EF 24-105 f/4L IS USM compared to the EF 24-70 f/2.8L II USM

[adam_mateo_]

I've bought the EOS 7D Mark II and I've been stuck as to which lens to buy, it's between the EF 24-105 f/4L IS USM and the EF 24-70 f/2.8L II USM. I like that the f/4L has a stabilizer, and the f/2.8L seems to be more durable but what purpose does each lens serve? Which would you buy, please provide your reasoning. (Yes, I am an amateur, this is my first camera and lens but I'll be utilizing my equipment when I go off to college and take some classes. For now, I'm using the lens for when I go to France and Spain this summer)

[ScottyP]

I think your appraisal of the 7d2's advances in noise/ISO is overly optimistic. Look at the this:

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-7D-Mark-II-versus-Canon-EOS-600D-versu...

Look at the "sports ISO" score.

[ebiggs1]

Scott,

Fooey on DXO Mark.  Don't like'em, don't read'em.  I go by real world trials and experience not some paper lab jock.

The fact is f2.8 from f4 is not a deal breaker.  Even f2 from f4 is not.  I will grant you more than that may be hard to over come but certainly not a stop or two.  And certainly not on this camera or any of the other newer models availible.

The number change may sound like a lot but in real photograpy use it is not.  I guess you can find a situation that 1 stop is bad but not for 90% of the shooting 90% of us do.

I took a old dinosaur 1D Mk IIn to my grandson's 2nd grade music show Thursday evening.  It is maxes out at ISO 1600 so I used 800 and I used a f4 zoom lens.  Guess what the photos are fine.

A f4 lens will present no issues conertning low light on a 7D Mk II.

[ScottyP]

Noise and lack of detail are in the eye of the beholder I suppose.

I think if you printed most of your images, and thus were dealing with 4x6, 5x7, or at most 8x10 the lack of detail would not matter, particularly if you don't crop dramatically.  I personally found that the lack of detail at high ISO is at least as much a problem, if not actually more, than the grain, when viewed on the computer monitor.  You can make the grain go away, but at the cost of detail, and if you felt the image was lacking detail in the first place that compounds the issue.  I used to find the shots at ISO 800 on my old T3i were lacking in detail; eyelashes, etc., were not distinct if you crop in from a non-closeup shot, and I do like to crop.  Picky, I know, but it drove me nuts.  

And I know some folks are not that impressed with DXO's ratings, but other reviewers say the same thing; the high ISO improvements from T3i/7d 18mp sensor to the new 7d2 sensor are not dramatic; maybe 1/3 of a stop or something.  I would love to have a lens that let me back 3 stops of ISO off of my images.  I would value that infinitely more than a boost in FPS from 5 or 8 to 10.  But that is me; I shoot inside a lot and sports only a little.

[ebiggs1]

"But that is me; I shoot inside a lot and sports only a little."

And how much do you print?  How much do you post on FB or the web in general?  Are you just a computer monitor pixel peeper?  I have read the reviews and I almost agree the lab stuff may show what you are boasting about.  If you are happy in that world, more power to you, but it is not realitly.

I print and sell prints using three Canon photo printer and one HP.  And in fact, my friend, the printer is the weak link not the ISO setting or f-stop.

You see that is one difference where DXoMark fails at and possibily most of the reviewers.  They do not know how you shoot and your end goal.

Now we haven't even gone to FB or the web.  Not even necessary, is it?

I am going to say again, the 7D Mk II will not be hampered with a f4 lens opposed to a f 2.8.  And I can even add neither will most cameras made today.

BTW, the smallest print I make is 8x10, 8x12 and11x14 .  I try to get hte composure close in the camera so 100% crops are never necessary. (well rarely anyhow :smileywink 🙂

[jazzman1]

Hi ebiggs1.  I'm a newbie in the forums and trying to learn photo skills.  I ran accross this old tread and was intrigued.  I like alot of the things you've said in the few posts I read, and think you're kind of different from how most others guys see things.   Most I've read are pixle peepers, and tech and numbers guys.  But what you've said about real life results as opposed to lab numbers make alot of sense to me.   I too would like to become, at the very least, an accomplished amature.   But I hope I never become a pixle peeper.  I'll be checking in on your posts sir.   Thanks much.

[ebiggs1]

Thank you very much for the kind words.  

There are several of us that don't depend on, or rely on, or even believe in DxO Mark.  They sell ads!

I have been in the business for over forth years and retired now but loving photography more than ever.  Maybe because I don't have to do it now?  I do it because I want to.

The digital age created the "pixel peepers".  They didn't exist way, way back when.  We did have grain, though.  Truth of the matter is how you intend on using your images.  That is it.  Not on me, not for DxO Mark, just you.  In the real world of photography what do you need and see in your work?  Pixels or pictures?

I am not saying it isn't nice to know before hand how certain lenses work.  It can help make your decision on spending your money.

For me I place duribility on top of the list.  It has to be built well.  The best in the world "broken" lens won't take as good of a picture as a working average lens.  That is real world use for instance.

Barrel distortion and pin cushion distortion for example, can be difficult to impossibile to see in a landscape but show up ugly in a cityscape with buildings. Real world use again.

Balance your research and learning and you will do well.

[jazzman1]

Hi ebiggs1.  Thanks for the info.  I understand what you're saying.  No offense to guys who like the tech reviews and put pics under critical observation, I do think in certain cases that can be helpful.   But unless a bolt of lightning strikes me and turns me into the most successful professional ever, I'll be happy to be able to take pics I can be proud of and enjoy the art of photography.  I'm mainly concerned about things I see with my eyes, less important are spects I need equipment and use tests to see.  Mind you, I do think those things can be important in certain instances and at times I will look at those results.  But most of my decsions in photography will be from what I think and see about my pics and camera.

Just to make a point, I'm a old head audio buff.  back in the day we use to go over audio gear with a fine tooth comb, debating stats and charts, and test results, of what was the best gear.  .But in the end I realised it was really about what I liked and what my ears heard.  I remember many a time I ran out to the store to audition a reciever, speakers, or other component and was very disappointed in what I heard, or could not detect the difference that the specs said was suppose to be superior from one amp to the other.   Many times measured performance could not be detected by my ears.  I finally understood that many things are subjective, and what one may like, does'nt mean everyone will.  In the end I started getting gear I liked and that sounded good to me.  As you state here, I'm more concerned with real world use and results.

Take care, I'm gonna be here alot, you guys give alot of good info.  Wish I had came here sooner.

[ebiggs1]

Scott,

Have you seen some of the photos Mr. cicopo gets with his 100-400mm?  Look at them and than read the DxOMark ratings.

Lab tests vs real world use!

[EfRed]

I was faced with the same lens decision, though I have a different Camera, 5D Mark IV.  I bought the 24-100 F4L over the more expensive 24-70 F2.8.  I wanted a "walk around" lens, which for me would be used primarily outside during active daylight, where the f2.8 doesn't offer that much advantage over the F4. Outside, the top end of 100mm is more serivceable than the 70mm of the more expensive lens. I then bought a 50mm F1.4 to cover lower light use, which I thought would be mostly indoor, where the lack of telephoto won't kill me.  The 24-100 and the 50 f1.4 cost together less than the 24-70.  If indoors needing the 100mm, I'll have to use a flash.  Later I bought a 70-200f2.8 II and a 100mm f2.8 Macro, so I think I've got things in the 24-200 range well covered at f2.8. So far I'm well satisfied by my choice of the 24-100.  Also, don't be afraid to patronize KEH or MBP, who sell used gear - you will save a lot of dollars; so far, I've not regretted buying used from those two sources.  Canon refurbished is another source, though not usually a bargain, they do hold sales occasionally - I just picked up a refurbished 100-400mm f4.0-5.6L IS II there for $1500, which compares well with the like-new prices at KEH and MBP.