175 pixels/sq mm (3888 x 2592 effective pixels = 10.1MP).

My 5DmkII has a sensor 1.6 larger at 36 x 24mm with a pixel density of 156 pixels/sq mm (5616 x 3744 pixels = 21.0MP).

The pixel density is greater on the crop sensor of my 400D, but by around 11% or a factor of 1.11. So you do get some magnification with a 1.6 crop from the 400D compared to the 5DmkII, but only +11%.

I had assumed the pixel density was the same between Canons - you learn summat every day :bonk:. What is the difference in pixel density between Nikon 1.6 crop and full frame?

BTW, apologies to the OP for hijacking the thread but I do like to understand the science bit :thumbs:.
 
malla1962 said:
Chop the 5dmk2 image down to a 1.6 crop and you are left with about 8MP make your own mind up.:D
Click to expand...

Incorrect, cropping an image from the 5DmkII by 1.6 reduces it to 12.6MP (because uncropped the sensor gives 21MP).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top