Hi there,
I ve got a Canon 6D and a Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS only (since my previous lens canon 18-135 will not work with the 6D..)
I usually shoot in the studio, moving models, and need very sharp images. Since I cannot always shoot from so far away with the 70-200 f2.8, and since it weighs more than I can stand (I use a tripod), which lens is better so that I can shoot closer? I am looking for close level quality, but cannot afford the Canon 24-70 f2.8 USM II. So, I was thinking maybe I should consider the Canon 24-70 f4 which has IS as well? Or should I go for Canon 24-70 f2.8 USM (old version)..What do you think?
If you're shooting models primarily in a studio setting I don't think IS is going to help you a lot. See if you can find one of the original 24-70 2.8 lenses or simply look at the various primes in this focal range. however the f/4 model will be fine if you're shooting with strobes/lights since you're likely not going to be shooting wide open anyway. have you considered the 24-105L as well? it's not perfect but it will do the job.
Sekkides
Posts: 69
London, England, United Kingdom
Try the Sigma 24-70 Macro... It's sharper than the Canon at f8 and above although it suffers from more distortion at 24mm.. but it's unlikely you'll be going below 35mm in the studio I guess, plus edges aren't so important if you're using plain backdrops.
I agree with above tho, you'd probably be better off with the 50mm 1.8 and 85mm 1.8 primes.
The 50mm 1.8 is dirt cheap and it shows but it does the job (I read somewhere that the 1.4 isn't actually any sharper? Can anyone corroborate this?)
The 85mm 1.8 is the best value lens you'll ever buy. I use it almost exclusively in the studio.
MaL kap wrote: Hi there,
I ve got a Canon 6D and a Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS only (since my previous lens canon 18-135 will not work with the 6D..)
I usually shoot in the studio, moving models, and need very sharp images. Since I cannot always shoot from so far away with the 70-200 f2.8, and since it weighs more than I can stand (I use a tripod), which lens is better so that I can shoot closer? I am looking for close level quality, but cannot afford the Canon 24-70 f2.8 USM II. So, I was thinking maybe I should consider the Canon 24-70 f4 which has IS as well? Or should I go for Canon 24-79 f2.8 USM (old version)..What do you think?
With an old lens you have to be careful of stuff like worn aperture blades that are not 100 percent.. Also fungus, dust. Also the connectors, make sure they are in good shape..
I would go with a new lens...
Also take into consideration that if you get use to the older lens, its kinda hard to replace if the lens stops working... They are not easy to replace or maybe even service..
Since I have the 70-200 I was considering something not within that range.
I want Canon as a brand and a zoom lens because I use a tripod trying to get things as sharp as I can. I will also be going quite close to the model on occasions..
A used Lens is not an option for me, I cannot risk it
Doesn't the IS in the f4 make a big difference? I ve had focus problems before that is why I stress on it. I 've got moving subjects on many occasions..
I needed a 24-70 zoom lens and didn't want to go below f/2.8. I've gathered that IS isn't really a necessity for portrait shooting unless you have shaky hands. I found used a Sigma 28-70 f/2.8-4.0 (hey, close enough) for $170 on Amazon. It will do until I can upgrade to the Tamron 24-70 I've been wanting.
I've only used it a handful of times, because I am addicted to the sharpness of my prime lenses, but it took some good images when I've tested it out.
You never know when you would need that f2.8, and it's there waiting to be unleashed.
I like the Mark I better because of the unique hood design. It is attached securely to the metal barrel, and not on the moving zoom piston barrel. The extended (in-out) barrel zoom is always hidden inside the hood.
i use the 24-105f4 a lot in the studio. unless i'm doing something like boudoir and want to be at f2.8 for maximum blur. it really depends on what apertures and focal lengths you want to shoot at. if it's always f5.6 then why pay for a 2.8 lens (aside from the focusing and brighter view)? and for me 70 is a bit short for things like headshots -- i like to do more like 100 if i can.
i use my 24-70 at weddings when f4 isn't enough. but in those cases sometimes 2.8 isn't enough either and i have to use my 50f1.4. it's all about what aperture you want/need.
MaL kap wrote: Hi there,
I ve got a Canon 6D and a Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS only (since my previous lens canon 18-135 will not work with the 6D..)
I usually shoot in the studio, moving models, and need very sharp images. Since I cannot always shoot from so far away with the 70-200 f2.8, and since it weighs more than I can stand (I use a tripod), which lens is better so that I can shoot closer? I am looking for close level quality, but cannot afford the Canon 24-70 f2.8 USM II. So, I was thinking maybe I should consider the Canon 24-70 f4 which has IS as well? Or should I go for Canon 24-79 f2.8 USM (old version)..What do you think?
Okay - coming full circle then, I'd go with your final suggestion:
With modern cameras finally having ISO that's usable from 3200 onwards I would say the only real decider is features. The 24-105 and 70-200 F4 were my two favorite lenses from Canon for a long time.
Even with IS, shooting in dim light at F4 is a real challenge. If you are mainly a studio shooter I think the new lens is a great way to save some cash and still get nice glass.
yeah, the focusing starts to get sluggish in those dark reception halls and churches. time for a fast prime. f2.8 is fine but really i think in those conditions you're better off with a fast prime (my 50f1.4 does well but of course then i'm stuck at 50).
Illuminate wrote: Even with IS, shooting in dim light at F4 is a real challenge.
MaL kap wrote: Since I have the 70-200 I was considering something not within that range.
I want Canon as a brand and a zoom lens because I use a tripod trying to get things as sharp as I can. I will also be going quite close to the model on occasions..
A used Lens is not an option for me, I cannot risk it
Doesn't the IS in the f4 make a big difference? I ve had focus problems before that is why I stress on it. I 've got moving subjects on many occasions..
You say you use a tripod then ask about IS. IS is great if you're hand-holding your camera. You wouldn't want to use IS if your camera is mounted on a tripod. Maybe that could be the reason you're not getting acceptable focus.
You say you use a tripod then ask about IS. IS is great if you're hand-holding your camera. You wouldn't want to use IS if your camera is mounted on a tripod. Maybe that could be the reason you're not getting acceptable focus.
Newer generation lenses with IS can be used on Tripods...
WMcK
Posts: 5,190
Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom
Leggy Mountbatten wrote: I'm still a big fan of the 24-105, myself. I really don't see where the 24-70 f/4 fits in.
I've wondered that myself. Especially with full frame, the 24-105 has a far more usable range, is very good optically, and has IS. I don't see the point of paying 50% more for an inferior lens.
Leggy Mountbatten wrote: I'm still a big fan of the 24-105, myself. I really don't see where the 24-70 f/4 fits in.
I completely agree. Why they didn't just put IS on the 24-70 2.8 II I will never know.
OP.. if money is a concern I would consider the original 24-70 or the 24-105. 75% of the lenses I own were bought used. The only issue I ever had with a lens was my 70-200 2.8 which I bought new.
Leggy Mountbatten wrote: I'm still a big fan of the 24-105, myself. I really don't see where the 24-70 f/4 fits in.
I think the 24-105 is on the way out...or will maybe get updated in some way. It's a pretty old design..and got relegated largely to a mid-level kit lens in the past 4 years.
twoharts wrote: i use the 24-105f4 a lot in the studio. unless i'm doing something like boudoir and want to be at f2.8 for maximum blur. it really depends on what apertures and focal lengths you want to shoot at. if it's always f5.6 then why pay for a 2.8 lens (aside from the focusing and brighter view)? and for me 70 is a bit short for things like headshots -- i like to do more like 100 if i can.
i use my 24-70 at weddings when f4 isn't enough. but in those cases sometimes 2.8 isn't enough either and i have to use my 50f1.4. it's all about what aperture you want/need.
i'm on full-frame.
Which one do you recommend for sharpness 24-70f2.8 or 24-105f4?
twoharts wrote: i use the 24-105f4 a lot in the studio. unless i'm doing something like boudoir and want to be at f2.8 for maximum blur. it really depends on what apertures and focal lengths you want to shoot at. if it's always f5.6 then why pay for a 2.8 lens (aside from the focusing and brighter view)? and for me 70 is a bit short for things like headshots -- i like to do more like 100 if i can.
i use my 24-70 at weddings when f4 isn't enough. but in those cases sometimes 2.8 isn't enough either and i have to use my 50f1.4. it's all about what aperture you want/need.
i'm on full-frame.
Which one do you recommend for sharpness 24-70f2.8 or 24-105f4?
| 
| 
| edu