Camera Gear Comparisons (Page 3)

With two excellent, similarly-priced general purpose zooms available for Canon users, both of which feature an f/4 maximum aperture, weather sealing, great AF performance and image stabilization, choosing between the EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM and EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM can be a challenge.

The primary and significant advantage held by the 24-105 f/4L IS II is the extra 35mm of focal length range on the long end.

The 24-70 f/4L IS is a smaller and slightly lighter lens. It is 0.99" (25mm) shorter when retracted (actual measured length) and 1.25" (31.8mm) shorter with the hood installed. The 24-70 weighs 6.7 oz. (189.9g) less with hood installed (actual measured weight). Are these differences? Yes. Are they significant ones? Possibly.

For many, a more significant advantage of the 24-70 is its very impressive macro capability. A 0.70x maximum magnification from a non-prime-macro lens is eye-opening and significantly more impressive than the 24-105L II's 0.24x spec. However, it should be kept in mind that a 12mm extension tube can push the 24-105 to 0.60x maximum magnification. Disclaimer: I have not made an image quality comparison with the extension tube in play.

Image quality comparisons I have made show that:

The lenses are more similar than they are different in terms of sharpness. The 24-70 has less CA at 24mm, but more at 70mm. The two lenses have a similar amount of vignetting aside from at 24mm where the 24-105 has an advantage even stopped down. The 24-105 shows less flare effects while the 24-70 has less linear distortion.

Affecting image quality on a limited basis is the aperture blade count. The 24-70 has 9 blades vs. the 24-105 L's 10. This difference will primarily be noticed when point light sources are photographed at narrow apertures, with the odd blade numbered aperture creating 18-point sun stars vs the even's 10-point stars.

On the whole, I would not consider image quality to be a primary differentiating factor between these two lenses.

There is a minor difference in these lens' IS systems. The 24-70 features Canon's 4-stop Hybrid Image Stabilization, correcting both angular and shift movement in macro mode. The 24-105 L has 4-stop non-Hybrid Image Stabilization.

The Price

If price remains a deciding factor for you ... the Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM's retail price is slightly lower than the freshly released EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM's, though rebates will likely increase or decrease the price differential from time to time.

Get your Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM Lens or Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM Lens from B&H.

If you are considering the purchase of the Canon EF 500mm f/4L IS II USM Lens or the Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II USM Lens, you are likely a discerning photographer pursuing sports action or wildlife.

While there are other uses for these lenses, these are by far the most commonly photographed subjects with these focal lengths. While no one will consider these lenses inexpensive, no one will consider the image quality they deliver to be anything short of stellar and image quality is not a differentiator here. Those who know what they want, want these lenses. While having both of these big whites in the kit would be perfect, most of us cannot afford or justify the purchase of both. Thus, the question of "Which one?" arises.

The obvious (and only) difference in the names of these lenses is the focal length number. These lenses were announced at the same time, arrived on my doorstep on the same delivery, appear very similar and indeed share the same overall design concepts and construction materials. Those wanting as much reach as possible will of course want the 600mm option.

But, sometimes a selected focal length can be too long. A too-narrow angle of view may make it too hard to quickly find a subject in the viewfinder, hard to keep a subject in the frame (especially if it is in-motion) and, if framed too tightly, important parts of a scene may be cropped from the frame. Because APS-C-format cameras have smaller imaging sensors and therefore use a smaller portion of the image circle provided by these lenses, they "see" an angle of view equivalent to a 1.6x longer lens on a full frame body. Thus, on an APS-C body, these lenses frame a scene similar to a 800mm and 960mm lens on a full frame body and at these angles of view, "too long" comes more frequently.

Similarly, a focal length can be too short. Too short is usually the result of not being able to get close enough to a subject. Reasons for this situation include physical barriers (a fence, a body of water), subjects that are not more closely approachable (wildlife tends to be uncomfortable with us nearby) and safety (dangerous wildlife, unsafe proximity to race cars). Too short usually results in an image being cropped with a lower resolution image remaining.

Another focal length related tip to consider is that, the longer the focal length, the longer the time span a moving subject is likely to remain in near-ideal framing. Without a zoom range available to quickly fine tune framing, prime lens-captured images often require cropping in post processing. However, the longer focal length lens has a narrower angle of view, which requires you to be farther from the subject for optimal framing and at that longer distance, an approaching or departing subject changes size in the frame at a slower rate. That means more images can be captured within the period of time with optimal framing. For the same reason, a larger physical area can be ideally-covered by the longer focal length – such as a larger portion of a soccer or football field. While the difference between 500mm and 600mm is not dramatic in this regard, the 600mm lens has an advantage.

Another benefit provided by a longer focal length is greater-enlarged background details, meaning that a longer focal length can create a stronger background blur. The 600mm lens can create a stronger separation of a subject from its background than the 500mm lens can. Most of us love an extremely blurred background and the longer focal length makes it easier to produce (though both of these lenses rank very highly for this purpose).

A longer focal length means a longer camera-to-subject distance and with more atmosphere placed between a lens and its subject, there is an increased likelihood that heat waves will cause image distortion. The longer working distance required by the longer focal length also provides more opportunity for obstructions, such as tree branches to get between the lens and, for example, a wildlife subject. The longer subject distance also delivers a slightly more-compressed perspective, creating a slightly different look to the subject (not necessary a benefit to either lens specifically).

Although focal length is typically my first priority for choosing a lens, it is not always the most important. In this lens comparison, there is a substantial size, weight and price differential that can sometimes be more important than the differences already discussed.

The site's lens specifications comparison tool has a detailed comparison between these lenses, but here is a quick look:

How old are you? How old do you want to become? How do you want to feel when you get that old? Safe to say is that all of us are getting older and also safe to say is that most of us reach a maximum strength point somewhere far prior to reaching the age we hope to survive until. And, how we feel at the end goal date is partially conditional on how we treat our bodies during the younger years. Just because you can handhold a 600mm f/4 lens for long periods of time now does not mean that you should do this and the strain placed on our bodies now may be long-lasting. If you are not able to use a lens support most of the time, the 500mm option is going to be the better option for most.

Size also matters, but when lenses get this big, the size differences don't seem to matter so much. Smaller is better, but neither is close to what I would consider small. You will likely find the biggest size difference to be in the volume of comments generated on the sidelines and the case size required by the lens. That said, I frequently carry the 600 with me on airplanes (in the USA), typically using the MindShift Gear FirstLight 40L and always as carry-on. With the 500, a modestly smaller case can be used or slightly more can be included in the same case.

The size difference between these lenses is apparent in the product comparison image accompanying this post. See the same comparison with the lens hoods on here (and also compare these lenses to other models).

The 500mm focal length is 83% as long as 600mm and the similarity factor for a majority of the above-discussed differences is about the same. One exception is the price factor, with that one dropping to just below the 80% mark. While neither lens is inexpensive, the 500 costs considerably less than the 600 and that factor alone will be the basis for this decision for some. That quality lenses typically hold their value well means that overall cost of ownership is not as bad as it first appears.

Recommendations

Most often, I recommend the 600mm lens for full frame bodies and the 500mm lens for APS-C bodies, though there are some exceptions.

If photographing big field sports such as soccer, the 600mm lens is my choice for a full frame camera and I would rather have the 500mm lens on an APS-C body.

Those photographing small birds will likely find the 600 preferable in front of any camera.

Those needing to handhold the lens with any frequency probably should select the 500mm option.

The Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II USM Lens is one of the most important and most used lenses in my kit (primarily composed of full frame cameras). Many of my favorite images can be attributed to this lens, from irreplaceable memories of the kids playing soccer to captures of incredible wildlife in the mountains. The weight of this lens is a definite downside and I have more-than-once become worn out from carrying it, but ... the results are worth every bit of the effort.

To Learn More About These Lenses

Canon EF 500mm f/4L IS II USM Lens Review
Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II USM Lens Review

Better Yet, Add One of These Lenses to Your Kit

Get the Canon EF 500mm f/4L IS II USM Lens at: B&H | Adorama | Amazon
Get the Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II USM Lens at: B&H | Adorama | Amazon

Add One to Your Kit Temporarily

What are you doing this weekend? Spend some time getting to know and having fun with these big white lenses without the large price tag. Try renting! Lensrentals.com has the Canon EF 500mm f/4L IS II USM Lens and Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II USM Lens ready to ship to your doorstep.

by Sean Setters

A few short years ago, there were no super telephoto zooms featuring a 150-600mm focal length range. How things have changed...

In 2013, Tamron introduced the 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Di VC USD, an affordable super telephoto zoom with a huge and versatile focal length range. The following year saw Sigma introducing a pair of similar lenses – the 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sports & Contemporary models. Now Tamron has released an update to their original lens, adding a "G2" tag to the name.

Considering that neither Canon nor Nikon makes a native 150-600mm lens, it seems a bit odd to be spoiled for choice in this particular market segment. However, that's exactly what's happened. The third party manufacturers have solidly filled a niche that the big two lens manufacturers have yet to fill.

With so many options available, you may be wondering which one is the right lens for you. Read on for our take on this interesting crop of lenses.

Tamron 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Di VC USD Lens and
Tamron 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Di VC USD G2 Lens

The lens that started it all, the Tamron 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Di VC USD Lens, burst onto the scenes in 2013 and was immediately a popular choice for sports and wildlife photographers whose budgets did not extend to the Canon big white telephoto lens range. Its price-to-performance ratio makes it an excellent value.

This lens is sharpest in the middle of its focal length range with less sharp results produced at its widest and longest extents. Unfortunately, this lens turns in its worst performance at 600mm, an important factor considering that most consumers purchasing a 150-600mm lens likely intend to utilize the longest focal length a significant percentage of the time.

The Tamron 150-600 G1's vignetting performance is typically mild for lenses in its class, showing roughly 1-1.5 stops of corner shading when used on full frame cameras. Flare is fairly well controlled. You may notice mild pincushion distortion if straight lines are near the long edges of your frame.

Important for a lens such is this is weather sealing, and indeed Tamron's initial 150-600mm offering has a level of weather sealing. Like three of the four lenses in this comparison, the Tamron 150-600 G1 features a 95mm front filter thread. Filters of this size are certainly not inexpensive, but... compatibility with filters makes for a more versatile lens. Some may find Tamron's zooming mechanism, which rotates in the opposite direction compared to Canon lenses (Nikon standard), a bit frustrating.

Focusing is probably the weakest aspect of this lens. The Tamron 150-600 G1 we tested sometimes failed to lock on to a subject in good light even with a high contrast and accuracy consistency was not stellar. The good news is that Tamron eventually issued a firmware update to improve focus performance. We did not retest the lens, but initial reports suggested the AF performance was improved. The bad news is that, unlike its successor, this lens will require a trip to Tamron's service department to modify the firmware should an upgrade be necessary.

One obvious advantage of this lens is its budget-friendly price.

In a rather surprising move, Tamron released the 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Di VC USD G2 (Generation 2) Lens only 3 years after the introduction of its predecessor. Improvements included increased sharpness and contrast in the shorter and longer focal length ranges (with the middle focal length range remaining similar), an updated exterior design with metal construction, better AF and VC performance, a new zoom lock mechanism and compatibility with Tamron's new TAP-in console.

Differences in vignetting, flare and distortion are largely insignificant between the G2 version and its predecessor, which is somewhat surprising considering they feature different optical formulas. Lateral Chromatic Aberration (LatCA) is moderately apparent in both of these lenses, though correcting the issue in post processing is typically quite easy.

With the ability to update the lens' firmware and adjust focus parameters, the G2 version allows for more flexibility and peace of mind for its users. For those needing focal lengths beyond 600mm, the G2 has new dedicated 1.4x and 2x teleconverters available.

Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary Lens and
Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sports Lens

Sigma made a big splash in September 2014 when they announced two 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Global Vision lenses at the same time, featuring a Contemporary model and a higher grade Sports model.

Before we can quantify the differences between the Sigma models and Tamron models, we first need to see how the two Sigma models stack up against one another. Here's a brief rundown of the main differences:

• Sports lens is roughly 2x more expensive
• Sports lens has 24 elements in 16 groups while the Contemporary has 20 in 14
• Sports lens has two FLD ("F" Low Dispersion with performance similar to fluorite) and three SLD (Special Low Dispersion) glass elements vs. one FLD and three SLD glass elements
• Sports lens is significantly more-ruggedly constructed – alloy barrel and lens hood vs. composite
• Sports lens is moderately larger
• Sports lens is significantly heavier – 6.96 lbs vs. 4.49 lbs (3.16kg vs. 2.04kg)
• Sports lens has a larger, smoother manual focus ring
• Sports lens has dust & splash proof "construction" while the Contemporary has a dust & splash proof "mount"
• Sports lens has a stronger, non-removeable tripod ring vs. removeable on the Contemporary
• Contemporary lens has a 1/3 stop wider aperture over a small subset of the focal length range
• Contemporary lens utilizes smaller filters – 95mm vs. 105mm

From a sharpness perspective, the 150-600 Contemporary lens edges out its Sports counterpart until 600mm where the Sports version is slightly better. Full frame camera owners will experience roughly 2 stops of vignetting in the extreme corners with both lenses. However, the Sports lens' vignetting is more gradual and encroaches farther into the center of the frame compared to the Contemporary lens (which has sharper falloff around the edges). While both lenses turn in average performances when it comes to flare, the Contemporary version features more contrast when the sun is in the corner of the frame. Both lenses show very slight pincushion distortion over the entire focal length range.

A benefit shared by both lenses is compatibility with Sigma's USB Dock, allowing for easy end-user firmware updates and access to customizable focus options.

Feature Comparison & Max Aperture by Focal Length

Below is a feature comparison chart followed by the available maximum apertures by focal length for the lenses discussed above.

With all of these lenses featuring identical focal length/aperture ranges and similar features (like vibration/optical stabilization), other lens aspects become the prominent differentiating factors. And, even image quality is close enough among the group to not be a major decision factor. Here's how we would rank each lens based on our own personal experience:

Image Quality

1. Sigma 150-600 Contemporary & Tamron 150-600 G2
2. Sigma 150-600 Sports
3. Tamron 150-600 G1

1. Tamron 150-600 G2 & Sigma 150-600 Sports
2. Tamron 150-600 G1
3. Sigma 150-600 Contemporary

1. Sigma 150-600 Sports & Tamron 150-600 G2
2. Sigma 150-600 Contemporary
3. Tamron 150-600 G1

1. Sigma 150-600 Contemporary
2. Tamron 150-600 G2
3. Tamron 150-600 G1
4. Sigma 150-600 Sports

If you do not need weather sealing, it's difficult to top the value offered by the Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary lens. It's only slightly less expensive than the Tamron 150-600 G1 (the least expensive lens in this group) yet offers class-leading image quality and customizability via Sigma's USB Dock. If weather sealing and focus consistency are a priority, the Sigma 150-600 Sports and Tamron 150-600 G2 should be your top considerations, with the deciding factor likely being the price-to-image-quality performance ratio desired. And lastly, the lens that started it all – the Tamron 150-600 G1 – still remains a good choice if one's budget is the primary limiting factor.

The following cameras have been added to the site's Camera Comparison Images:

• Canon EOS M5
• Canon EOS M3
• Canon EOS M10
• Sony a7R II

B&H carries the Canon EOS M3 / M5 / M10 and Sony a7R II mirrorless cameras.

A 24-70mm zoom is the quintessential general purpose lens for full frame camera users. The versatility afforded by the focal length range makes it well suited to a huge number of tasks including travel, lifestyle, documentary, architecture, wedding and event photography. Countless photojournalists have built careers on the pictures created with their 24-70mm lenses.

Largely because of the focal length range's popularity, just about every major manufacturer makes a version (or two) of the 24-70mm lens to satisfy customer demand. And most of the lenses we will be comparing today feature an f/2.8 constant maximum aperture which further adds to the lenses' versatility. Using an f/2.8 aperture will allow you to freeze motion in half as much light (at the same ISO setting) as an f/4 aperture. That's why a 24-70mm f/2.8 lens has been so popular with wedding photographers; when ambient light levels are low (as in a church or reception area), the wide f/2.8 aperture can be used to help stop motion at tolerably high ISO levels.

So which lens is right for you? Well, let's find out.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM Lens

The EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM became the Canon general purpose when it was introduced in 2002. The lens quickly gained favor for its versatile focal length range (being 4mm wider than the 28-70L) and wide, constant f/2.8 aperture. A decade later, Canon introduced the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM, a worthy successor to the ultra-popular 24-70mm lens it replaced with improvements to image sharpness, vignetting and AF speed. A disapointment to us was that Canon decided not to include image stabilization as one of the upgraded features, claiming that excellent image quality was paramount in this release.

The 24-70L II is impressively sharp in the center throughout its focal length range with very good contrast. Corner performance slightly trails the center until f/5.6 where even sharpness is obtained. With more elements than its predecessor, it doesn't fair quite as well in the flare department. The 24-70 L II exhibits typical distortion in its class, with moderate barrel distortion at the wide end that transitions to moderate pincushion at the long end.

Where the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM really shines is in AF speed and consistency. Version "II" is significantly faster than its predecessor when used on Canon DSLRs featuring advanced AF systems (non 9-point Rebel-series AF systems). Fast and consistent AF is yet another reason why so many photographers depend on this lens. When you do your job right as a photographer, it takes care of you.

Like its predecessor, the 24-70L II features weather sealing with a front filter in place. This feature alone differentiates it from most (if not all) of the 24-70mm lenses produced by third-party manufacturers.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM Lens

When the Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM was announced about 9 months after the 24-70L II, quite frankly, we were left a bit bewildered. Why would Canon release a lens with a shorter focal length range than the popular EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM and charge significantly more for it? At announcement time, the 24-70 f/4L IS's MSRP was $1,499.00. Since then, the lens' retail price has been lowered significantly putting its capabilities and performance into better perspective.

The 24-70 f/4L IS's image sharpness is difficult to summarize in a single sentence or two. Therefore, I'm going to pull from Bryan's review for a detailed description:

With a wide open f/4 aperture: At 24mm, the Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM Lens is very sharp in the center with good sharpness extending to the periphery of the full frame image circle. This lens gets very slightly softer at 35mm and modestly softer yet (especially in the mid and peripheral image circle) at 50mm f/4 where the lens performs its worst. Sharpness improvement by 70mm brings the 24-70 f/4L IS back up to performance similar to that at 35mm.

Benefits of this lens over its f/2.8 big brother are reduced size/weight, image stabilization and reduced cost. Another huge benefit (one the 24-70 f/4L IS holds over the rest of the lenses in this comparison) is maximum magnification (MM). The 24-70 f/4L IS features an impressive 0.70x MM (compared to 0.21x for the 24-70L II) which means it can double as a macro lens in a pinch. The fact that the 24-70 f/4L IS can negate the need to carry a second lens in your pack for macro work is a unique and worthwhile benefit. At the time of this comparison, the 24-70mm f/4L IS is less than half the cost of its f/2.8 counterpart (MSRP).

The downside, of course, compared to the rest of the 24-70 competition is significant – an f/4 maximum aperture.

Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 DI VC USD Lens

The Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC USD broke new ground in 2012, becoming the first stabilized 24-70mm lens. Four years later, it's still rather unique in the marketplace as only Nikon has [relatively recently] released a specification matching f/2.8 zoom with stabilization.

It took us a few tries, but we finally received a copy of the Tamron 24-70 VC which produced sharp results throughout the zoom range (look for the term "ISO 12233 resolution chart" in Bryan's full review for details on our experience with testing this lens). With a good copy in-hand, you can expect impressive center sharpness at the focal range extents and remarkable image quality throughout the zoom range (even out to the corners of the frame) at f/4.

You can expect anywhere from 2-3 stops vignetting on a full-frame camera, wide open, depending on the focal length. A little more than a stop of vignetting remains at f/11. Flare is decently controlled, but CA wil likely be visible at this lens' shortest and longest focal lengths. Distortion is both typical and average for a lens in this class.

This lens' biggest advantage over the rest of the lenses listed here, of course, is its vibration control system which is capable of up to 4-stops of camera shake compensation. The ability of this lens to capture sharp imagery of static subjects in low light is extremely beneficial. That the Tamron is significantly less expensive than the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II is another important advantage.

Unfortunately, this lens' biggest crutch is AF consistency. The copy we tested did not focus very consistently on One Shot AF and performed even worse in AI Servo. For some lens usage, AF consistency may not need to be consistently spot on. But for a lens that would otherwise be ideal for shooting once in a lifetime moments (like weddings), less than ideal AF consistency can be problematic. If interested in acquiring this lens, be sure to purchase from an authorized retailer with a no-hassle exchange policy just in case the lens does not meet your minimum requirements for AF consistency. Otherwise, utilizing Live View focusing can aid in increasing your hit rate of static subjects.

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM Lens

Announced at Photokina 2008, the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM is by far the oldest (and least expensive) lens in this comparison with a maximum aperture of f/2.8. As Bryan mentions in his full review, it's extremely difficult to summarize this lens' performance in a couple of sentences. Unfortunately, it's a bit complicated.

To fully understand the image quality you should expect from this lens, read the Image Quality section in Bryan's full review. The good news is that results at f/5.6 are very good throughout the entire focal range. The bad news is that image quality at f/2.8 various from "very sharp" at 24mm to you-should-avoid-this-focal-length at 70mm, unless you prefer to specialize in artistic blur. And if you're buying a general purpose lens with an f/2.8 aperture, odds are you intended on using it wide open at least occasionally.

Flare is very well controlled (though with less contrast) at 70mm, but flare is certainly noticeable at the lens' wider focal lengths. The distortion this lens exhibits is very similar to the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM.

Like the Tamron, the Sigma's AF performance will likely be a significant differentiating factor for many. The copy we tested front focused at 24mm and focused inconsistently at 70mm. AI Servo performance was, "to be kind – poor." Again, Live View focusing may help increase your hit rate with this lens; however, thorough personal testing is needed to determine whether or not this lens meets your AF performance needs.

Tokina 24-70mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro FX Lens

Introduced last year, the Tokina 24-70mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro FX receives the honor of being the newest lens in this comparison. Unfortunately, we don't have enough first-hand experience with the lens to adequately describe its AF performance. However, we did run the lens through our standard lab tests which illuminated a few things.

The Tokina 24-70 f/2.8 is quite sharp in the center at 24mm and 70mm wide open, although we did notice a slight drop in center performance at 50mm. The lens transitions to relatively soft with less contrast in the corners at f/2.8. Sharpness in the corners improves through f/5.6 where the difference between the center and corners becomes negligible.

I would consider the Tokina's flare performance to be very typical for lenses in this class. The same could be said about the Tokina's distortion performance as well.

Tokina lenses typically feature a very solid construction. This lens follows that trend. It's not the largest lens among those in this comparison, but it is certainly the heaviest (see below).

We didn't field test the lens to assess the Tokina's AF performance, but... it's unlikely to match the performance and consistency of Canon's USM lenses. Be sure to thoroughly test the lens within the retailer's return/exchange period to ensure the lens meets your needs.

Size, Weight, Maximum Magnification and Filter Size

It's especially important to consider the size and weight of your general purpose lens which is, by merit, likely to stay on your camera for long periods of time. Small differences in size and weight can be noticeable when packing space is limited and the hours of handling your camera begin to add up.

Filter size may also be a differentiating factor for a good number of photographers. All but one of the lenses in this comparison feature an 82mm front filter thread. These filters tend to be less common (though their popularity is rising among newly released lenses) and more costly compared to more common 77mm filters.

So which lens is right for you? If you need an f/2.8 maximum aperture, the best-available AF performance and your budget allows for it, the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM Lens is probably the right choice. If you can get by with an f/4 maximum aperture, the Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM Lens offers great image quality, fast and accurate AF, image stabilization and a very handy 0.70x maximum magnification at a budget price. From there, the decision gets a bit murkier. I think each of the remaining lenses will appeal to different people based on their priorities with center/corner sharpness, image stabilization and price being the biggest differentiating factors.

A wide-aperture 50mm prime lens is a staple in the photographic world. It was often included in 35mm film DSLR kits because of its versatility and familiar angle of view (the focal length approximates how we see the world with our own eyes). With such deep roots, widespread availability, general lack of distortion and the ability to tackle a myriad of situations, it's no wonder why 50mm primes are so popular.

For the purposes of this comparison, we're only going to compare lenses featuring wider-than-f/2 apertures that are capable of autofocus. While there are certainly great manual focus 50mm primes out there (the Zeiss Milvus 50mm f/1.4 being one of them), the lack of AF makes them more of a special use tool rather than a versatile, general use prime. And since distortion is generally not very significant in 50mm primes, we won't be comparing that aspect of these lenses.

Let's start at the top and work our way down.

1. Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM

At the top of the list (in terms of maximum aperture and price) is the Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM. This high quality L-series lens has been Canon's top tier 50mm prime for a decade now. Unfortunately, its age is starting to show.

If you need the widest aperture you can get in an EF-series lens, it's your only choice. However, the lens has a "dreamy" quality at its widest aperture. A more specific way to describe the lens is it's a little soft in the center and very soft in the corners wide open. With it, you'll see pretty heavy vignetting until f/2 and chromatic aberrations (CA) will be evident the lens' widest apertures. And on top of that, it's by far the most expensive option in this comparison.

So what are the Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM's pros? Although it isn't Canon's fasted focusing USM lens, it is fast enough to be effectively employed for some sports uses. And unlike its longer focal length big brother featuring an identical aperture and all but one other lens in this comparison, the 50L is weather sealed (with a front filter in place).

2. Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art

While the naming convention Sigma uses for its Global Vision Lenses still confounds us, there's no doubt that Sigma's reputation has been bolstered by its Art and Sports series lenses. High quality construction, sleek styling, excellent optics and reasonable price have become hallmarks of the Sigma brand. The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art seems to check all of those boxes.

The Sigma 50 Art is impressively sharp wide open and improves to tack sharp across the frame at f/2.8. Vignetting, flare and CA are all well-controlled. One more significant benefit of the 50 Art is Sigma's 4-year warranty (1 + 3 year extension in the US market) compared to Canon's 1-year warranty.

As is too-frequently typical with third-party lenses, you can expect the Sigma 50 Art to focus less consistently accurately than the typical Canon USM lens. While results in One Shot mode may leave you scratching your head from time to time, AI Servo performance is noticeably better. I [Sean] have used the Sigma 50 Art for a number of indoor basketball games and, while not perfect, it performs admirably at the task. That the AF can be customized via the USB Dock is a nice advantage.

If there's a shot you cannot afford to miss (like a bride & groom's kiss at the end of a wedding ceremony), I'd suggest using Live View shooting to minimize the risk of missing focus. As Live View uses data coming from the actual sensor to achieve focusing, phase-detect calibration issues can be avoided.

3. Tamron 45mm f/1.8 Di VC USD

Yes, I know that the Tamron 45mm f/1.8 VC doesn't technically qualify to be included in this comparison, but I think it's close enough in focal length to deserve consideration. Along with the 35mm variant, the 45mm f/1.8 VC became Tamron's first in a new series of lenses competing directly against Sigma's Global Vision Lens line (see Sigma GVL hallmarks above). And just like Sigma's GVLs, the Tamron's AF can be customized via a similar USB device. Like the Canon, this lens features weather sealing.

While the Tamron's maximum aperture may have a 2/3 stop narrower aperture than the Sigma, its Vibration Control (a unique feature among its competitors) capable of up to 3-stops of assistance more than makes up for the difference in aperture while photographing static subjects.

The Tamron features nice, relatively even sharpness across the frame wide open and improves noticeably at f/2.8 where results are great with minimal vignetting. Flare performance is good at wider apertures but results are less visually pleasing once stopped down to its narrowest aperture. Chromatic aberrations are decently controlled. The Tamron features the highest maximum magnification (0.29x) among its 50mm prime competitors.

As is too-frequently typical in third party lenses, you can expect less consistent AF results while using the Tamron 45 f/1.8 VC. We found center AF performance quite good (probably the best we've seen from a Tamron), but outer AF point consistency will likely be a problem for many. Just as with the Sigma, use Live View focusing for your fleeting moments using the Tamron.

4. Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

Introduced in 1993, the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM is by far the oldest lens in this comparison and one of Canon's longest-produced (and still current) lenses. Its price point, wide f/1.4 aperture and better build quality than Canon's f/1.8 variants have made it an attractive investment for many photographers wanting explore the benefits of prime lenses. However, its performance compared to contemporarily designed 50mm primes may be considered lackluster.

The Canon 50mm f/1.4 is very soft wide open across the entire frame but improves greatly at f/2.8. Keep in mind that for those who are stepping up from a kit lens with an f/5.6 maximum aperture at 50mm, the results of the Canon 50mm f/1.4 prime at f/2.8 may be worthwhile considering the 2-stop wider aperture advantage. Vignetting is very heavy at f/1.4 but clears nicely at f/2.8. Flare is very well controlled through f/8 (with a small amount of contrast lost) and minimal at f/11.

With a mid-grade design that's now more than 20 years old, the 50mm f/1.4 USM is not the most durable or stylish 50mm lens. It should stand up well to typical use, though. It features a very attractive price tag compared to the other lenses listed above it in this comparison. However, as far as affordable pricing is concerned, there's another Canon 50mm variant that takes the cake.

5. Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM

Canon's 50mm f/1.8 lenses have been the budget-conscious photographer's introduction to prime lenses for many years. Their newest variant features Canon's STM focusing technology which was developed to produce smooth (and quieter) autofocus results during video capture. And while the AF is not silent, it's significantly quieter than its predecessor (the EF 50mm f/1.8 II).

And speaking of the 50mm f/1.8 II, the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM features a long list of upgrades (more aperture blades, higher build quality, STM, higher maximum magnification, etc.) that make it a worthwhile replacement for Canon's most inexpensive lens. Unfortunately, a new optical formula was not one of the upgrades (though new coatings have been employed).

The 50mm f/1.8 STM's sharpness is very similar to the Canon 50mm f/1.4 when both lenses are compared wide open, though the f/1.8 STM is noticeably better in the center. Sharpness improves significantly by f/2.8, but it still lags behind its f/1.4 cousin at the same aperture. The 50 f/1.8 STM features impressive, not-terribly-noticeable-wide-open vignetting results for a lens at its price point. At wide apertures, flare is mild but reduces to virtually nonexistent at f/5.6. Expect minimal CA when using this lens.

Undoubtedly, one of the 50mm f/1.8 STM's most attractive features is its price point. To put it into perspective, you could buy 11 EF 50mm f/1.8 STMs and still have money left over compared to the investment required to add the Canon 50L (at US MSRP) to your kit. If you are a photographer who currently uses one of Canon's 18-55mm kit lenses and wants to experience the benefits that wide-aperture prime lenses have to offer, this lens is an easily justifiable investment.

Before we move on, there are a couple of differentiating factors I didn't address above – size and weight. There is definitely a significant difference between the biggest/heaviest and the smallest/lightest options. If size and weight are a differentiating factor for your photography (especially important when traveling), use the table below to aid in your decision making process.

Size and Weight

Summary

As you can see, the 50mm(ish), wide-aperture prime lens market is not short on options. The fact that Canon has three 50mm lenses featuring an f/1.8 or wider aperture is a testament to this prime focal length's appeal. And the fact that third party lens manufactures are devoting significant resources to producing high quality 50mm variants is unsurprising for the same reason.

For what it's worth, there isn't one right option when it comes to 50mm primes. The order of your own personal priority list – considering build quality, image quality, AF accuracy, size/weight and cost – will ultimately determine which prime lens deserves a place in your gear bag. I hope the comparison above has helped illuminate the right answer for you.

A 24mm f/1.4 prime lens is equally at home in a wedding photographer's gear bag as it is perched upon a tripod and pointed up toward the night sky. It's an excellent lens for indoor events (like parties) where ambient light is low.

For those looking to invest in a 24mm f/1.4 prime for Canon DSLRs, two candidates likely to be considered are the Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM and Sigma 24mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art lenses. Today, we're going to see how these lenses compare to one another so that you can make the right investment for your needs.

First, let's first look at image quality. At f/1.4, the Canon 24L II is sharp in the center but the mid-frame and corners are noticeably softer. The Sigma 24 Art trails the Canon in center sharpness wide open, but it features a more even sharpness across the entire frame which results in the mid-frame and corners being sharper than the Canon. By f/2, the difference between the two lenses in the center is negligible but the Sigma is still clearly sharper in the corners.

The Canon exhibits significantly more vignetting than the Sigma but typically controls flare a bit better. Distortion between the two is pretty much a toss-up.

Both lenses feature similar size and weight and accept 77mm front filters. If weather sealing is a high priority, the Canon 24L II is the lens you want. Otherwise, let's look at some other differentiating factors.

As usual with third party lenses, you can expect the Sigma 24 Art to focus less consistently compared to the Canon. Live View focusing can be used to increase focus accuracy (as the actual sensor data is being used for focusing), but Live View focusing may not be suitable in some situations.

However, in this particular case, a 24mm lens' relatively short focal length helps mitigate focus inaccuracies to some degree as depth of field (DOF) is derived from the relationship between sensor size, focal length, aperture and distance to subject. Let me share an example.

With a subject positioned 5 feet away while using a full-frame camera with a 50mm focal length and an f/1.4 aperture, the in-focus DOF would be about 3 inches (7.62 cm). If using a 24mm focal length under the same circumstances, DOF would increase to 1.12 feet (34.14 cm).

Of course subject framing would not be the same with different focal lengths being used, but suffice it to say that shorter focal lengths will give you more DOF at typical working distances.

As is typical of Canon vs. third-party lens comparisons, one big differentiating factor is price. Right now the Sigma 24 Art is only 55% the cost of the Canon counterpart. This represents a significant savings that could easily be applied to other lenses or desired accessories.

To summarize, if you need weather sealing and consistent AF, the Canon 24L II is the best 24mm f/1.4 lens to add to your kit. Otherwise, the Sigma makes a strong case for saving a decent amount of cash while investing in your 24mm prime.

B&H carries the Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM and Sigma 24mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art lenses.

Canon has no more than two L lenses sharing any same focal length or focal length range with one exception – they currently offer 4 different versions of the EF 70-200mm L lens. More choices are great, but more choices of course lead to more difficult decisions. While some may desire to have all 4 of these lenses in their kits, most do not need or want to afford all of them and one or two need to be selected. However, there is enough difference between the f/2.8 and f/4 models to make having two of these lenses in a kit make sense.

The No-Brainer Choice

The bottom line is that, if size, weight and price are not issues for you, the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens is definitely the lens to get. This lens offers the best of everything and it is the most versatile among the 4 options.

The Rest of the Options

The decision becomes harder if the f/2.8L IS II lens is not affordable or if size/weight concessions are necessary. The 4 lens models are separated, in specs at least, by having or not having IS and by having an f/2.8 or f/4 max aperture. Fortunately, the remaining three options do not sacrifice performance as they all reliably deliver great image quality.

If size and weight are concerns, the f/4 models are the direction to go. At roughly half the weight of the f/2.8 models, your arms, shoulders, etc. are going to clearly know the difference after hours of carry and use. At roughly half of the cost of the respective f/2.8 model, your wallet will understand the weight difference as well.

Image stabilization adds to the cost, but it also adds greatly to the value of the lens, adding a great amount of versatility. If handholding in low light with still subjects, the f/4L IS model is the right choice between the f/4 models and possibly the better choice over the f/2.8 non-IS. This lens features weather sealing like it's f/2.8 counterpart (filter required) and delivers better image quality than the older, non-IS model and it is arguably better than the f/2.8 non-IS also.

The f/4L non-IS has the most attractive price tag and has been the introduction to Canon's L-series lenses for a huge number of photographers. If your budget is a primary limiting factor, the 70-200mm f/4L USM is a very capable lens with inherent benefits far exceeding its cost. It’s small, easy to pack, solidly built and a great introduction into Canon’s highest-tier lenses. However, caution should be exercised as weather sealing does not come with the budget price tag.

If stopping action in low light is important, the f/2.8 non-IS lens likely has your name on it at this stage of the selection process. The 1-stop wider max aperture can stop action in 1/2 as much light as the f/4 options at the same ISO setting. The wider aperture can also create a stronger background blur. Note that the f/2.8 non-IS version is only partially weather sealed.

As mentioned, the difference in features between the f/4 and f/2.8 lenses is significant and I currently have both the f/4L IS and the f/2.8L IS II in my kit. Both see frequent use.

A fast, 85mm prime lens is often a portrait photographer's best friend. The focal length helps to create a flattering perspective (ideal for faces) while the wide aperture aids in separating a subject (or subjects) from the background.

As such, many planning to invest in an 85mm prime will likely consider the Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM and Tamron 85mm f/1.8 VC USD. To assist in the decision making process between these two lenses, we're going to take a look at how they compare.

First off, let's start off with the similarities. Both lenses feature the same focal length and same wide f/1.8 aperture. Both are compatible with full frame cameras as well as APS-C sensor cameras. There, that was easy. Now let's move onto the differences.

The Canon 85mm f/1.8 USM was released in 1992; the Tamron 85mm f/1.8 VC was released earlier this year (2016). The Tamron exhibits more even sharpness from the center of the frame to the corners, where it is noticeably better than the Canon. The IQ difference is significant, especially when factoring in the Canon's rather heavy CA wide open. Distortion is slightly better controlled with the Tamron (but neither is bad) and the third-party lens handles flare a bit better too.

The Tamron also features Vibration Control rated to 3.5 stops of assistance, meaning you can handhold this lens in much lower light compared to the Canon. For many, that additional feature alone would be the deciding factor in choosing the Tamron lens over the Canon offering. Tamron also offers a significantly longer warranty than Canon (6-years vs. 1-year).

So far, it looks like the Tamron is the clear winner of this comparison. But the Canon has three important advantages that should not be overlooked – size/weight, consistently accurate AF and a much lower price.

The Canon is smaller (2.96 x 3.15” vs. 3.36 x 3.9”) and significantly lighter (15.2 oz vs. 26.1 oz). Those packing and traveling with the lens may appreciate the Canon's edge in portability.

As Tamron must reverse engineer Canon's AF algorithms as opposed to having the blueprints at hand, you can expect the Canon 85mm f/1.8 USM to focus more consistently with better AI Servo tracking. Note that the Tamron also suffers from focus shift as the aperture is stopped down. To compensate for this behavior, you may need to focus slightly in front of your subject when using narrower apertures.

One way Tamron is dealing with AF issues (including the possibility of incompatibility with future DSLRs) is by copying Sigma's approach of end-user firmware upgrades and AF customizability with the introduction of their TAP-in Console. Purchasing the relatively inexpensive accessory (compatible with recently announced Tamron lenses) will ensure your lens works the best that it possibly can.

Now let's look at prices. At full MSRP, the Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 acquisition would require only 56% of the investment required to purchase the Tamron. And with the Canon currently qualifying for an instant rebate, you could purchase two of the Canon lenses for the price of the Tamron. For budget-conscious consumers (especially those investing in their first prime lens), the price difference will be the biggest deciding factor.

Some may wonder why I didn't include the Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM and the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM in this comparison. From my point of view, the Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM is a more specialized tool and carries a price tag to reflect its status. If you need its 1-stop aperture advantage, there is nothing else that is comparable. And as far as the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 goes... it's currently listed as "discontinued" at B&H (Canon mount).

I wonder if that implies anything?

B&H carries the Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM and the Tamron 85mm f/1.8 Di VC USD.

With the arrival of the Canon EOS 5D Mark IV, many questions are being raised. Recently, we answered the Should I get the Canon EOS 5D Mark IV or the 5D III? question. Here, we're going to compare the 5D Mark III's successor to the ultra-high resolution 5Ds and 5Ds R models in attempt to answer the "Should I get the Canon EOS 5D Mark IV or the 5Ds/5Ds R? question.

It seems logical to start such a comparison by showing a chart of the specification differences. For the purposes of this post, we'll lumping the 5Ds and 5Ds R models together as they are identical except for the low-pass cancellation feature found in the "R" model.

Obvious from the table above is that the EOS 5Ds/5Ds R has one notable advantage over the EOS 5D Mark IV – resolution. The 5Ds R model, specifically, also has a slight sharpness advantage on the 5D IV as the latter features a traditional low-pass filter without the R's cancellation feature. Here is a resolution test chart comparison between the 5D IV and the 5Ds R.

Just as I noted in the 5D IV vs. 5D III post, if you're interested in creating 4K content, or otherwise need the benefits of Canon's Dual Pixel CMOS AF, the choice is clear – get the Canon EOS 5D Mark IV.

If you're a landscape, wildlife or studio photographer who requires the ultimate in resolution for making big prints, the 5Ds/5Ds R models offer 40% more resolution compared to the 5D IV. Aside from big prints, the additional pixels allow for more leeway in cropping while maintaining still-manageable resolutions. To put that into point perspective, the 5Ds/5Ds R's 1.6x crop feature (simulating the field of view realized by using an APS-C sensor camera) results in a 19.6 megapixel image. This difference is noticeable. To obtain the same APS-C field of view with a 5D IV base image, the end result would be 11.7 megapixels.

Does that make the EOS 5Ds/5Ds R a better camera for those interested in wildlife? Maybe, but not necessarily. There are a lot of factors that go into creating a compelling wildlife image. The ability to crop an image heavily is just one of them.

Other factors like burst speed, buffer depth, high ISO noise results and AF capability/performance also play significant roles. That the 5D IV allows for two additional frames-per-second in burst shooting may not seem like much, but it can definitely help. The greater buffer capacity is always welcome. As hinted to by the increased standard max ISO setting (to 32000), the 5D IV performs better in the noise department than its predecessor, the 5D Mark III, and the 5D IV also performs better than the 5Ds at the pixel level in this regard.

Downsize the 5Ds image to 5D IV dimensions and the comparison becomes considerably closer. The 5D IV is still the better performer, but the equivalent comparison shows this attribute being less of a decision factor. The 5Ds/5Ds R's standard max ISO tops out at 6400.

The 5D IV also features a vertically expanded AF point spread to its benefit. This is a feature that wildlife (and many other) photographers will appreciate. If a subject is moving, AI servo is needed and if AI servo is in use, a focus point must be held on the subject (usually their closest eye). Having a larger AF point spread sometimes permits better subject framing in these situations (I provided an elk photo example in the 5D IV review).

So, which body is best for you? If you want the most versatile, general purpose DSLR, the 5D Mark IV's feature set will likely make it the best overall choice. At their introduction, the ultra-high resolution 5Ds and 5Ds R were marketed more as specialty cameras rather than a camera for everyman. And their place in Canon's camera lineup hasn't changed; the only difference is that the everyman camera has a "IV" in its name and packs a great new feature set to go with it.

Get your Canon 5D Mark IV and/or EOS 5Ds/5Ds R at B&H.

With the recent announcement of the Canon EOS 5D Mark IV, I'm sure many are considering a DSLR upgrade in the not-so-distant future. For those currently shooting with a 5D Mark II or III, the upgrade path is reasonably clear (although the 5Ds and 5Ds R still deserve consideration); however, if a photographer is currently using a Rebel-series or **D model, there are still reasons to consider the very capable EOS 5D Mark III as one's upgrade of choice.

Let's look at some of the major differences between the 5D Mark IV and 5D Mark III:

Dual Pixel AF is a game changer for video and the improved video capabilities, including 4k capture, must be considered. As this will be a popular camera for wedding photographers, the flicker-avoidance capabilities are going to be highly valued by some. Those who need Wi-Fi, NFC and/or GPS capabilities are going to strongly favor the 5D IV's built-in features. Not included in the above list is the 5D Mark IV's Dual Pixel RAW capabilities. While we see this as a good feature and we are anxious to see how it performs, the benefits are said to be subtle.

Very obvious is that the 5D Mark IV appears to be the better camera. The question is whether or not the 5D IV is worthy of the additional cost over the 5D Mark III, an upgrade expense for those coming from the 5D Mark III. If any of the 5D IV's upgraded features are "must-have's," then there really isn't any choice. But what about customers without such demanding requirements? What's important here is the incremental value of those differentiating factors and whether or not the 5D IV investment is worth the price difference to a potential camera buyer.

The EOS 5D Mark III is a solid camera. It has been used and loved by a huge number of photographers and it remains a solid upgrade from many other cameras. Its low noise full frame sensor image quality alone differentiates it from all of the APS-C models.

And that brings us to the biggest benefit of purchasing a 5D Mark III over a 5D Mark IV – price. The 5D Mark IV will likely be selling at its introductory price for a decent while. However, the 5D III currently sells for $900.00 less for a new/retail model with USA instant savings applied. And if you're willing to purchase a refurbished model, you can save even more.

In short, if you want a solid, versatile full-frame body at a bargain price, get the 5D Mark III. If you want/need the latest and greatest features, some being significant, get the 5D Mark IV. If upgrading to a 5D-series camera from any of the APS-C models, won't likely be disappointed either way.

A 35mm f/1.4 prime lens is a go-to favorite for wedding photographers, street photographers and photojournalists alike. Empowered by its very wide aperture, it's a great story-telling lens that is able to be utilized with great effect in a wide range of situations.

If you're looking to purchase a 35mm f/1.4 prime in the near future, you may very well be stuck between two worthy contenders, the Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II USM and the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art lens. While they share the same focal length and f/1.4 aperture, there is one important differentiator between them. Read on to find out what that is.

First, let's start off with the Sigma 35mm Art. This is the lens that changed the market's perspective of what third-party lens manufacturers were capable of. Introduced in late 2012, it was sleek, stylish and featured fantastic image quality at an attractive price. The impact of this lens's introduction on the value of Sigma's brand cannot be understated; this lens shook up the industry.

How impressive was it? Consider this: Out of 320 reviews at B&H for the Canon-mount version (at the time of this post), 89.38% rated the lens 5-stars. Another 8.44% rated it 4-stars. The rest of the ratings (3-stars and below) make up the balance of 2.19%.

That's impressive.

But for the purposes of this post, we're interested in how the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 compares to the even newer Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II USM. While the Sigma had a sharpness edge on the original EF 35mm f/1.4L USM, Canon took the sharpness crown back with its introduction of the EF 35mm f/1.4L II USM. Both are very good, but the 35L II's corners are noticeably better. The Canon exhibits a little less distortion but doesn't fare as well as the Sigma in the flare department. With all things considered, I feel most will be happy with the image quality from both of these lenses. As such, we must look elsewhere for significant differentiating factors.

The two factors which seem to differentiate these lenses most are AF consistency and price. AF consistency can be mitigated; price, not so much.

First of all, Sigma has gone to great lengths to ensure its lenses will perform well in the AF department. They even designed their Global Vision lenses to be consumer upgradable via downloadable firmware and the Sigma's USB Dock accessory. The USB Dock can aid in dialing in focus at minimum focus distance, infinity and several points in between. The dock also provides a safeguard that Global Vision Lenses like the 35mm f/1.4 Art will play nicely with yet-to-be-released DSLRs (given time to develop new firmwares).

However, calibrating focus to maximize focus accuracy is one thing. Focusing consistently is another. I owned the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art for three years and used it primarily for weddings and events. I can say without hesitation that it did not nail focus as consistently with phase-detect (viewfinder) AF as my Canon USM lenses. The consistency wasn't bad, but the difference was noticeable. Thankfully, there is something you can do to significantly increase your in-focus rate.

If using the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art for an especially critical shot, Live View focusing can be utilized to ensure your subjects remain in focus. Because Live View uses the actual data processed by the sensor to achieve focus, any issues with traditional phase-detect AF are bypassed. It may look silly when you're holding your DSLR up like a compact camera, but... the in-focus result will likely be worth the small embarrassment for fleeting moments.

While Live View focusing for "can't miss" moments may be inconvenient, it will likely prove a worthwhile concession for many photographers considering the Sigma 35mm f/1.4's biggest benefit over the Canon 35L II – price. Without rebates or special pricing, the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art is half the price of the Canon at the time of this post. The Sigma is an incredible value, even when its primary drawback is taken into consideration. On the other hand, important to some is that the Canon has weather sealing to its advantage.

If you're a wedding/event photographer who wants the most reliable AF in a 35mm f/1.4 lens (or otherwise requires weather sealing), the Canon "L" is the best choice. It's an easy recommendation if one's budget allows for its acquisition. However, if your livelihood isn't dependent upon capturing fleeting moments with a 35mm focal length that cannot be recreated, or if Live View focusing is a tolerable solution for when the moments matter, then the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art can likely fulfill your needs at a very reasonable price.

B&H carries the Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II USM and Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art lenses.

Getting both of these lenses is of course ideal (and very highly recommended), but what if your budget allows for only one? Which one should you get? On the surface, the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens and the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM Lens are quite different in their specs, but with the addition of the Canon EF 2x III Extender creating a 140-400mm f/5.6 IS lens from the 70-200 whenever desired, these two options quickly become rather close in primary specs.

In making this decision, the first question to ask is: "How important is a wide aperture to you?" If you are shooting action in low light, especially indoors, the f/2.8 aperture is going to be very important. If you need the maximum background blur in the 70-200mm focal length range, the f/2.8 lens is the better choice. If you simply need the 70-100mm focal length range, the 70-200 is the right choice as the 100-400 can't do that.

While the focal length range should play strongly into the decision making process, the 2x extender evens out the playing field between these two lenses. One of the first concerns I have when adding an extender is the impact to image sharpness.

Overall, these lenses are both so sharp that image sharpness is not a significant differentiator over the native focal length range overlap. The 70-200 of course needs help from an extender to cover the 200-400mm comparable range. Adding a 1.4x extender to a great zoom lens will cause relatively minor impact to image sharpness, but a 2x extender generally produces a noticeable contrast and resolution impact and that is the case here. The 70-200 performs quite well with the 2x, but the difference in across-the-frame sharpness is noticeable with the 100-400 showing a moderately strong advantage in the 400mm comparison. AF performance/speed also takes a bit of a hit with this extender in place.

These two lenses are quite similar in size, weight and price ... until the 2x extender is added to the equation. The 2x adds 2" (50mm) to the length, 12 oz (340g) to the weight and roughly 20% to the cost.

Thus, if the longer focal lengths are going to see significant use, the 100-400 L II has the overall advantage including smaller size, lighter weight, lower price, better AF performance and better image quality. Applications I commonly use the 100-400 L II for include wildlife, landscapes and big-field daytime outdoor sports photography.

When the wider aperture is needed and/or the 70-200mm focal length range is preferred, the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II is my preference. This lens is an excellent choice for portraits, indoor events (including weddings), indoor sports, and many more similar uses. When longer-than-200mm focal lengths are needed only infrequently, adding the 2x to the 70-200mm lens can get the job done.

Again, the ideal Canon kit will have both of these lenses in it, but for those that must choose between the two, there is usually a best choice.

B&H has the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II Lens ($100.00 instant rebate), 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II Lens ($200.00 instant rebate) and 2x III Extender in stock (with 4% rewards).

One relatively common question we get is, "Should I get the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM or EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM lens? Is the 100L worth the extra cost?" And those are certainly good questions. Of course there are comparable third party options to consider, but for the purposes of this post we'll be looking at the two 100mm Canon models typically considered.

Both lenses feature the same focal length, the same maximum aperture, offer 1:1 macro focusing capability and feature very similar image quality. While the 100L barely edges out the non-L in sharpness at wider apertures and the non-L is better with flare, I wouldn't consider image quality to be a differentiating factor between the two lenses. However, there are a couple of key differences between the lenses that aid in differentiation.

Probably the biggest advantage of the EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM is its Hybrid Image Stabilization. Hybrid IS corrects for both angular and shift movements and allows for roughly 2-stops of correction at 1:1 focusing distances and up to 4-stops of correction at longer focusing distances. If you plan on using your macro lens handheld in the field, the L-series lens – with its HIS, great build quality and weather sealing – will be your best choice. The value of image stabilization for handheld macros cannot be understated; it's hugely beneficial. And considering that the 100L is only about 50% more than its non-L counterpart (in the US, without rebates), many photographers will find the pro-grade lens's benefits worth the investment. Being one of Canon's least expensive L-series lenses means that this lens is often a photographer's first introduction into Canon's premium lens lineup.

For those who prefer using a tripod when photographing macro subjects, and who do not need weather-sealing, the EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM provides L-series image quality at a more wallet-friendly price. I [Sean] personally opted for purchasing the EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM for my own personal use and I have rarely regretted it. However, I rarely shoot macros handheld. Instead, I typically prefer to capture macros under very controlled circumstances employing a solid support system [tripod] and strobes (whether indoors or outdoors). Under those studio or studio-like conditions, the benefits of the 100L are mitigated if not entirely moot.

In summary, if you plan on shooting macros handheld and/or need weather sealing, get the EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM. Otherwise, save some money and enjoy similar IQ with the EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM.

B&H carries the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM and EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM lenses.

Those looking to add a Canon wide-angle zoom to their full-frame kits will likely be considering between the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM, EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM and EF 17-40mm f/4L USM lenses. At first glance, choosing between them may not seem easy.

The first thing to keep in mind when purchasing a wide-angle zoom lens is, "What is my intended use for this lens?" If the answer involves capturing action – like dancing at a wedding reception – then your decision is an easy one.

The Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM lens' one-stop aperture advantage will allow you to use a shutter speed that's twice as fast as the other lenses at identical ISOs. Another way to look at it is that using an f/4 aperture to stop action would require doubling the ISO to achieve the same shutter speed obtained using an f/2.8 aperture. Considering that many wedding receptions are held in low light venues, using an f/2.8 aperture is the only way to freeze action and keep high ISO noise at bay without compromising the image quality with detail-robbing noise removal.

There are three drawbacks to the 16-35mm f/2.8L II, though – price, lack of image stabilization and an 82mm front filter thread. Of course, that last "drawback" may not be an issue if you have other lenses requiring 82mm filters (allowing for the ease of filter sharing), but the 77mm filter size is certainly more common and more likely already part of one's kit.

If shooting architecture, real estate, landscapes, cityscapes (or anything else with a "scapes" on the end), the other two wide-angle zoom options can be easily employed while minimizing the investment required to create such imagery.

If you don't require an f/2.8 maximum aperture and price is not a primary factor, get the Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM lens. Benefits of the 16-35 f/4L IS include a slightly wider focal length, 77mm filter threads, image stabilization and enhanced fluorine lens coatings for top notch image quality. The 16-35 f/4L IS will allow you to use shutter speeds 4-stops slower to capture sharp images of static subjects while hand-holding the camera, thereby making tripod use less of a necessity (great for backpacking adventures).

So why would you choose the EF 17-40mm f/4L USM over the other two options? The primary reason is price. However, rebate can affect the price comparison significantly. With the current instant rebates in place, the 17-40mm f/4L is only $250.00 less expensive than its 16-35 f/4L IS counterpart. Many will appreciate the 16-35 f/4L IS's benefits for the difference in price.

But again, if money is really tight, the 17-40mm f/4L is still an excellent option. One can easily give up image stabilization if using a tripod, and if shooting at f/8, you won't likely notice a sharpness difference between the two lenses at their widest focal lengths (though the 17-40L does exhibit more CA). Another benefit of the 17-40L is a slightly longer focal range, sacrificing 1mm on the wide end but gaining 5mm on the long end.

If size/weight is the ultimate deciding factor, the EF 17-40mm f/4L USM is the smallest and lightest with the 16-35mm lenses being very similar to one another in those regards. However, the EF 17-40 f/4L's lens hood is so big that it will take up significantly more space when affixed to the lens (reversed) compared to the EF 16-35 f/4L with its hood.

If image quality wide open is the ultimate deciding factor, the oldest lens of the bunch – the EF 17-40 f/4L USM – easily falls short of the other options. Take a look at the corner results of the 17-40 f/4L vs. 16-35 f/4L IS tested on the EOS 5Ds R at f/4 with the lenses set to their widest focal lengths. Of course a wide zoom lens isn't always used at its widest focal length and the IQ difference lessens at longer focal lengths, but... I feel that a wide-angle zooms are primarily purchased for their widest focal length capability, thereby making the widest focal length comparison most significant.

When comparing the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM to the EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM, differences in sharpness become much more nuanced when the lenses are compared at their widest common aperture of f/4 at 16mm. The 16-35 f/4L IS is definitely better in the corners, but not by a huge degree. When both lenses are compared wide open, the IQ chasm is greater as the f/2.8's stopped-down advantage disappears (the same is true for the 35mm results as well).

Of course, there are other factors that can impact image quality besides sharpness including distortion, flare and vignetting. Use the site's Comparison Tools to fully compare these lenses.

B&H carries the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM, EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM and EF 17-40mm f/4L IS USM lenses.

This is a question that I've been asking myself since the Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM Lens was introduced back in 2012. Since that time, I have second guessed my own decision multiple times, my vacillating illuminated by the fact that I've had and sold two different 24-105 L Lenses since then. Initially, the significantly higher price tag of the 24-70 f/4L IS made the recommendation decision considerably easier. Now that the list prices have completely equalized (though rebates potentially change the equation significantly), the merits of the lenses themselves become the bigger decision factors.

The first significant fact to understand is that these are both great lenses and for most, there is no wrong decision to be made here. Both lenses are well built including weather sealing, focus fast and accurately, have a great general purpose focal length range and have IS. They share a very similar design including appearance and on many accounts, can be used interchangeably.

The primary and significant advantage held by the 24-105 f/4L IS is the extra 35mm of focal length range on the long end.

The 7-years-younger 24-70 f/4L IS is a modestly smaller and slightly lighter lens. It is 0.52" (13.3mm) shorter when retracted (actual measured length) and 0.68" (18.5mm) shorter with the hood installed. The 24-70 weighs 2.3 oz. (65g) less with hood installed (actual measured weight). Are these differences? Yes. Are they significant ones? Not so much.

A stronger advantage for the 24-70 is its very impressive macro capability. A 0.70x maximum magnification from a non-prime-macro lens is eye-opening and significantly more impressive than the 24-105's 0.23x spec. However, it should be kept in mind that a 12mm extension tube can push the 24-105 to 0.60x maximum magnification. Disclaimer: I have not made an image quality comparison with the extension tube in play.

Image quality comparisons I have made show that:

At 24mm with a wide open aperture, the 24-70 f/4L IS bests the 24-105 L IS in sharpness by a modest amount. The 24-105 L delivers a sharper image at 50mm f/4, but at 70mm the 24-70 f/4L is back up to near equality with the 24-105 L. These two lenses perform more similarly at f/5.6 and at f/8 their results are nearly identical. The difference is negligible at f/11.

The 24-70 has less distortion, especially at 24mm. It also has noticeably less CA at the wide end, but more at 70mm. The 24-70 f/4L IS has less vignetting at the wide end at f/4, but more at the long end. By f/5.6, the two lenses are close in this regard.

Affecting image quality on a limited basis is the aperture blade count. The 24-70 has 9 blades vs. the 24-105 L's 8. This difference will primarily be noticed when point light sources are photographed at narrow apertures, with the odd blade numbered aperture creating 18-point sun stars vs the even's 8-point stars.

Another difference between these lenses is Canon's 4-stop Hybrid Image Stabilization featured in the 24-70, correcting both angular and shift movement in macro mode. The 24-105 L has 3-stop non-Hybrid Image Stabilization. Theoretically, the 24-70 can be handheld in 1/2 as much light as the 24-105 can be handheld in.

The Price

If price remains a deciding factor for you ... even though the list prices are equal, there remains at times a considerable difference, thanks to a rebate and a reward differential.

As of this post date, B&H has the Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS Lens in stock with a $150.00 instant rebate with a 10% B&H reward. Also in stock is the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS Lens with a 4% reward. Check today's prices as these will, at some point, surely change.

Willing to buy a white box and/or gray (same lens not imported by Canon USA) version? On eBay, the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS Lens can currently be found for as little as $595 – an incredible value. Not too far behind is the Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS Lens in white box condition currently priced at starting at $675.00 on eBay. These prices change, so check these links to get the latest.

Buying these lenses in refurbished by Canon condition is another great option. Expect Canon refurbished lenses to be in like-new condition and they usually (verify) have a same-as-new warranty. Check refurbished inventories at B&H, Canon and Adorama.

My Own Decision

After going back and forth, and back and forth, and carrying both lenses some of the time, I've personally settled on the 24-70mm f/4L IS as my primary walkaround, travel and general purpose lens. I usually have a telephoto zoom with me, reducing the value of the 24-105's focal length advantage. That leaves all of the other advantages to outweigh the 24-105's primary advantage. I've used the 24-70 f/4L IS in the 4 corners of the 50 USA states and many locations within. It has served me very well and has now permanently replaced my 24-105 f/4L IS.

Reviews

Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM Lens
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Lens