Which lens to get? 24-70 f/4 vs 24-105

[Ltc808]

I'm brand new to photography and I'm getting the 5D mark iii but I don't know which bundle to get. One comes with the 24-70 f/4 lens and the other comes with the 24-105. The 24-70 is about $200 more. I'm planning to shoot pretty much everything (landscapes, portraits, close ups, etc). I'm not sure which one I should get.

I'm also planning to get a lens for astrophotography a little later on (f lower than 2?). I was thinking about the rokinon 24 mm f/1.4. It's a manual focus and I'm new to all this so I'm not sure (magic lantern?). Lenses with autofocus are way too expensive for me. Any recommendations for Milky Way lenses?

So, would it be best for me to pick the 24-105 and save $200 to go towards an astrophotography lens? And any advice would be greatly appreciated (lenses, tripods, backpacks, flashes [looking at speed lite 430EX III], etc)

Thanks in advance!

[RobertTheFat]

---

@Ltc808 wrote:
I'm brand new to photography and I'm getting the 5D mark iii but I don't know which bundle to get. One comes with the 24-70 f/4 lens and the other comes with the 24-105. The 24-70 is about $200 more. I'm planning to shoot pretty much everything (landscapes, portraits, close ups, etc). I'm not sure which one I should get.

I'm also planning to get a lens for astrophotography a little later on (f lower than 2?). I was thinking about the rokinon 24 mm f/1.4. It's a manual focus and I'm new to all this so I'm not sure (magic lantern?). Lenses with autofocus are way too expensive for me. Any recommendations for Milky Way lenses?

So, would it be best for me to pick the 24-105 and save $200 to go towards an astrophotography lens? And any advice would be greatly appreciated (lenses, tripods, backpacks, flashes [looking at speed lite 430EX III], etc)

Thanks in advance!

---

Ultimately your decision depends on what you want the lens for. The 24-70 is a landscape and (marginally) portrait lens. The 24-105 is a general-purpose "walking around" lens, the sort of lens you'd use for street photography. As a landscape lens, it's still quite good, though maybe not as good as the 24-70. As a portrait lens, it may actually be better than the 24-70. I have the 24-105 (as do most of the other 5D3 owners in this forum) and like it a lot. I've never even seen the 24-70, so I have no opinion on it. It has undergone an unusually large price decrease in the time since it was introduced, so I surmise that it didn't sell well at its original price. I that's the case, it's probably because it came across as the poor relative of the 24-70 f/2.8, which is widely considered to be one of the finest lenses ever built.

It is exceedingly rare for someone new to photography to start off with a 5D3. So I'm going to venture a guess that cost of equipment isn't much of an issue for you. With that assumption, I'd suggest you get the 24-105 now, because it's the more versatile of the two lenses. Then when you've had enough experience to be confident of your judgement, you could consider getting the 24-70 f/2.8. With those two, you won't need the 24-70 f/4, and the overall quality and versatility of your equipment will be higher. But really, you can't go far wrong with any of the lenses you're considering.

[ebiggs1]

Here is a shot taken at 24mm using the "best in class" ef 24-70mm f2.8L II.

This is from a 1Ds Mk III and the ef24-70mm f2.8L II.  On a FF body 24mm is usually plenty wide for most landscapes.  The reason for being for the ef24-70 f4 is IS (Image Stabilization)  The more expensive f2.8 model does not have IS.  Adding IS to it would have driven the already premium price point even higher.  IMHO, IS is not necessary for a lens of this type.

There is nothing like the ef 24-70mm f2.8L II, if you must have the best there is.

[Ltc808]

Thanks for the comments guys. I'm actually planning to use the lens mainly for landscapes (I live in Hawaii so there's a lot I could shoot). Portraits are going to be shot less often. Is the difference between the 24-70 f/4 and 24-105 pretty noticeable for landscapes?

And for tripods I'd pick inexpensive and stability. I plan to hike with my equipment but I'll be able carry all the gear. So any good ones around $150 or below?

[Waddizzle]

---

@Ltc808 wrote:
Thanks for the comments guys. I'm actually planning to use the lens mainly for landscapes (I live in Hawaii so there's a lot I could shoot). Portraits are going to be shot less often. Is the difference between the 24-70 f/4 and 24-105 pretty noticeable for landscapes?

And for tripods I'd pick inexpensive and stability. I plan to hike with my equipment but I'll be able carry all the gear. So any good ones around $150 or below?

---

You can find a decent tripod for that price.  But, that doesn't mean that it will fit what it is that you want to do, and the equipment that you want to haul and mount on it..  As far as weight goes, the one pound difference between carbon fiber and aluminum is meaningless to me.  I strap the tripod onto the side of my backpack, and having one extra pound doesn't make much of a difference to me. 

I also like having the extra weight in a tripod for the added stability.  I laugh because what is the first thing that someone does with a carbon fiber tripod to make it more steady?  They add weight bags to it.  Yeah, bags are not well suited for carrying around in the field, but a tripod that weighs 4 lbs, instead of 3, makes more sense to me.

I just checked  My favorite NYC superstore is offering a Benro tripod and head combo, which is rated to handle over 20 lbs, for just over your price point.  I think that setup is a very good buy at the moment.  It comes with a nice bag, tools, steel foot pegs, and a second short center column.  The head has a pan adjustment and the ball has a friction adjustment. 

I like Benro, and its' branded cousins, because they are very good setups, and are economically priced when they go on sale.  I have one branded as Induro, and it is solid as an oak tree.  It doesn't resonate in the breeze like a tuning fork.

-----------------------------------------------

As for choice of lens, I think the Rokinon is economically priced and is great for astrophotography.  It may be a little too wide for some landscape shots, though.  I think it can still work for some landscape shots. 

I was experimenting with HDR shots the other morning, just before sunrise.  This was shot with the cine version of the Rokinon 14mm f/2.8.

I think what you really want is two lenses, are trying to find one that can do it all.  Unless you spend top dollars, lens designs will always have a compromise built into them somewhere.  I'd say get the 14mm for stars, and find a separate lens for landscapes.  Be sure to check out the lens compartor tool, so that you can judge how rectilinear the images are with a given lens.  I think a nice straight, rectilinear lens will do better for landscape shots.  While you want to have a WIDE lens for astrophotography, which is at the opposite end of the scale.

[Ltc808]

And if I end up getting the 24-105, is there a lens I could get around 24 that I could use to make up for the 24-105's weakness at 24? something I could use for astrophotography also (so I'm looking for a low f). I was looking at the 16-35 f/2.8 ii. Would it cover what I mentioned (and is it a great landscape lens)? What are your thoughts on that? It is pricey so do you know of cheaper places (than B&H) to buy it or alternatives that are similar to it?

[Ltc808]

I'm actually planning to get a lens for astrophotgraphy anyway, so I figured I might as well get one that would also be good for landscapes during the day

[Ltc808]

Thanks! I was looking into the rokinkon 14 mm but was a little worried since it's completely manual. I read some things about how to use manual lenses so hopefully I'll get the hang of it.

Do you know what the 16-35 f/2.8 ii is good for? I figured that 2.8 would be low enough for astro shots. And is it good for landscapes?

[TCampbell]

---

@Ltc808 wrote:
Thanks! I was looking into the rokinkon 14 mm but was a little worried since it's completely manual. I read some things about how to use manual lenses so hopefully I'll get the hang of it.

Do you know what the 16-35 f/2.8 ii is good for? I figured that 2.8 would be low enough for astro shots. And is it good for landscapes?

---

I have the Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM... but even though this is an auto-focus lens, when I use it to image the sky, it has to be focused manually.  Stars just don't offer enough contrast for the auto-focus system to lock on and focus.  

In other words, lack of auto-focus wont be a problem and you'll be usin f/2.8 anyway to get more light.

To focus.

1)  Point the camera to an area where you can see some bright stars (even if that's not the part of the sky you want to image.) This is because when "anything" in space is focused... then "everything" in space is focused.  There is no difference between focusing on, say, the moon... vs. focusing on stars.   You just need something that will make it easier to achieve accurate focus and it's easier when you have some bright stars.

2) Switch on "live view" mode (you wont use the viewfinder to focus).

3) Canon cameras have a feature called "exposure simulation" in liveview and this feature is enabled by default (you can turn it off in camera settings, but it's probably on if you haven't disabled it).  This means that as you change the exposure settings, you'll notice the liveview preview on the LCD screen getting brighter and dimmer.     Crank your exposure to the max by maxing out the ISO and setting the exposure duration to 30 seconds.  Even though this is NOT the exposure you plan to use when you shoot your image, it will make it easier to focus.  Tip:  I save this to a "Custom" setting on my mode dial so I can flip between a max exposure and the imaging exposure I plan to run just by turning the mode dial.

4) Use the 8-way navigator to move the box on the live-view screen to an area with some bright stars and then zoom in to 10x magnification.

5) Make sure the lens is in manual focus mode (if it's an auto-focusing lens) and then carefully adjust focus while watching the stars.  Try to adjust focus to make the stars as tiny and as pin-point as possible.

6) Take a test exposure for a few seconds (at this max exposure setting.)  Inspect the image to determine if you are satisified that you've nailed the focus.  

You may iterate between 5 & 6 a few times, but time spent here is a good investment of time.  It's frustrating to do a long run of image captures, get back home, start to process your images on a large computer screen, and then realize that you missed focus and all your images are a bit soft.

7) Once you are satisfied with your focus, return the camera exposure settings to whatever you plan to use to capture your shot and re-point the camera to whatever composition of the sky you intend to capture (just be careful not to touch the focus ring on the lens.)

Canon cameras also have a feature called "long exposure noise reduction" which causes the camera to take a "dark" frame (image captured while leaving the shutter closed) immediately following a "light" frame (a normal shot).  The "dark" (which contains noise) is then subtracted from the "light" frame ... resulting in an image that has less noise.  This sometimes scares camera owners who may be taking very long exposures for the first time ... into thinking the camera is broken.  They see the exposure time is complete and yet the camera wont let them do anything (that's because it really is still busy.)

As for your question on f/2.8 and the 16-35mm... yes f/2.8 is certainly good enough for astro-shots.  I'd say that's a fairly common focal length ... particularly if the camera is not on a "tracking" head (which would allow siginificantly longer exposure times.)

The 16-35mm is a great focal length range for landscapes.  I've seen some gorgeous landscape photos taken at 16mm.

You can use a site called pixelpeeper.com to view images shot with any lens & camera combination.   They don't host photos... they search and index images found on Flickr which include all the image EXIF data indicating what camera, lens, and exposure settings were used for the shot.   

This means you can tell them you want to see images shot with a Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 while mounted on a full-frame camera body (you could even limit the search to a specific focal length range in the zoom range... or limit it to only specific f-stops, etc.

Here's a link to a sample of images shot using the 16-35 f/2.8 on full-frame bodies.  I didn't limit the focal length range or f-stop.

https://pixelpeeper.com/lenses/?lens=27&perpage=12&is_fullframe=1&focal_min=none&focal_max=none&aper...

You can use this to quickly get an idea of how certain lenses are used... what sort of results they get... etc.  (just be warned that since these are posted to Flickr, they are probably not "straight out of the camera" images.  Almost certainly some post processing has been applied.)

[Ltc808]

I feel like the 24-70 f/4 and the rokinon 14 mm f/2.8 would be a good combo. 24-70 for landscapes and the 14mm for stars. What do you guys think?

[Waddizzle]

What do I think?  I think it is great that you're getting two specific lenses, instead of a single compromise that you hope can do both.  I am all for the Rokinon 14mm.  I have the cine version of it because I plan to use it for video on an APS-C body, and eventually on my FF for some shots of the night skies.

As far as your choice of zoom goes, I have the 24-105 f/4L.  It takes great pictures, and I love the wide range.  I am not a fan of it at 24mm, though.  I understand that the 24-70 has less distortion at 24mm than the 24-105.  But, the 105 has more reach.  I guess the choice will depend upon how you use it, mainly at the shorter or more at longer end.