DSLR Cinema

Canon 24-105 or 24-70 For Video?

Ezra Andres

Ezra Andres

I'm about to by my first non-standard lens and i need advice?
please give me the pros & cons on video

Elma Okic

Elma Okic

I'd love to know about this one too.... and also what about 70-200 2.8 ?

Brooks Birdsall

Brooks Birdsall Plus

@iamsuperezra in my opinion you should go with the 24-105. while having a couple extra stops is a nice feature of the 24-70, the IS on the 24-105 is going to be much more valuable if you want to shoot handheld at all. that's my take on it at least.

@Elma, if you've got the money to drop on the 70-200 f/2.8 that is an outstanding lens, but i wouldn't recommend it as your first lens, the 24-105 is a great started lens for video.

jigs tambong

jigs tambong Plus

24-70 2.8L
2.8 > 4.0 if you're shooting in low light.

70-200 2.8L IS mk2 great bokeh!

24-105 4.0 vs. 70-200 2.8L mk2? no comparison.
don't get me wrong, 28-105 is great, but that's just how good the 70-200 is.

Left Coast Digital

Left Coast Digital Plus

24-70 for sure.

The 24-105 is one of my favorite photo lenses but for video 4.0 is far too slow.

Chris Carter

Chris Carter

But how will the non IS of the 24-70 do hand held? I'm shooting with a t2i and and looking at a 24-70, but want something with IS. I was thinking Tamron 17-50 2.8. Are there any zoom lenses that are fixed 2.8 with IS OTHER than that 70-200??

james thorpe

james thorpe

I would go with the 24-105IS. The IS is a big deal. The 24-70 is due for a new version which may have IS.

Alex Tichy

Alex Tichy

I had this problem... I went for the 24-70 for the low light which I LOVE and i can't tell you how many times i thanked myself. However, I do sometimes wish I had a little more range. Again, however, i may soon be investing in the 70-200 f/2.8. Once I have that, i think I'll be pretty much set. As far as the IS, i think its more of an issue between 55-70mm. (definitely why the 70-200 has IS) If you have the proper rig, it isn't a problem at all. Although, i do find it creates some shake in stills especially in the bokeh area at slower shutter speeds. Again, with the proper rig, you will be just fine.

Anthony Meléndez

Anthony Meléndez

I own a 24-70 2.8 and in a low light situation a had a friend of my crying by my side when he looked at my monitor and compared to his with a 24-105 f.4. It is a great lens, but for low light, 24-70 2.8 the only cons I found in the 24-70 is that it is much much heavier than the 24-105, and I mean HEAVY!

Luis Lodos

Luis Lodos

I am thinking of buying one of these for wide range situations, same price, both stabilized.

CANON EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
SIGMA 18-200 F/3.5-6.3 DC OS

Avner Gaddish

Avner Gaddish Plus

What camera do you have - Full frame or APS-C? Will you shot handheld or not?
If you have an aps-c camera - buy an ef-s lens.
If you're going to shot hand held - buy an IS lens.
Try to buy a fixed aperture lens - if not, you might hear the aperture clicking when you zoom-in, and the picture will grow darker.
Also consider buying a wide angle lens: 10-20 or so if using an APS-C.
Also, don't forget 3rd party lens, such as sigma, tamron or tokina - you'll get 90% of performance for 60 % of the price.

So, lets consider this: you have an APS-C and going to shot handheld. you need sorting like the canon ef-s 17-55/2.8 IS USM, or the ef-s 15-85/3.5-5.6 IS, or done of the equivalent 3rd party lens.

If you have an APS-C and you buy a 24-70 or 24-105, you WILL need a 10-20 lens.

Personally, i have 3 sigma lenses on my APS-C canon 60D: a 10-20/3.5, 24-70/2.8, and 70-200/2.8 OS. all 3 of them together cost a little more than the canon 70-200/2.8 IS II alone, and are almost as good as the similar canon.
I almost always don't shot handheld, so i don't need IS much, except on trips, and than I Just take a simple sigma 18-250/3.5-6/3 OS lens with me, which does surprisingly well handheld for video.

Dutch

Dutch

@Avner Gaddish: Unfortunately the Canon 17-55 f2.8 absolutely sucks for video. Don't get me wrong, it is great for still photos, but for some reason it looses contrast when used during video. First off it's heavy as hell and it's IS system is pretty much useless for running and gunning as it makes noticeably noise if you have the mic anywhere near the camera. I actually traded mine in for a Tamron 17-50, which actually has supirior image quality for less than half the price, although I am running into a hole know set of run and gun problems as it has no usm and the manual focus can be very loud.

I'm in your boat as well, I want to replace it with a 24-70 but I would feel stupid if I bought one and a new one came out months later.

So let me know what you end up doing.

ZJohnsn

ZJohnsn Plus

@Elma okic the 70-200 2.8 IS version II is a very nice lens. I would say it has better results with a full frame camera then with crop for handheld and bokeh. I would like to mention on the 17-55 f2.8 Canon in having lower contrast is a better thing really then more contrast in the Tamron lenses. I would suggest in shooting very flat contrast anyways as it maintains a lot better detail and dynamic range with your image which will better be suited for color correction. The 17-55 does have L quality glass ( fluorite and ultra-low dispersion ) and is very sharp. I have 5 Zeiss lenses and about 5 L Canons and the 17-55 2.8 I use on every shoot. @ Chris Carter I would recommend the Canon 100mm 2.8L IS. That is a stellar lens for video as well as the 50mm 1.2L. @Ezra Myint Aung any lens with a range like 18-200 you will really pay for it in image quality and light gathering. Go for small zooms and primes.

Crea8 Agence

Crea8 Agence

Based on my expirience, Since I had a 24-70 f2.8 Canon, but got stolen, I can say its awesome glass, L serires is what you want, anyway for still photography was my primary lens for almost anything except for concerts or other situations where I needed and Tele. For video the Quality is just awesome, ultrafast AF, I've also worked with the 24-105 f.4 L USM, the stabilisation is amazing. especially at 24mm. I took it for a ride on a skateboard on normal pavement and the stabilization works fine, after 50 to 70 I can tell you is a little more harder to control, but in low light condition that lens can give you a trouble unless you have a brand new MArk III or a 1Dx, since F.4 is slow, very slow, of course you can always compensate one tihng with another, for example working with a artificial lighting would be one, on the other side the rule of filmaking with DSLR's and lenses without IS really is that you shoot on a tripod, a dolly or a steadicam, what you pay for is the glass, I believe that the quality of the glass in the 24-70mm f2..8 is outstanding. I couldn't purchase it again so I got a SIGMA 24-70 at f2.8 the focal and the aperture are the same but the glass quality specially in stillphotography is not the best or way dow in compared with canon, i'm still doing tests with it. Good luck finding one of those 24-70 f2.8 they went to 2000 or more on Ebay thanks the the new version which is for the moement way out of my hands, but as soon as i can, i'll get it back. Hopefully this explains you a little bit more

This conversation is missing your voice. Please join Vimeo or log in.

This is a Vimeo Group. Groups allow you to create mini communities around the things you like. Check out other interesting groups. Groups