EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM vs 24-105mm f/4L IS USM

[calebk]

Can I gather your comments about the necessity of switching to a FF if I'm looking to achieve a clear image (at least to a discerning reader) on a 2-page spread ie. close to A3 size. Is it achievable using a 40D if shot in raw or highest JPG and with decent natural light?

At what point would one know if the limitation is not with the lens but with the body?

Are you trying to say APS-C cannot achieve a clear image? I dread to think of how you regard compact digital camera sensor technology then. I could achieve a S12R print, and S8R prints regularly from a 30D. That's but 8MP. If anything, it should be the lenses that will really define your clarity of image.

 

[iMac08]

Are you trying to say APS-C cannot achieve a clear image? I dread to think of how you regard compact digital camera sensor technology then. I could achieve a S12R print, and S8R prints regularly from a 30D. That's but 8MP. If anything, it should be the lenses that will really define your clarity of image.

TS is confuse.have told TS that 40D is able to do e job.unless is talking abt noise control at high iso which we are know 5D2 is better.but really TS don't spend e money if u not willing.rent a 1755 to try then convince yourself is it e lens and buy it if it is.

 

[calebk]

...unless is talking abt noise control at high iso which we are know 5D2 is better...

It's not as if the other cameras are abysmal or totally hopeless in the noise control dept' at high ISO. :dunno:

 

[iMac08]

no la.. i din mean it that way...as long TS knows what he/she is getting can already

 

[suede1976]

Are you trying to say APS-C cannot achieve a clear image? I dread to think of how you regard compact digital camera sensor technology then. I could achieve a S12R print, and S8R prints regularly from a 30D. That's but 8MP. If anything, it should be the lenses that will really define your clarity of image.

Why the tone? I'm just asking.

I see most other magazine photographers using a 5D at least. And I want to know sooner rather than later if I really should go FF asap. I'm a writer by profession and photos are a value add to what I do. But I'm hearing different things on this thread itself so I'm just trying to find out if I would get worthwhile returns by investing in say a 5D paired with EF24-105 now or get the 17-55 and see how it goes... I need a minimum no. of photos to accompany a story so the less wastage the better - and since I'm on the move all the time, I can't go back for a reshoot.

And yes, I want a quick/sure fix - to be honest - because I have another 3-week trip/job in the horizon.

Thanks everyone for your constructive comments.

 

[calebk]

Why the tone? I'm just asking.

I see most other magazine photographers using a 5D at least. And I want to know sooner rather than later if I really should go FF asap. I'm a writer by profession and photos are a value add to what I do. But I'm hearing different things on this thread itself so I'm just trying to find out if I would get worthwhile returns by investing in say a 5D paired with EF24-105 now or get the 17-55 and see how it goes... I need a minimum no. of photos to accompany a story so the less wastage the better - and since I'm on the move all the time, I can't go back for a reshoot.

And yes, I want a quick/sure fix - to be honest - because I have another 3-week trip/job in the horizon.

Thanks everyone for your constructive comments.

The 40D will really do the job more than sufficiently when paired with a good lens. The lens really makes a huge difference. Magazine photographers are using those camera bodies because a large portion of them are, by nature, sponsored by Canon (or Nikon) in one form or another. That is also why most press photographers have a range of lenses from UWA to general purpose telephoto, and one or two pro bodies.

 

[iMac08]

Why the tone? I'm just asking.

I see most other magazine photographers using a 5D at least. And I want to know sooner rather than later if I really should go FF asap. I'm a writer by profession and photos are a value add to what I do. But I'm hearing different things on this thread itself so I'm just trying to find out if I would get worthwhile returns by investing in say a 5D paired with EF24-105 now or get the 17-55 and see how it goes... I need a minimum no. of photos to accompany a story so the less wastage the better - and since I'm on the move all the time, I can't go back for a reshoot.

And yes, I want a quick/sure fix - to be honest - because I have another 3-week trip/job in the horizon.

Thanks everyone for your constructive comments.

cool it....cablek is quite an experience shooter..at least to me. maybe best you post just 1 picture here.then we can help u better