topic Re: Canon 80D : 24-70 f2.8 vs 24-105 f4 in EF & RF Lenses

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

dinorowan — Thu, 02 Feb 2017 18:30:38 GMT

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?

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

ScottyP — Sat, 04 Feb 2017 14:21:02 GMT

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.

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

RobertTheFat — Thu, 02 Feb 2017 20:30:02 GMT

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.

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

ebiggs1 — Fri, 03 Feb 2017 06:09:47 GMT

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

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.

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

ebiggs1 — Fri, 03 Feb 2017 06:16:44 GMT

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!

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

dinorowan — Fri, 03 Feb 2017 07:00:56 GMT

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!

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

ScottyP — Sat, 04 Feb 2017 16:11:43 GMT

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.

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

Waddizzle — Sat, 04 Feb 2017 17:24:53 GMT

@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

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

ebiggs1 — Sat, 04 Feb 2017 22:40:14 GMT

"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.

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

Waddizzle — Sat, 04 Feb 2017 23:15:42 GMT

@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.

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

ebiggs1 — Sun, 05 Feb 2017 00:00:48 GMT

At least you are one who is smart enough to see the entire package. The life of a lens in the hands of a guy like me that uses it day in and day out, where the photo is more important than the gear,...well you get the idea.

I just don't see the Tamron's and Tokina's and whatever lasting. Some Sigmas, like the 150-600mil sport is as tough as any Canon "L". So we will see. Mine has already been tested. Believe me, tested!

Treat a third party lens well and it will serve, I am sure of that.

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

zimou13 — Mon, 18 Jun 2018 23:31:35 GMT

Looking to upgrade my Sigma 24-105mm ART to a Canon 24-70mm F4 for my 80D. Mostly because of better IS, faster AF and it being more portable. Heard and read great things about its image quality on a crop camera, but I'm looking for personal experiences of users here. Plex Lucky Patcher Kodi Is anyone having problems with it suffering from focus shift (residual spherical aberrations)? How do you like the lens overall?

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

RobertTheFat — Sat, 16 Jun 2018 15:36:06 GMT

@zimou13 wrote:
Looking to upgrade my Sigma 24-105mm ART to a Canon 24-70mm F4 for my 80D. Mostly because of better IS, faster AF and it being more portable. Heard and read great things about its image quality on a crop camera, but I'm looking for personal experiences of users here. Is anyone having problems with it suffering from focus shift (residual spherical aberrations)? How do you like the lens overall?

It's the f/2.8 version of the Canon 24-70 that everybody raves about, not the f/4. And I think most most of the experience of those in this forum is with the f/2.8. The f/2.8 doesn't have IS; but most of the people who gripe about that do so on general principles, not because it really matters much.

Be sure to read the things we said to the OP last year. They're just as valid now as they were then.

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

ebiggs1 — Sun, 17 Jun 2018 15:04:01 GMT

IMHO, "Looking to upgrade my Sigma 24-105mm ART to a Canon 24-70mm F4 for my 80D." that is not an upgrade. I always, well most always, say go for the real deal Canon lens but this swap is not an upgrade. It could be an equal trade off but certainly not an upgrade. If you didn't already have the Siggy, OK, buy the Canon. If you want a real upgrade, buy the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM Lens.