24-105 or 24-70?

Danger_Mouse

Danger_Mouse

Suspended / Banned
Messages
636
Name
wayne
Edit My Images
Yes
Thanks to petebarnes for prompting me to ask this question :lol:

I have been looking at a 5D (probably goong to go for a Mk1)

with the 24-105 4 L lens its about £1300-1400

with the 24-70 2.8 L its going to be more expencive, why would the 24-70 be advised? i understand the bigger aperture will be better for dark places (weddings ect) but is there any other reason?

thanks

I am just starting to try and build up a business and so am trying to be wise with money, and not just go and buy all the toys i want

cheers
DM
 
The 24-105 is an excellent lens straight out of the box i was tack sharp for me
I now have the 24-70 and its a bit softer and needed setting up at CPS before it sharpened up.

the f2.8 is handy but if you are shooting studio portraits then go for the extra length and IS over the f2.8. As you say, you are just starting and the 24-105 is a great place to start.
 
Personally I'd prefer the f/2.8 over the IS and extra range, but that's just personal preference. If you're going to be shooting moving things in low light, get the 24-70, if however your subjects are going to be stationary, then the 24-105 might suit better. They're both great lenses, so it just depends on which will suit you better!
 
I would be interested in people's opinions on this also- as I need to make this choice in March.
 
Is there not supposed to be a 24-70mm f/2.8 IS version due out soon?
 
Alot of the reasons have already been said really DM. I'd say IS is good but a faster shutter speed is better and that extra stop of light is a big difference, If you are planning to do weddings I'd certainly go for the 24-70 over the 24-105. It's my main lens along with the 70-200 on a 40D with a 16-35 for wide stuff. Lenses hold value far better than bodies, IMO you are better getting the one you will end up getting first rather than building your way up.

I had a similar decision with a 16-35 or a 17-40 and I knew if I got the 17-40 I would end up saving for the other one and selling the 17-40. Have a think about it then email kerso
 
Both are good lens but the 24-70 f2.8L is a lot better quality wise & the extra stop helps not only in poor light conditions but in amy light. Certainly the autofoocus is faster. Best thing to do if your not in a hurry is go to Focus in March & try both failing that try both at your local shop.
 
I ended up with the 24-105 and haven't regretted it.
I did think of the 2.8 but the difference is only 1 stop and with the higher acceptable ISO on my 5D Mk2 I just increase the ISO 1 stop when needed in low light.
Another plus for me is the longer FL. I can shoot full length then zoom in for a head and shoulder shot and zoom in further for a a head only shot.
 
Personally I would get the 24-70 because it's f2.8. I'd rather be able to freeze the action by getting a faster shutter speed than relying on IS, and also maybe drop down to a lower ISO (especially if you have an older camera which only goes to 3200.)

The larger aperture also gives you a shallower depth of field and a slightly brighter viewfinder.

It just depends whether you need that extra reach or the need to freeze motion or shoot indoor without flash a lot (or similar situations e.g. gigs)
 
Opinion is divided on which of the two lenses has the better IQ - they are both good.....
The decision is really about what you want to use the lens for.
It's a trade between an extra stop on the 24-70 or extra reach and IS in much lighter packaging on the 24-105.
When I'm out and about I carry my lens in the hand for long periods of time, so I went for the lighter lens.
You need to make your own decision. As suggested, try and get to play with both lenses and see what feels right.

I bought my 24-105 just after the initial production scares had been sorted out. It seemed no one would touch a 24-105 with the proverbial bargepole and the price was seriously attractive. You still can't buy a used 24-105 for what I paid back then. Lucky timing......
I stepped up to full frame a year ago and the 'extra stop' the 5DII gives me hasn't really changed anything. However, the difference in coverage that 24mm gives is quite shocking and far more significant than I expected. At least you won't be having to learn that painful lesson!
 
Depends what you want it for

I use my 24-105 as a walkabout lens, it covers most needs and the IS comes in handy, I find the extra reach and IS were more beneficial to me than an extra stop
 
You'd need to be offering me some serious money to part with my 24-70, it's a perfect range for most stuff and then when it does turn out to be too short I have the 70-200 so I don't have any wasted overlap in lens coverage.
 
I guess it depends on the intended use. I would happily use 24-105mm instead of my 24-70mm for most [mid-range] landscape work, which is typically at f/8-11. When the light is still good I don't always [want to] use the tripod, and IS would make a lot of difference. The 105mm is also handy, particularly on FF. Then you can get the excellent 85mm f/1.8 and 28mm f/1.8 or other primes.

For low-light events when zoom flexibility is necessary, 24-70mm f/2.8 is hard to beat. I did not replace it only for this reason.
 
ive got the 24-70 at the moment on hire, as a trial before i buy one, and i have to say it is an amazing bit of kit.
 
I was going to buy the 24-105 before based on the IS, focal length and it's weight, but once I learnt a bit on how the stuff actually works and the benefits of the f/2.8 over the f/4 and noticed how little the IS actually makes a difference in what I inteneded to shoot especially with the fact I can open it up there is less chance of needing the IS. I bought the 24-70, do I miss the length? I'm not sure I bought the 70-200 f/2.8IS at the same time and don't use it that often so I would probably say no. I do find myself moveing about more to get the closer shots and the weight isn't that bad especially after I attached a battery grip.
 
one way of looking at is that the real advantage of the 2.8 in low light may come to an end in a couple of years when iso performance means that the f4 is a viable option for lowlight.

that would mean you have the benefit of the extra range of the 24-105.'

f4 to f2.8 is only one stop, so one stop improvement in iso performance on cameras levels this back out again and you dont have to worry about depth of field as much at f4.
something to think about.
 
mart77 said:
one way of looking at is that the real advantage of the 2.8 in low light may come to an end in a couple of years when iso performance means that the f4 is a viable option for lowlight.

that would mean you have the benefit of the extra range of the 24-105.'

f4 to f2.8 is only one stop, so one stop improvement in iso performance on cameras levels this back out again and you dont have to worry about depth of field as much at f4.
something to think about.
Click to expand...

But Bokeh at F/2.8 is much nicer :)

img79221.jpg
 
Raymond Lin said:
But Bokeh at F/2.8 is much nicer :)

img79221.jpg
Click to expand...

yes thats a good point and needs to be considered. Overall id prefer more reach i expect. I have a good 50mm that can handle bokeh.
Im deciding between these two lenses myself but leaning towards teh 105 considering i have a 50mm that can go faster than either.

any thoughts?
 
mart77 said:
yes thats a good point and needs to be considered. Overall id prefer more reach i expect. I have a good 50mm that can handle bokeh.
Im deciding between these two lenses myself but leaning towards teh 105 considering i have a 50mm that can go faster than either.

any thoughts?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't add another lens (50 mm) into the equation, as that's not really fair. Not to mention the 50mm is slow to focus compare to either L.

I have a 50/1.4 too when I decide to get the 24-70L, the 24-105 has never even crossed my mind, it's an option that's just not good enough for me.
 
I have a 24-105 F4L and I really like it, but I keep getting the urge to get a 24-70 F2.8L just for the extra stop of light.
 
Raymond Lin said:
I wouldn't add another lens (50 mm) into the equation, as that's not really fair. Not to mention the 50mm is slow to focus compare to either L.

I have a 50/1.4 too when I decide to get the 24-70L, the 24-105 has never even crossed my mind, it's an option that's just not good enough for me.
Click to expand...

fair enough, i have yet to decide which to go for, will take that onboard though :)
 
I have had both and for me the 24-70 suited my needs more, and I feel the build quality was better. if I could have afford to keep both though I would as I feel the 24-105 was a better walk about lens
 
To the OP, if you do need the extra stop of low light performance then the 5Dmk2 & 24-105 (with IS off) would provide the same (or better) low-light capability as the 5Dmk1 & 24-70, due to the mk2 providing a stop or more usable high ISO performance over the mk1. One caveat, low light AF won't be as capable.

I'm using the 24-105 on a mk2 at the minute and i love it. Very versatile and is rarely off the camera.

While the f/2.8 has its attractions, the weight and the focal length of the 24-70 ultimately put me off.

I had the 17-55 on my old 40D and I always longed for a few extra mm's (who doesn't). 70mm on FF would be roughly equivalent to 43mm on crop so would have been a major annoyance for me, more lens changes etc. The 24-105 provides that bit extra equivalent reach.

Don't get me wrong, if Canon came up with a good 24-105 f/2.8 IS I would snap one up, even though it would weigh a tonne. For me at least the f/4 and extra focal length provides the best compromise.
 
ChrisJ_SLH said:
70mm on FF would be roughly equivalent to 43mm on crop
Click to expand...

Isnt this the other way round? 70mm on full frame equals 112mm on 1.6x crop? So a 24-70 on a Canon 40D effectively equals 38mm to 112mm?

Anyway:

I have exactly the same dilema myself over this. I want the reach of the 24-105 but want the low light performance of the F2.8. Financially I'm no where near the point of buying so I have time to consider, but as each week goes by I change my mind from one of the other.

Using my 28-135 on my 40D, this year I'm hoping that my part time paid togging becomes a bit more frequent and my plan is to keep an eye on the pictures that make the grade and get a feel of what my typical focal length useage is and if not many go over the 70mm range then the 24-70 is for me and if not the 24-105. But I like the bokeh of the F2.8.

HELP!
 
I did consider buying 24-70 but decided on the 24-105 in the end because of the below three.
1) good range of focal length making it an ideal walkaround lens.
2) it has IS, if 24-70 had IS, I would have chosen that instead.
3) its lighter than the 24-70 which is almost known as the "brick".

The down size of 24-105 is that it has significant vignetting and barrel distortions at 24mm F4.
 
Marcus Geezer said:
Isnt this the other way round? 70mm on full frame equals 112mm on 1.6x crop? So a 24-70 on a Canon 40D effectively equals 38mm to 112mm?
HELP!
Click to expand...

What I meant was that 70mm on FF is 70mm. On crop 70mm would be provided by 43mm.

I had the Tamron 17-50 and the traded up to the Canon 17-55 on my 40D. 50mm was definitely too short at the long end for me, 55 was better. 43mm would have been very limiting for a walk about lens.

The range of the 17-85 I had originally would have been ideal, but i had a relatively soft copy and was never really happy with it (I traded the 17-50 and 18-85 for the 17-55).

As you say, on 40D the 24-70 would be would be 38-112. However, the OP was talking about using a 5Dmk1 or mk2.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top