MrChad

Telephoto lengths take less flash (to a point) then the wide end. Did you use the flash more on the 24-105mm (105mm) end?

Also recall that the 24mm end of the 24-70 is way further out then the 24mm end of the 24-105mm. It's almost out as far at 24mm on 24-70L as the 105mm end on the 24-105mm lens.

That could hurt the focus for you. If you take lots of up close shots you may want to look at the 16-35mmL. I use my 17-40L up close quite often, dispite the distortion that can occur.

Another thing, you may find that a lens like the Sigma 24-70 or Tamron 28-75mm/2.8 may suite you more as the lenses work more like the 24-105mm and cost a bunch less. Should you want another 24-105mmL. They might make a nice other lens.

srika

Yes I did use flash at 105mm. At 24mm the 24-70 is about double the length of the 105 at 24mm. And, I think at 24mm it's even longer than the 105 at 105mm. I'm sure there are specs somewhere, can't look em up right now. I do take close shots but I need the zoom too. At this point I feel I'll get the 105 again and then get some 16-17 zoom (possibly 2.8) later on. Good suggestion getting a Tamron or Sigma, that way I don't have to break the bank again. Although, I think most likely I would save and get another L.

ps. I would love to see what a 16 or 17 looks like with this thing, shooting in the same places I have been.

Dan Martin

I'm almost positive that the 24-70 will be revised within a year to have IS added. The 1DsMKIII will stress the current lens like never before, and since that combo will be very popular with fashion and wedding photogs, I'd put it high on the "next to upgrade" list.

MrChad

and sadly if updated the price will go with it... the old 28-70L was an $800-900 lens now look at the 24-70L , add IS and you might as well add $700 too.

I'll keep using my old lenses then, just as my buddy still uses the 28-70/70-200/2.8L combo.


Skrika, I'd be willing to let you play with my 17-40L, but I usually use it so often - my primary lens (30D and 40D are my DSLRs) - that I'm not sure I could part with it for a weekend. But I'll think about it.

http://www.lensprotogo.com/~lens/sho...tion.php?id=85

My buddy has rented from here a bunch, I have as well for some teles. We had one of his 16-35L mk2 for a race at Laguna Seca. This is the sharpest lens I've ever used at 24mm let alone the rest of the range. If I didn't have a slew of pricey 77mm filters I'd have ordered this lens by now.

http://www.lensrentals.com/item/cano...utm_medium=cpc another great place.

Calumet downtown also rents gear but not at these low prices.

Dan Martin

I wouldn't be surprised if IS lenses came way down in price in the near future. Now that Canon has shown that they can install a 4-stop stabilizer in a $200 lens, it's not unreasonable to consider a $300 bump on a stabilized L series standard zoom over an older non-stabilized version.

Mizouse

i say dont dump the lens until you've tried it a few more times

then again i dont know how long you've been using it

MrChad

cheapy IS is one thing on those cheap EFS kit zooms. Another to install it on heavy f/2.8 glass.

Dan Martin

I think I saw it posted somewhere that the stabilizer in the new 18-55 and 55-250 cost $20 to produce. I don't think it's much of a stretch to say they could scale it up for $200-$300 for the heavier lenses...

MrChad

It's not the same type of system. It's a piezoelectric type unit in the cheap lenses I think, it might not be able to move those larger lens elements in the big jobbers. Those may always need gyro type units.

Dan Martin

They all use servos for moving the stabilizing group, and they also all have solid state gyros. The gyros just tell the lens how it is moving, the brains use that information to tell the servo how much to move to stabilize the group. The new system just consolidates a number of components which reduces manufacturing costs.

There's a nice breakdown of both systems at the bottom of this DPreview article: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0708/07...5and55-250.asp

trancemission

I love this thread. I really do.

srika

is my mind playing tricks on me or can shots from the 24-70 look visibly sharper than from the 24-105... I'm seeing a straight out-of-the-camera sharpness I feel like I haven't seen before... this is at 4.0...

at least... on the shots that came out..

waTSX

If you're comparing the 24-70 at f/4 to the 24-105 at f/4, I'd say yes. One is stopped down while the other is wide open.

srika

well damn..

jupitersolo

srika,

When doing your shots are you changing the flash opitions or leave them same? Either way what would be your setup?

srika

I left the flash the same as with the 105... first curtain, ETTL, -1/3

jupitersolo

Thanks, I'll be taking alot of indoor pictures in the next 2 months. Just trying to play around with what will work. I have a Blue Crane DVD I need to watch for more insight on the 580.

srika

the 24-70 is AMAZING. just has a bit of a learning curve on it.

Still having some focusing issues which I am trying to figure out but the keeper rate has gone up drastically. Stepping back a bit farther than I did before is helping.

Mizouse

going to keep it then?

MrChad

good to hear, it all comes down to just knowing how to hold such a heavy lens.

srika

yeah - and the lens is fine - it kinda bugs me how quick I was to think there was something wrong with it.. :<

srika

With the 50 1.4 - as-shot, only resized / sharpened. EXIF is in place, I think they're all f/1.6 - you can tell which ones have no flash. AF is very good but I did get some that were off. I notice a loss of IQ compared to the L lenses and I'm not surprised by this - but for club purposes it's trivial. Felt VERY limited at a fixed 50mm but was able to work around it for the most part, even for larger group shots (see below). It's kind of good too though because people kinda freak out sometimes if you're taking shots so close to them (like with the 24) - they want you to step back. The low-light performance and capability makes me interested in the 35mm 1.4L - I think that would be great for club work - 50 is a bit too close. LOVED the low-(physical)-profile of the lens. And the weight was nice too.

srika

oh yea the group shot is at f/5

waTSX

It's interesting that you mention you notice a loss of IQ compared to your L zooms, because my experience is just the opposite. My 50 f/1.4 always seems to render the most detail and sharpness of all my lenses. My only L is the 70-200 f/2.8 IS, but the 17-55 has L quality IQ by most accounts.

The 50 just brings out so much detail and sharpness every time I use it that it amazes me. I just attribute it to it being a prime.

srika

hmm. what lighting conditions have your shots been in? I feel like it may be related to its behavior with the flash - and, it also may be related to its sharpness - it looks like the reflections off the flash are harsher than with the L's. I think that's what makes these shots look "worse" than the L's.

waTSX

Nice pics BTW.

waTSX

I've used it in all sorts of conditions, mostly available light, but with some flash too. The IQ has always been stellar. There's just something about a prime that is different from zooms, even high quality ones. It's hard to put my finger on it.

I don't have a ton of shots with the 50 on my Flickr page, but here's one shot at dusk using flash that turned out well. A buddy with Steve Kinser:



The full res version looks even better.

srika

You know what, I'm looking some more. It's almost like, it's too sharp (yeah me saying something is too sharp, how crazy is that). Have a look at a 100% crop, f/5 - I'll need to soften this:

http://srika.com/img/misc/mannequin/IMG_2899crop.JPG



I guess the f/5 will do that, eh.

jupitersolo

Was told that men have to be sharpen and girls soften. With that he looks OK, but the girls are too much.

srika

Thinking some more - "IQ" was not the term I was looking for and I used it incorrectly. What I meant was, I noticed a difference between these pics and the ones with the L's. A difference that, when looking at sized-down previews of the pics - makes them not look as good because of the detail. A difference I will have to compensate for by softening a lot of the pics. It seems to be mostly the f/5 shots.

waTSX

Yeah, srika, I agree with jupiter. That image is tack sharp and you can see every imperfection on the girls' face, such as they are. I think the flash accentuates that a bit too. Good shot!

srika

ha... yeah. also you may remember before - I asked about how a photography student had told me the 24-70 2.8 would have "less color" than the 24-105. I feel like the 2.8 and the 1.4 have MORE color.

srika

interesting - I'd have to agree.

srika

rest of the pics with the 50 1.4 if you wanna see

http://www.delobbo.com/gallery2/v/11...nequin_launch/

Billiam

That's sort of the point I was going to bring up. Sharpness is such a subjective thing that overall tonal contrast and color contrast can contribute to the perception of sharpness along with the "usual" edge contrast.

srika

I was focusing on their faces, I swear!!!

Mizouse

stogie1020

Ummm.. Yeah. Riiiiiiiiiight.



Wait, she's checking out your package!

srika

umm.. she's lookin at the camera... !

Mizouse

shes looking at your big "lens"