Lenses: Either / Or

[PhotosByJae]

I am looking to compare:

The Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM Lens against the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Telephoto Zoom Lens, and also,

The Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Standard Zoom Lens against the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens.

I would like to see this comparison based on not only weight and cost, but on other factors like: types of photography something is suited for. For instance, if I shoot Landscapes and only landscapes, and I always, Always, ALWAYS use a tripod, then IS (or VR, or OS) is not worth the expense. The types of photography I am thinking about are: Portrait, Open Event (Bike Week, Daytona 500, Ren Fests, Parades, Fairs...) Closed Event (Company Holiday Party, Trade Show or Professional Conference/Convention..), Other Small Event, Wedding, Sports, Photojournalism, Pseudo-Photojournalism, Fashion, Glamour, Pets and Animals, Nature, Landscapes...

In my opinion, these are the lenses that compete against each other in what I think are the starter kits for most (D)SLR photographers.

I am also not limiting this question to Canon shooters. I would be interested to hear comparisons from Nikoians, Pentaxites, Olympiads, Sonytes and even the Hassalbladabladadians...

Thank you.

Jae

[natek313]

Well, considering your list of what types of photography you are going to be predominantly doing, I think the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L lens would be a good fit. I have the 70-200mm f/4L IS USM, and I often find that even at 70mm (on my cropped sensor) is to narrow for indoor use.

The only areas where I might see you needing the reach of the 70-200mm are open event and nature photography. So, you'll have to decide how often you'll be shooting those types of events.

Just my thoughts.

Oh, and lol at "Hassalbladabladadians." Hahahaha.

[inkista]

Originally Posted by PhotosByJae

...The types of photography I am thinking about are: Portrait, Open Event (Bike Week, Daytona 500, Ren Fests, Parades, Fairs...) Closed Event (Company Holiday Party, Trade Show or Professional Conference/Convention..), Other Small Event, Wedding, Sports, Photojournalism, Pseudo-Photojournalism, Fashion, Glamour, Pets and Animals, Nature, Landscapes...

Wow. Narrow interests, much?

SLR lenses are special purpose tools, not general purpose. Portraits or low-light photography (e.g., weddings), for example, are often shot with prime lenses, not zooms, because you can get wider max. apertures. Landscapes are often shot with wide-angles or super-wides, neither of which are covered by those two lenses, and especially not on a crop body. Wildlife, I use a super-telephoto myself. Asking about what's the best lens for all of this, as well as not restricting it to a specific brand or format is basically asking someone to tell you about every SLR lens out there and what it's good for. I really doubt someone's going to be willing to do that for you.

In my opinion, these are the lenses that compete against each other in what I think are the starter kits for most (D)SLR photographers.

Those are all L lenses. They all have pricetags >$1000. They are, for most dSLR shooters, most emphatically NOT starter kit lenses. Most folks initially try to equip themselves for less money than that. Pros can afford Ls right off the bat, but then, they're not putting together "starter" kits, since they're experienced.

I think what you're essentially asking is, "what lenses should I buy?"

To prepare to ask this question in a way that's gonna get answered , I'd recommend doing the following:

1. Read this lens primer that goes over lens feature basics
2. Prioritize what you want to shoot. Think in terms of your top two or three at most.
3. Tell us if you're putting the lens on a full frame or a crop body.
4. Tell us your budget for the lens.
5. Tell us what and how you specifically want to shoot with this one lens.

In terms of the two comparisons you're asking about, with the 70-200s, the f/4 IS is probably sharper wide open than the f/2.8, and may be more usable if the majority of your subject matter is still or slow-moving. Remember that IS can only help you with camera shake blur and easing the 1/focal_length shutter speed limit. It won't get you a faster shutter speed in low light--only a higher iso or wider max. aperture can do that. The f/2.8 will be better for available light and moving subject matter. Neither is likely to be long enough for wildlife. But they're the right length for a variety of sports. The f/4, however, pretty much means it won't be useful for indoors/nighttime sports or event shooting, but it is substantially smaller and lighter than the f/2.8 70-200s. If you really want a lens that can "do it all", the 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM is probably what you're aiming for.

The 24-70 vs. the 24-105, neither is particularly wide on a crop-body camera, and these lenses are probably better suited as walkarounds on full-frame for that reason. The 24-70 is f/2.8 while the 24-105 is f/4 IS. For low and available light, the 24-70 is going to be your better bet. The 24-105 again only has IS, not the larger max. aperture. Also, it's optical quality is a little compromised by the large 4x+ zoom range. The 24-105 actually looks better on a crop body than on full-frame because its corner performance is so-so. However, it is smaller and lighter than the 24-70, making it more suitable as a travel lens.

Also, understand that I've only ever shot with the 24-105, which I own. I used a friend's 70-200 f/4L USM (non-IS) once. The rest is just based on reading I've done.

The basic starter kit I tend to recommend for someone trying to equip themselves at low cost and get enough experience to move up to the "better glass" is the 18-55 kit lens, a low-cost telephoto zoom, and a 50/1.8. You're unlikely to stay with any of these lenses, but equipping yourself with all three generally costs ~$300 over the body alone, and will give you the experience to know what focal lengths, apertures, and features you're willing to pay for when you go to get your "real" lenses. Other folks will say this is a waste of money and you should just go straight for the Ls, but this assumes that a) you have enough money to buy Ls and b) you know what lens you want. True, an L lens will hold value better than an 18-55 kit lens. But do you really want to re-buy a $1000 lens if you make the wrong choice? As a first-timer, there's a "chicken and the egg" problem. Until you've shot with lenses and know what the features mean, how do you know what lens you want?