cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Canon 80D : 24-70 f2.8 vs 24-105 f4

dinorowan
Apprentice

Hi,

 

I'm a mostly event photographer, currently I work at an independent high school school in their marketing department doing a lot of their events, videos, etc. It's a lot of running around and good amount of low-light shots in their theater.

 

I recently purchased an 80D (upgraded from a 60D) and I absolutely love the low-light performance that the 80D offers. I'm currently using the kit lens (18-135mm) but now that I have the financial means, I wish to upgrade.

 

I'm drawn to the 24-70 f2.8 for the wider aperture, and the 24-105 f4 for the wider zoom range. I mostly use wider aperture for low-light situations (less about artsy bokeh etc), but I feel like the 80D's strength in low-light will be able to make up for f4 vs f2.8. I also like the wider zoom range of the 24-105 which will make it easier to cover events without having to switch lenses so much. 

 

I also have a 10-18mm wide angle lens that I love, so the slight wide angle loss going from 18mm to 24mm isn't a huge issue.

 

I'll be getting a video monopod very soon as well, and I have a 40mm 2.8 prime as well, but I don't use it that often unless for video interviews etc. 

 

Anyways, back to the 24-70 f2.8 vs 24-105 f4 for my 80D. Obviously a huge price difference between the lenses as well. But with the background I provided, what do you all suggest?

1 ACCEPTED SOLUTION

ebiggs1
Legend
Legend

Now for the, not only correct answer but the best answer. Smiley Wink

 

My bag has been reduced to these three lenses.  They can do 99% of whatever event I ever, and want to, shoot.

Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM Lens

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM Lens

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens

I love this gear.  Highly recommend it.  These are the best lenses made.

 

Not wishing to spend that small fortune, here is a cheaper alternative and it is almost as good.

Tokina AT-X 16-28mm f/2.8 Pro FX Lens for Canon

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 DI VC USD Lens for Canon

Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Zoom Lens for Canon

The biggest difference you will see is the build quality.  The IQ is very close and may not be noticeable.

I have this gear so I know what it can do.

 

Don't waste any money or time on prime lenses.  They are too limited and more difficult to use.

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and less lenses then before!

View solution in original post

13 REPLIES 13

ScottyP
Authority

Hi,

 

I would go with the f/2.8 aperture. Shooting a crop sensor in a dim theater I would really like more than f/4 to work with.

 

Compare the 80d and 60d in high ISO on DXO mark. The improvement is not huge.

 

The 24-70 is by all accounts a beautiful and sharp lens. On a budget you might consider the very good EF-s 17-55 f/2.8 IS. That even leaves room for adding a longer and even brighter 85mm f/1.8 or 135mm f/2 prime. 

Scott

Canon 5d mk 4, Canon 6D, EF 70-200mm L f/2.8 IS mk2; EF 16-35 f/2.8 L mk. III; Sigma 35mm f/1.4 "Art" EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro; EF 85mm f/1.8; EF 1.4x extender mk. 3; EF 24-105 f/4 L; EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS; 3x Phottix Mitros+ speedlites

Why do so many people say "FER-tographer"? Do they take "fertographs"?


dinorowan wrote:

Hi,

 

I'm a mostly event photographer, currently I work at an independent high school school in their marketing department doing a lot of their events, videos, etc. It's a lot of running around and good amount of low-light shots in their theater.

 

I recently purchased an 80D (upgraded from a 60D) and I absolutely love the low-light performance that the 80D offers. I'm currently using the kit lens (18-135mm) but now that I have the financial means, I wish to upgrade.

 

I'm drawn to the 24-70 f2.8 for the wider aperture, and the 24-105 f4 for the wider zoom range. I mostly use wider aperture for low-light situations (less about artsy bokeh etc), but I feel like the 80D's strength in low-light will be able to make up for f4 vs f2.8. I also like the wider zoom range of the 24-105 which will make it easier to cover events without having to switch lenses so much. 

 

I also have a 10-18mm wide angle lens that I love, so the slight wide angle loss going from 18mm to 24mm isn't a huge issue.

 

I'll be getting a video monopod very soon as well, and I have a 40mm 2.8 prime as well, but I don't use it that often unless for video interviews etc. 

 

Anyways, back to the 24-70 f2.8 vs 24-105 f4 for my 80D. Obviously a huge price difference between the lenses as well. But with the background I provided, what do you all suggest?


The 24-70 is an architecture/landscape and indoor event lens. The 24-105 is a street photography and outdoor event lens. Both are excellent, but both are full-frame lenses that will be annoyingly long on an 80D. For your purposes, take Scott's advice and get the 17-55 f/2.8.

Bob
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania USA

ebiggs1
Legend
Legend

Now for the, not only correct answer but the best answer. Smiley Wink

 

My bag has been reduced to these three lenses.  They can do 99% of whatever event I ever, and want to, shoot.

Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM Lens

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM Lens

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens

I love this gear.  Highly recommend it.  These are the best lenses made.

 

Not wishing to spend that small fortune, here is a cheaper alternative and it is almost as good.

Tokina AT-X 16-28mm f/2.8 Pro FX Lens for Canon

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 DI VC USD Lens for Canon

Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Zoom Lens for Canon

The biggest difference you will see is the build quality.  The IQ is very close and may not be noticeable.

I have this gear so I know what it can do.

 

Don't waste any money or time on prime lenses.  They are too limited and more difficult to use.

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and less lenses then before!

ebiggs1
Legend
Legend

If you are strictly stuck between the, "I'm drawn to the 24-70 f2.8 for the wider aperture, and the 24-105 f4 for the wider zoom range.", Then you want the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM Lens.  Like I said, it is the best lens made. Put a period on it!       Smiley Happy

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and less lenses then before!

dinorowan
Apprentice
Just the answer I was looking for! I do know hands down the Canon 24-70 is the best one to get, but I do like your idea of getting those two Tamron lenses, both under 800 each. So I could get both those lenses together for less than the Canon 24-70, and still be happy with the results. Thank you so much!

To expand on the thought that you should not overestimate the improvement gained by upgrading from 60d to 80d in dim light, here are the actual DXO comparisons of high ISO capability.

 

The numbers below are the highest ISO settings at which each camera can still deliver "excellent" image quality. (DXO defines excellent IQ as a signal to noise ratio of 30dB.  Whether or not 30dB is indeed the cutoff for excellent is of course subjective, but by using the same number as a comparison they nevertheless give you an apples to apples comparison of the 3 cameras.)

 

60d  ISO 813

80d. ISO 1135

6d.   ISO. 2340

 

The difference between 813 (60d) and 1135 (80d) is less than 1/2 a stop. Going full frame gives about a stop and a half vs 60d, just for reference.  The point is, don't overestimate the low light advantage you are gaining with the new crop camera.

 

I'd still want at LEAST an f/2.8 aperture shooting in dim indoor light.  No way f/4 is the right choice for that. If I did that kind of shooting a lot, and if a lot of folks were seeing my shots, I personally would be at least considering adding a prime with an f/number in the 1.4 to 1.8 to 2.0 range at some point.

Scott

Canon 5d mk 4, Canon 6D, EF 70-200mm L f/2.8 IS mk2; EF 16-35 f/2.8 L mk. III; Sigma 35mm f/1.4 "Art" EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro; EF 85mm f/1.8; EF 1.4x extender mk. 3; EF 24-105 f/4 L; EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS; 3x Phottix Mitros+ speedlites

Why do so many people say "FER-tographer"? Do they take "fertographs"?


@dinorowan wrote:
Just the answer I was looking for! I do know hands down the Canon 24-70 is the best one to get, but I do like your idea of getting those two Tamron lenses, both under 800 each. So I could get both those lenses together for less than the Canon 24-70, and still be happy with the results. Thank you so much!

Buy the gear that you really want.  I think it is best to buy one really high quality lens, than two good ones.  No doubt the two Tamron lenses will give you great results.  But, those results will always make you wonder what sort of results you would get with a highly regarded Canon "L" lens.  

 

Maybe it's because I bought a couple of "L" lenses before a bought a highly regarded third party lens, which left me a bit disappointed, that I would encourage you to stick with Canon lenses first.  My "L" lenses have contrast that my non-Canon lenses do not have.  My "L" lenses produce better looking OOF, out of focus, images, too.  

 

Whatever zoom lenses you do choose, do try to get a fast zoom with a constant f/2.8 in the range that you will use most.  While primes are not as versatile as a zoom, there is no substitute for having a FAST prime, f/1.4 or f/1.8, to fall back on for low light shooting.  I guarantee you that everyone who has given you advice on this thread has at least one fast prime 

--------------------------------------------------------
"The right mouse button is your friend."

"No doubt the two Tamron lenses will give you great results."

Yes, this is a fact.  They some are very good.

As an example I don't know if I would choose the Tokina AT-X 16-28mm f/2.8 Pro FX Lens over my Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM Lens but there is no doubt I would take it over my Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Lens.  Now will the Tok last.  Will it endure.  I am not the friendliest person to camera lenses!  But at three time sthe price I can have three Tok's to the one Nikkor.

 

" But, those results will always make you wonder what sort of results you would get with a highly regarded Canon "L" lens."

Of course this depends on the individual.  Most will never see the difference.  Always keep in mind the Canon "L" series is as much about how well the lens is made as IQ.  A lens is a total package. That is why so many get in trouble reviewing and discussing them.  They see one spec which is usually IQ.  A Canon "L" lens will deliver and maintain the same level of performance for a long, long time.  Will the Tamron or Sigma?

 

 A few third party lenses actually outperform Canon "L" glass in IQ.  A sole reliance on reviews like DXO for your source of info is suspect at best.  All it proves is that you can read.  The real reviews come from folks that use them day in and day out for a time in real world situations.  Not a lab.

 

This wasn't aimed towards anybody.  Just an observation.

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and less lenses then before!


@ebiggs1 wrote:

"No doubt the two Tamron lenses will give you great results."

Yes, this is a fact.  They some are very good.

As an example I don't know if I would choose the Tokina AT-X 16-28mm f/2.8 Pro FX Lens over my Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM Lens but there is no doubt I would take it over my Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Lens.  Now will the Tok last.  Will it endure.  I am not the friendliest person to camera lenses!  But at three time sthe price I can have three Tok's to the one Nikkor.

 

" But, those results will always make you wonder what sort of results you would get with a highly regarded Canon "L" lens."

Of course this depends on the individual.  Most will never see the difference.  Always keep in mind the Canon "L" series is as much about how well the lens is made as IQ.  A lens is a total package. That is why so many get in trouble reviewing and discussing them.  They see one spec which is usually IQ.  A Canon "L" lens will deliver and maintain the same level of performance for a long, long time.  Will the Tamron or Sigma?

 

 A few third party lenses actually outperform Canon "L" glass in IQ.  A sole reliance on reviews like DXO for your source of info is suspect at best.  All it proves is that you can read.  The real reviews come from folks that use them day in and day out for a time in real world situations.  Not a lab.

 

This wasn't aimed towards anybody.  Just an observation.


I admit to being brief.  Image quality is just one factor to consider.  My "L" lenses focus faster, quieter, and more consistently.  The build quality is very nice, especially the 70-200 and 100-400.  Will I be out there in bad weather?  Nope.  Do I expect the insides to damp, dirty, or moldy?  Nope.   Consistent filter sizes, so I can share filters between lenses.

 

I love the contrast and detail.  CA is almost non-existent, which cannot be said of my third party lenses, which can show CA when out of focus.   Then, there is the fact that I don't have to worry about how well the lens can function with the Canon body.

--------------------------------------------------------
"The right mouse button is your friend."
Announcements