Rich bastard

My profile is alot more comprehensive

I'll do the same

I'm not rich. I'm a student.$ 600/mo living expenses ftw.

This post was edited by onepagememory on May 7 2010 05:05pm

yea f/4 feels bit slow after using 1.2, but imo you shouldnt compare zooms to prime lenses. if your shooting static objects in low light without a tripod 24-105 is better than 24-70 because of the is, i think it helps about 3 stops and 3 stops down from f/4 is f/1.4, so you can hand held the 24-105mm way better than the 24-70mm, not to mention that if you would use prime lens instead focused area would most likely be too small. how ever if you need to stop motion, in low light then 24-70 is slightly better, but 1 stop isnt really that big of a deal. when i do need smaller dof or stop motion in low light i can use my 50mm 1.4 or 135mm 3.5. for most shooting f/2.8 has bit too small dof anyway. and sometimes its nice to have more reach for the zoom lens



about all lenses are softer wide open than stopped down a bit, anyway my lens is sharp enough at f/4 also, but its sharper when stopped down a bit.



not all lenses work that way, for example my zeiss 135mm 3.5 is as sharp wide open than stopped down, if i remember right it even got little softer at f/8+ than it is wide open.

All lenses.

IS isn't miracleous. Canon claims the 3 stop advantage but in real world, wedding-dark situations, the 2.8 stop > f4. There is obvious movement in anything but dark portraiture. Slowing down shutter speed would cause ghosting. The 24-70 isn't 'slightly' better- it's a lot better. F2.8 & 1/60 > F4 & 1/40 IS. When shooting weddings, focused face > focused body. Some event want the unfocused body effect. 1.2 is enough to focus face on both the 50 mm and the 85 mm.

Anyway, I've tried both lenses and the 24-70 > because of sharpness. I've cropped an imagine as at 60% into a 5x7 and no one noticed the difference. The 105 mm reach is best taken cared of by the 70-200mm 2.8L IS MKII. I rented it and I sold the 70-200 F4 L IS just to get it. It's sharp. I carry two cameras in weddings all the time anyway.
At 105mm, the 24-105 is awfully inferior to the 70-200.

lolwut?

wedding is the kind of situation where 24-70 is better because you want to stop movement in dark. you do realize that weddings arent all that people shoot? like i said when you shoot a static objects in low light IS and f/4 > 2.8 and no is. not to mention that sometimes f/2.8 can give too low dof and you need to stop down the lens to like 5.6 anyway and if its low light and static object you need the is and max aperture doesent help since its too low dof.

you cant or dont want to switch lenses in every situation when you need the reach from 24 to 105mm and not everyone want to carry two bodys all the time just so that you can get from 24 to 105mm fast..

whether 1.2 gives focused face or not it depends on the distance you shoot from

if you say that 24-70 > 24-105 in every situation, you got no idea what your talking about

At the focal point or overall?

The VRII 70-200 is pin sharp at 2.8

If this were the case, a 70-400 would be my choice of lens. Having such a high zoom range affects quality. I'd like for you to tell me, other than the extra 35mm range that can be easily replaced with another better lens, where the 24-105 beats the 24-70 and you'd be willing to forgo image quality.

This post was edited by onepagememory on May 8 2010 05:34pm

Is it sharper at 2.8 than 4.0?

no point at arguing since you clearly dont have a clue about real life situations other than weddings