Printable View
Would love your thoughts comparing these two lenses. I am replacing a third party 28-70 f/2.8 and can't decide which of these two I would like to replace it with. I like the 2.8, but I also like the extra reach, reduction in weight and IS of the f/4. Would be used mostly for a carry around lens, family photos and the occasional portrait.
Thanks
Hi Don,
I own both and use them professionally. Optical quality of the 24-70 f2.8 is better than the 24-105 f4 as you can see in here: http://the-digital-picture.com/Revie...mp=4&APIComp=0
I do use the 24-105 when I need the extra reach but for standrd use I prefer the 24-70 f2.8
The 24-105 f4 is of course more suitable for portraits than the 28-70 f2.8 though.
Agree with Ofer. I own the 24-70 (version 1) and owned the 24-105. The later was sharp stopped down a little so you end up using often at f5.6. The 24-70 needs little if any stopping down and I often use it at f2.8. Both are heavy lenses that stick out from the body some. I wish they could be smaller.
Thanks Ofer and John.
Remember also that your RAW conversion software (DPP, LR, DxO, etc.) should correct most of the difference in IQ between the 24-70mm and the 24-105mm. That comparison referenced earlier is uncorrected. The IS of the 24-105mm largely offsets the larger aperture of the 24-70mm for night street photography and many low-light situations. As mentioned before, the 24-105mm is generally going to be better for portraits. One final advantage of the 24-105mm is that it's lighter.
Hi David,Quote:
Originally Posted by David Stephens
can you please elaborate as to how can you "correct most of the difference in IQ between the 24-70mm and the 24-105mm. ?
I wasn't aware of that and would love to hear some more details.
Thanks,
Ofer
DxO does a pretty good job of explaining it at:
http://www.dxo.com/intl/photo/dxo_op...rrections#anc5
As a side note, when I first got my 24-105mm and was only shooting in-camera jpeg I was dissappointed with the IQ compared to my 70-200mm. I'd gone so far as to get approval from Canon to send it in for inspections when I tried DxO's Optics Pro. (DPP, LR and some others now have similar modules, but in 2009, DxO was a leader in this regard). Optics Pro improved the IQ of my 24-105mm to such a high degree that I decided not to send the lens into Canon.
With zooms, DxO corrects geometric distortion, CA, vignetting, softness and every aperture and every focal length and every camera body. CA and softness were major problems with my uncorrected 24-105mm, but the software does an amazing job of correcting major lens faults.
Thanks David, looks interesting.
This is something that DPP does now with the new versions. I am very skeptical about correcting for softness however- the only way is to sharpen in one form or another. I would be concerned about when the sharpening is applied by DxO and what the effect is on noise. Ultimately I want control over sharpening and do not want it left to black-box software.
DxO is free to try.
The new DLO feature in DPP is best when it comes to correcting aberrations. This is because Canon knows the exact optical formula for each lens and the type aberrations it has. It is also free (comes with all EOS cameras), but it does increase the file size by a factor of 2 (sometimes 3!). That said, you can't really correct for heavy corner softness, the spatial frequencies are just not there to begin with. It is like trying to remove motion blur. For a lens like 24-105 corner softness is somewhat severe so not much can be done except for removing the CA.
As for 24-105 I have one too, I don't use it for critical photos or making prints, the distortion is very pronounced and worse than CA and corner softness. Distortion can be corrected too, but you lose field of view, and IQ degrades rapidly making it unusable for larger prints. It's an OK lens for random stuff like group shots, travel snaps but I wouldn't use it for anything critical. The 24-70 is sharper in the center but corners in that lens suffer too and overall not that much better compared to 24-105. Not sure is worth the extra $500.
There is a reason Canon is charging $2300 for the new 24-70 MKII almost as much as the legendary 70-200 MKII IS with a lot more glass and IS!!!
Canon is very late to the DLO game. There's no reason to think that their Johnny-come-lately solution will be better than those that have been being developed over the last decade. The effectiveness is dependent on the rigors of the testing and calibrating routine at all apertures and all focal lengths with all Canon bodies.
It would be really interesting to see a comparison of the DxO, DPP and LR DLO features using the same RAW files. I suppose that someone will eventually do it. When I get my 5D MkIII, I may design a brief comparison. If you look at the test shots in DPReview's review of the 5D MkIII, the DxO images come off looking very good in comparison to DPP and LR.
I don't think Canon is "Johnny-come-late" as you suggest. Obviously they don't sell any software so they are not after "market share". The calculation in DPP takes into account the full optical transfer function of the lens and the characteristics of the particular image sensor. These are propitiatory design parameters that third-party don't have access to.
Dpreview.com are not familiar with DPP at all, they just convert the RAW files with default camera settings and they have not posted any samples with DLO. As for comparison it has been done many times for e.g. : http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1097029/0
I think I posted an example in one of the early 5D3 threads too.
and you don't need a 5D3 to use DLO, you can use it right now with all EOS cameras.
The owned the Canon 24-105/4 and I would still have it if it hadn't been stolen. Give it a chance- it's a wonderfully sharp lens if you know what you are doing. This is a "snap" of my daughter at f4.
Date: 22 March, 2008, Time: 2035h
Model: Canon EOS 40D
Lens: EF24-105mm f/4L IS USM, @ 73 mm
Program: Shutter Priority
ISO 400, 1/60s, f/4
Exp. comp.: 0.0
Flash: on, Flash exp. comp.: 0.0
Maranda doesn't compare DLO to any other softwares, just DLO on vs. DLO off. That is impressive and I wonder why some many people fail to avail themselves of such software.
You're fast to jump to conclusions about DPP's superiority with no evidence. If Canon's not a Johnny-come-lately, how long have they offered DLO? I think it's only months. I think they only did it under market pressure brought on by others.
I'm still going to wait for the MkIII, but someone else could do a comparison now, if they want. I'll wait for the MkIII because I'll then make my own decision between DxO and DPP. For now, I'll stay with my current system.
There is no "market pressure" for something you don't sell.Quote:
Originally Posted by David Stephens
Canon DPP has had CA and distortion correction since 2005 actually before DxO existed or LR had that capability. DLO corrects for other types of aberrations not just CA or distortion. These aberrations are NOT corrected for in Adobe LR or Photoshop Camera RAW :
Here's the description of DLO
Digital Lens Optimizer processes RAW images to achieve ideal optical characteristics for all types of optical aberration or diffraction, effects of a low-pass filter in front of a CMOS sensor, etc. This function improves image quality particularly in the image periphery in addition to the image center. This function is made possible because the entire design-through-manufacture process, for camera, CMOS sensor, EF lens, and DPP, is carried out entirely at Canon. Images are processed optimally using lens information in the image files (focal length, subject distance, and aperture) and lens data specially for the Digital Lens Optimizer. (However, the size of a .CR2 file will be two to three times larger after applying the Digital Lens Optimizer.) Adjustments are made for such aspects as spherical aberration, chromatic aberration, astigmatism, curvature of field, sagittal halo, chromatic aberration of magnification, axial chromatic aberration, diffraction, and the effects of a low-pass filter in front of the CMOS sensor. DPP’s Digital Lens Optimizer will be usable with any of 29 compatible lenses initially. It works with .CR2 files from EOS models released since 2006 (EOS 30D and forward).
I don't think the DxO can correct for astigmatism, sagittal halo, or the effects of the low pass filter. It requires propitiatory information about image sensor and optics. I don't see they mention this type of correction anywhere on their site. In fact all I see on their site is correction for distortion, vignetting, CA and adding contrast sharpening. Simple stuff.
Also many people do use DPP, I am one of them. The interface has gotten better over the years and today it runs faster on both PC and Mac platforms than LR. It is not as user friendly as LR but conversion quality is the best.
DLO's functions fully work with all other EOS cameras. There is no particular advantage or preference with the 5D3.
You're sadly mistaken if you don't think that Canon "sells" DPP. It's part of the system package. It's past clunkyness opened up a market for competitors such as LR and DxO. If you can make a product that makes your system more compelling to users, then you do so and benchmark against your competition.
Arash, you can read and believe everything Canon writes and that's ok with me, but I want to see comparisons, not just propaganda.
You're making stuff up when you accuse me of bashing DPP. However, being faster than LR is a laughable benchmark. I'd love for DPP to to have superior DLO performance to anyone else AND develop a smooth user interface and record breaking processing speed. After all, it's included in the Canon system package for Canon users, like me. Why wouldn't I want it become a competive, if not dominant, package. Unfortunately, Canon seems to lack sensitivity to smooth interfaces compared to companies that make their living solely with software.
I'm simply waiting to do my comparison with the MkIII because I want to relook at my whole system at that time. I know that the DPP update is available for my 7D and 5D MkII and all of my lenses.
David,Quote:
Originally Posted by David Stephens
Canon does not compete with Adobe or DxO they don't have overlapping market and hence no competition between them, it is a simple concept. from econ101. Nikon sells their Capture NX2 software so they are competing with Adobe and others in that space. If Canon wanted to make money from DPP they could easily sell that just like Nikon. They don't even advertise it much.
The above is from my personal interview with Chuck Westfall, he specifically mentions the type of corrections that is applied. Do you think he just made it up when he said the software corrects for astigmatism? Maybe you work for Canon and know that this is just a lie and propaganda.
Do your comparison and pick whatever you want. I provided this information for the OP and others. I am not trying to convince you to use DPP, why would I care?
This is a thread about comparing two lenses; not a thread about DLO!
A discussion about DLO and how to work DPP or DxO into a LR workflow would probably have a wider audience; hence, I have started such a thread so I can learn too:
http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...327#post814327
Please post your responses in the new thread. Thanks,Quote:
Clearly there is a need to apply DLO to "cleanup" distortions caused by a variety of conditions.
I use Lightroom; however, given the respect I have for Arash as a scientist and a professional photographer, the fact that Arash uses DPP causes me to ask the question: how can the DLO/conversion aspects of DPP be incorporated into a Lightroom Workflow?
For those who are interested, here is an example of 24-105 L with DPP's DLO correction.
original image with no correction. (sorry for boring photo).
Attachment 114885
5D3 24-105 @ 24mm f/8 1/320sec ISO 100. despite stopping down to f/8 vignetting is very pronounced.
now a close look at the border.
Attachment 114886
I used Canon 24-105L lens profile in ACR (latest version) and checked for CA removal. Despite using the matching lens profile the Adobe output actually makes the image worse in terms of distortion. The distortion correction also degrades sharpness making the corrected ACR crop look worse than DPP's uncorrected crop. It can probably be sharpened more but that will make it look noisy. The DLO correction shows improvement in sharpness w/o adding much noise.
Take your pick.
Note that this was at f/8. At f/4 no amount of correction can tame this lens, so don't expect miracles.
Arash said:
Apparently you stopped studying economics at 101 level. Just because Canon doesn't "sell" DPP separately, doesn't mean it's not part of its system package that it's selling. DOL is a huge leap forward for Canon that's long overdue.Quote:
Canon does not compete with Adobe or DxO they don't have overlapping market and hence no competition between them, it is a simple concept. from econ101. Nikon sells their Capture NX2 software so they are competing with Adobe and others in that space. If Canon wanted to make money from DPP they could easily sell that just like Nikon. They don't even advertise it much.
Jay said:
Great idea to start the new thread, BUT a big part of the point I was trying to make is that we shouldn't limit our lens comparisons to unadjusted test shots. The software plays a role of growing importance in the comparison of lenses and lens/body combinations.Quote:
A discussion about DLO and how to work DPP or DxO into a LR workflow would probably have a wider audience; hence, I have started such a thread so I can learn too:
Arash has demonstrated with a very strong example that there's a major difference with DOL on and DOL off. I think that more people should avail themselves of this wonderful tool and start making part of their analysis when lens comparison shopping.
Dave, the problem with DPP DLO is no integration with LR. Plain and simple once you start to use LR you never go back.Quote:
Originally Posted by David Stephens
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Stephens
Dave, sarcasm is very unbecoming. When one turns to sarcasm to make a point they lose a lot of credibility because they demonstrate an inability to maturely and logically respond. IMHO
Jay said:
I've had the same problem with DPP as compared to DxO. However, I'm open to using a really inefficient software IF the improvement in IQ is substantial.Quote:
Dave, the problem with DPP DLO is no integration with LR. Plain and simple once you start to use LR you never go back.
Jay said:
You're right, Arash's sarcastic econ 101 slight was unbecoming.Quote:
Dave, sarcasm is very unbecoming. When one turns to sarcasm to make a point they lose a lot of credibility because they demonstrate an inability to maturely and logically respond. IMHO
I still believe you don't understand this concept. Please explain how exactly Canon competes with Adobe in the RAW software market?Quote:
Originally Posted by David Stephens
FYI, DPP is open SDK program, even Adobe can use it's kernel or modules in their software if they wished.
Including DLO in DPP makes DPP more competitive in the software market. Despite it's clunkiness, some of us are considering moving to it, if it provides the best IQ by a wide enough margin (personal choice) to overcome the inconvenience. That is competing in the software market. Whether or not a product is separately priced has little to do with its competitiveness. Being perceived as "free" (nothing is free, of course) is one advantage, but that's offset to some degree by a poor user interface. Still, if the IQ is high enough, some of us will put up with poor interface to gain the IQ.
Canon is not in the software market. They do not market any consumer software. They make and sell cameras and that's the market they are in.Quote:
Originally Posted by David Stephens
Q: Why hasn't Canon worked to improve DPP's interface while they can easily acquire a small software company to do it for them just like Nikon?
A: Canon has no revenue from DPP. Canon DPP was never meant to be marketed as a product. It was originally a part of Canon image processing R&D that is today responsible for developing the firmware that runs the cameras. It is provided as a basic RAW convertor so when you buy the camera you have something to convert the CR2 files.
Chuck Wesftfall on DPP in an interview with Doug Brown:
DB: Canon’s Digital Photo Professional software does an excellent job handling high ISO noise, where products such as Adobe’s Lightroom seem to struggle. Why doesn’t Canon license their RAW processing engine to other software makers?
CW: Canon has an SDK that includes its RAW processing engine that is freely available to other software vendors. To my knowledge no other software maker has chosen to utilize our NR algorithm.
you don't market something that is freely available.
Arash said:
DPP is packaged with products that Canon sells, so Canon is in the software market, offering solutions for their own products only. DPP is one of the choices for processing your Canon's RAW files. Hence, it competes with LR, DxO, Capture One. I have little doubt that many users chose not buy LR, DxO, Capture One, etc. because they're happy with DPP. That's competition.Quote:
Canon is not in the software market. They do not market any consumer software. They make and sell cameras and that's the market they are in.
The above makes no sense to me. I think I'm done :)Quote:
Originally Posted by David Stephens
Quote:
Originally Posted by arash_hazeghi
I would suggest everyone needs to cool down a little.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Kes
I'll make the argument that all digital camera manufacturers are in the software business as it is software that makes the product. Some people decide on a particular brand and a specific model in part based on the user interface--that's software. For example, I like the user interface on the 1D series cameras much more than the interface on the XD and XXD canon cameras. Similarly, if one manufacturer decides to charge for a post processing product versus another who gives it away for free, that too can influence buying decisions as that impacts the total cost of ownership of the product. The box analogy is irrelevant as the box is not part of the product people use. If DPP does as well on most images as the example shown, that could be a big big plus for Canon to sell cameras, as the image is the product people are after and if that pushes Canon images above those of others, that is a huge draw, regardless if DPP is sold or not.
I haven't used DPP in a while, but I'll now go get the latest version and try it out, based on the results shown in this thread.
But I think this discussion is way off the original thread intent.
Roger
Roger camera firmware is not the same as RAW conversion software that is packaged and sold separately. Of course camera firmware is very important in the performance of the camera but that doesn't make the camera maker a software company. Microsoft is a software company because their primary product is a software. A camera is a piece of hardware on the other hand. Canon competes with other camera companies like Nikon not with a company like Adobe or Microsoft as was suggested.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Clark
With your argument everyone in the world is in software business from GM to Walmart. They all uses some sort of software in their products in one way or the other. BMW use very sophisticated software in their vehicles which controls the sport characteristics of the car and give them competitive advantage, are they a software company? Do they compete with Microsoft?
Peter's analogy is right on the mark.
But I agree the discussion needs to cease at this point. I don't see how it helps one to improve their photos.
Going back to the original question, I own both the 24-105 and the 24-70 and find myself almost always putting the 24-105 in the bag. Mostly it is the longer reach and lower weight. I'm also waiting for the new 24-70 which should put the question to bed.
mike
For photography, 24-70 f2.8 L USM is sharp. Heavier than 24-105 f4 L USM. Both produce great images in the right hands. An example is already posted by John in #14.
When I am filming handheld, I prefer the 24-105 due to its IS. Also, the 24-105 has a longer reach. So in certain situations it is preferable for eg when an elephant or tiger is close to the safari vehicle. The OP in his post had mentioned that he wants to use it as a carry around lens. So 24-105 may be a good option for him.
DPP has improved a lot. I haven't checked the latest version. I wish they include an option to place your copyright as well.
Cheers,
Sabyasachi
