11-30-2020 12:01 PM
Newbie on this forum but not new to Canon.
I'd like to ask for your help on my dilemma.
For the price of the 24-105mm f:4L Mark II, I can buy two Canon prime lenses (non L-series): the 35mm f:2 for about $600 and the 85mm f:1.8 for about $420.
I personally don't need the 24mm focal length, and let's set aside the convenience side of having to carry only one lens offered by the zoom.
I am more interested in knowing whether the zoom's image quality (*) matches the quality offered by the two prime lenses when comparing at the same focal length. The zoom can't obviously be measured at wider aperture than f4, so the comparison would only make sense at f4, f5.6, f8 ...
(*) the most desired qualities for me are: faithful color rendering, contrast and sharpness
Or perhaps the zoom lens is of L-series so it would be better than non-L-series prime lenses ?
I don't have any of the above mentioned lenses so I'd appreciate your feedback.
12-01-2020 12:09 PM
For folks who may have the same question than mine, I found a partial answer to my question at the link below. It does not answer my specific question though. I understand that my question is kind of a corner case.
"The image quality of the Canon L lenses is generally as good as it gets. Contrast, sharpness, color, bokeh (background/foreground blur quality), flare, CA (Chromatic Aberration) ... All are excellent. Full Frame camera body owners will especially find L series lenses to be (on average) significantly sharper toward the edges of the frame compared to lesser lenses. "
12-01-2020 12:44 PM
"I'd like to ask for your help on my dilemma."
I can't say what the answer is to your dilemma but if it was me the 24-105mm f4 all day long every day. No way on this earth would I go with a prime vs a high quality zoom like a Canon "L" zoom lens if it was my first and only lens. You want to restrict yourself to 35mm and 85mm? What about the 50 odd mm's in between? You may find that 28mm is pretty darn useful too or 100mm.
" the most desired qualities for me are: faithful color rendering, contrast and sharpness"
To a pixel peeper this might be an argument but for real world use the "L" zoom will win out. I have been selling my work and photos for 50 years. I have yet to have someone say, "I would buy that print form you if you had only used a prime lens." Never not once!
12-01-2020 04:50 PM
The primes MIGHT be a better choice for you if you need the wider aperture compared to the F4 zoom but otherwise you are giving up a lot of versatility and convenience. And sometimes that aperture is very important, not just for allowing lower ISO and narrower depth of field when desired but also allowing the camera's AF system to perform faster but for most users that probably isn't a critical concern.
And this is from someone who owns quite a few L series Canon primes. For field sports, an EF 300 or 400 f2.8 is going to be on the main body and for indoor sports an EF 200 f2 will be on the main body. These Canon telephoto primes are very sharp with extremely fast focus acquisition and outperform the Canon zooms at their focal length. But the second body will almost always have a 70-200 f2.8 on it and I have no complaints about its capabilities.
It is easier to make a great prime than a great zoom and Canon's best primes are superb but unless you need the performance of these specialists, then Canon also makes great zoom lenses and the versatility and convenience is a strong point in their favor.
12-01-2020 06:07 PM
"And sometimes that aperture is very important, not just for allowing lower ISO and narrower depth of field when desired but also allowing the camera's AF system to perform faster but for most users that probably isn't a critical concern."
Thank you wq9nsc for your feed back. Versality and convenience are definitely some thing to consider.
What I like from the 35mm f2 and 85mm f1.8 now resulted from my days shooting film for indoor low-light family gatherings and other indoor events with flashes (especially in the evenings). I had tried from multiple cobra flashes to torch flash like the Metz 45 CT4. I could never like those frontal flash pics. Then I quitted using flashes altogether, and used high ISO films instead. I've taken pics for a friend with his indoor event with 800 ASA film without flash and both my friend and I like the pics without flash better.
When switching to digital, the high ISOs are a lot more usable than my Ilford Delta 3200 days, which were too grainy to my taste.
So that's my main reason for considering the above mentioned prime lenses. But i hear you about the versality aspect. The 24-105 L does have another advantage of having IS, which is a big advantage in low light obviously. The 85mm f1.8 that I mentioned earlier does not have IS, but does allow faster shutter speed ... all about trade-offs
12-02-2020 11:07 AM - edited 12-02-2020 11:08 AM
"...all about trade-offs..."
You bet. In photography there is no free lunch. You always give to get something. I do love my ef 85mm f1.2L lens and I used it just yesterday. I did a job for the upcoming Trombone Christmas at Union Station 2020 in Kansas City. However, my main most used and important lens for the job was a zoom, in this case a 24-700mm f2.8. Union Station is a huge building built in 1913. It was at 7:30 AM and the building was extremely dark. I knew it would be as I did the same job last year.
EOS 1D Mk IV, 42mm, f2.8, SS 1/40 (no IS), ISO 800. Love that bokeh!
EOS 1D Mk IV, 85mm, f1.6, SS 1/60 (again no IS), ISO 800.
These samples in no way show how dark and vast this place is. Same event two solutions. The only light is from the Christmas trees and decorations.
12-02-2020 05:09 PM
"It was at 7:30 AM and the building was extremely dark."
I know what you talk about. Just cropping from your larger-view picture and putting side by side with the portrait of the trombone player, it kinds of give an idea how dark it was. And correct me if I am wrong, but based on my past experience with low-light pictures, I believe that when you took these photographs, it was even darker than shown in the pic on the right below.
12-03-2020 11:07 AM
"I believe that when you took these photographs, it was even darker than shown in the pic on the right below."
It was pretty dark but it got better as the morning proceeded. Never really good photography light and of course they all went through Lightroom.
At one time Kansas City Union Station was a bustling place. Trains arriving and departing at all hours of the day. Hundreds if not thousands of people there at all hours, too. The Kansas City massacre happened there in 1933. It was a shootout and killing of four policemen and a criminal named Frank Nash who was a federal prisoner. At that time period KC was big time in the mob and gang era.
When we got there in the early morning hours, we were the only people there. It is quite a spooky place at that time in the dark. The lights are all on timers so things come on all by themselves and not all at once either! They have a huge model train layout also on timers. We were in Santa's playground. Yeah, fun, fun!
The others were busy setting up recording equipment so I had to wander around and shoot some stuff. He brought some big lights that certainly helped.