24-105mm or 24-70mm

Kryptix

Kryptix

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,730
Edit My Images
Yes
I don't know what to get. :|

24-105mm
f/4.0
IS
Longer Zoom

24-70mm
f/2.8
No IS
Shorter Zoom

Could anyone tell me how important IS is? I'd love f/2.8 but I'd also like the extra 35mm zoom. Ignoring the zoom lengths, which would you prefer... f/2.8 with no IS or f/4.0 with IS?

Help me out please. :)

PS. Is there any store I can go to and try both of these out? Does Jessops allow you to attach the lenses to your own camera and take a few shots?
 
Dude, this has to be the most common topic on any photography forum (Ok, probably not on the Nikon ones). A search will bring up hundreds of results. Any decent camera shop should let you try them out, take in a memory card and have a play.

IS is invaluable in some situations, and useless in others. f4 would be useless in some places, f2.8 wouldn't be needed in a lot of situations.

Horses for courses.

I have the 24-70 because I need the extra stop more than IS.
 
Thing is, I've never used a lens properly without IS and I've never used a f/2.8 lens either. I can't notice any difference when I switch IS off on my 70-200mm or my 18-55mm. The extra stop would be handy, but so would the 35mm extra zoom. :shake:

It's very difficult choosing when I've never used any of these lens in person. I just want a 'general' walkabout lens of high L quality. What lens would be better for weddings (and other low-light scenes), f/2.8 or IS?
 
Kryptix said:
... and I've never used a f/2.8 lens either.
Click to expand...

Your sig says you have a nifty fifty, which is over a stop faster at f1.8. So you can use that for comparison.

Kryptix said:
I can't notice any difference when I switch IS off on my 70-200mm or my 18-55mm.
Click to expand...

Try taking a hand-held shot of a static subject at 1/60 and 200mm with IS on, then off.

Kryptix said:
It's very difficult choosing when I've never used any of these lens in person. I just want a 'general' walkabout lens of high L quality. What lens would be better for weddings (and other low-light scenes), f/2.8 or IS?
Click to expand...

That's why you need to decide which is more important for what you want to shoot. As was discussed in your thread: http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=112757&highlight=24-70+24-105

People shoot weddings successfully with both of these lenses (and others do without either).

A "low light scene" could require any number of different attributes in a lens.
 
As Jayst84 said, have a search on here, as there have been several threads on this same topic, just in the time I have been a member.

As a purely personal choice, I would only consider the 24-105mm, in part due to the added length, but mainly down to the IS as unfortunately I suffer from shaky hands (not ideal for a tog I know), but for me at least the IS gets around this and I am always very happy with the results I get from my IS lenses (17-85, 70-300 & 100-400).

Now I know that many will say that having an f2.8 lens will allow for a faster shutter speed, which it does, but for me at least that just doesn't seem to work, as whatever type of photographer I use my 100mm Canon Macro for, I am mostly unable to get a decent shot with it, unless I have it on a tripod, even my monopod is not sufficient to guarantee a top notch photo.

Whilst I do accept this is very much a personal thing due to my hands, I now would not even entertain a non IS lens, regardless of how tempted I am with a 50mm f1.4. So for me at least that is how highly I would rate IS.

As mentioned though, do a quick search and you will find some far more helpful threads on this topic.
 
If you shoot in low light conditions then the extra stop for the f2.8 would be a bonus. Only you can decide what you want based on your own personal preferences. Both are top class lenses.
 
I had the same dilemma and opted for the 24-70. I thought the wider maximum aperture would be more beneficial than IS. The 24-70 is my walkabout lens and although it’s heavy, I love it.
 
Cheers for your opinions. This is what I wanted to hear. I know you can't tell me what to buy, but it's great to hear what you'd buy and why. Please continue...
 
If you shot at 70mm on both lenses, at f/4.0 and with IS turned off -- which one would take the nicer picture?
 
Kryptix said:
If you shot at 70mm on both lenses, at f/4.0 and with IS turned off -- which one would take the nicer picture?
Click to expand...

Jayst84 said:
99% of the time you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
Click to expand...

I'm not too sure about that one. The 24-105 has some nasty Bokeh effects and the overall image quality has never really impressed me at all. It is an amazingly versatile lens and will get a sharp image when lots of more expensive, "better" bits of kit won't get the job done.
 
dazzajl said:
I'm not too sure about that one. The 24-105 has some nasty Bokeh effects and the overall image quality has never really impressed me at all. It is an amazingly versatile lens and will get a sharp image when lots of more expensive, "better" bits of kit won't get the job done.
Click to expand...

Sorry, yeah, I agree the 24-70 is a better lens. I was posting more with the OP in mind I guess. From what I can gather from this and other threads, for his use of the lens either would be more than capable.
 
I always sound like I'm having a dig at the 24-105 because I do feel that it's not great for IQ but I should stress, it's an amazing bit of kit.

It's true, it doesn't do any one thing all that well but if you were to rate lenses on as many catagories as you could think of, I bet it would get a 6 out of 10 in every one. Not much that could claim that.

I have one in my bag as it can get you out of all sorts of holes when a job throws something nasty at you.

If I was choosing a lens just for fun and pleasure, it would be a fast prime every time, and the 24-70 is just a bit closer to that ethos. :)
 
For what it's worth, I think the 24-70 will get an upgrade sooner than the 105. Nothing official, but it's being said a lot on the "rumours" sites.
 
Wow, I just played about with IS and there's a big difference... I imagine at 105mm IS will be quite critical. Even at 55mm I was shaking a bit so maybe the 105mm would be a better option for me...
 
Just by holding the camera and looking through the viewfinder... I noticed a difference when turning IS on and off. Please tell me that wasn't my imagination?
 
Well you'll have seen the gryos stabilising the lens elements, but that doesn't mean you would have had camera shake without IS unless you were at 1/50s or so....
 
I was about 1/125...
 
Given the choice between an f/2.8 lens and f/4 I'd take the f/2.8. Given the choice between a lens with IS and one without I'd take the one with. Given the choice between the 24-70 and 24-105 I'd take the 24-70. My 70-200 f/2.8 IS will happily take care of the missing focal length :)

I can compensate for the lack of IS by good technique, a monopod or a tripod. I can't so easily compensate for losing a stop on the aperture whether with respect to shutter speed or DOF control.

EDIT 1: By the way, on a 1.6X crop body I'd favour the 17-55 f/2.8 IS over the 24-70. I don't see the missing few mm between 55 and 70 being a big deal.

EDIT 2 : f/2.8 will also enable faster, more accurate focusing. If you want extra reach you could even consider a teleconverter. Either 1.4X or 2X would still retain full AF on an f/2.8 lens.
 
Ask any Wedding photographer and most will side with the 24-70, it is their work horse lens, if it's good enough for a wedding (where you need to be REALLY versatile), it should give you an indication which one is a "better" lens.

I'd pick the 24-70 too, you can always carry a monopod :p
 
It really does depend on what you want it for. ;)

If it is genuinely for an all-purpose walkabout lens, then it's the 24-105mm every time for me. (I too have slightly shaky hands). I am lucky enough to have both of these lenses, but the weight of the 24-70 + the lack of IS made it difficult for me to use accurately. When shooting in low light, I nowadays prefer the width that the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 gives me. If I need longer, I have a 70-200mm f2.8.

Having said all that, Hubby loves the 24-70mm ( no shakiness issues) and it's hardly ever off his camera!!

As has already been said, it's horse for courses.
 
I had had both - 2 copies of the 24-105, and now have a 24-70.
To cope with the lack of reach, I have a 5D and a 30D.
Not missed the IS at all, though have it and appreciate it so much on my 70-200 f4.
No hesitation, the 24-70 f2.8 is the better lens so get one, or I'll biff you.
 
I've sold my 24-105 to get a 24-70. But the ridiculous price atm have hindered me.
 
photostar_1 said:
It really does depend on what you want it for. ;)

If it is genuinely for an all-purpose walkabout lens, then it's the 24-105mm every time for me. (I too have slightly shaky hands). I am lucky enough to have both of these lenses, but the weight of the 24-70 + the lack of IS made it difficult for me to use accurately. When shooting in low light, I nowadays prefer the width that the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 gives me. If I need longer, I have a 70-200mm f2.8.

Having said all that, Hubby loves the 24-70mm and it's hardly ever off his camera!!

As has already been said, it's horse for courses.
Click to expand...

Oi, you are part of the reason I have the 24-70 - yours was the first I ever played with (???) As for shaky hands - I guess it is just the effect one meeting with me can have on a woman....
 
Very happy with EF 24-105 f4, but waiting to see some feedback of Sigma 24-70 f2.8 HSM.
 
I've just swapped from th 24-105 to the 24-70, I much prefer the extra stop over IS.
 
Why not get the 24-105 AND a Sigma 24-70 f2.8 :lol:
 
I spent a loooooooong time looking at these two lenses when deciding which one to go for and trust me (and others) that there is an awful lot of information out there comparing the two.

In the end, I plumped for the 24-70 as the general concensus was that it had a very slight edge on IQ (although the 24-105 is hardly soft!) and the reverse zoom worked better for vignetting and flare. (I also already had the 70-200 f2.8 so had the extra 35mm covered).

When something like this comes up, I always think the first thing to ask yourself is whether you want the 71-105 range or not? You can make up for the loss of a stop with ISO (most of the time) but you can't add 35mm to the range of the lens so easily.

As others have said, get out there and try them both, or hire them for a weekend and compare them. The small(ish) outlay to hire them for a few days will be worth it in the long run if it helps you make the right choice for you.
 
Simmotino said:
You can make up for the loss of a stop with ISO (most of the time) but you can't add 35mm to the range of the lens so easily.
Click to expand...

Most of the time, perhaps, but I've had to shoot at a wedding at 3200 ISO, f/2.8, 1/60. If I'd had to manage with an f/4 lens I might as well have packed up and gone home.

Here's one example. This was shot on 30th November on an overcast/rainy day, when even daylight was not much cop, never mind the light indoors. My "best" camera at the time was my 50D and I was unhappy at having to use 3200 ISO but really had no option. As it is I've had to brighten the mid tones in Lightroom....

(Sorry about the WB - there was blue tinted, overcast daylight coming in from one side of the room only and tungsten within the room itself. I could not use flash.)

20081130_142052_2605_LR.jpg



If you don't have enough length you do have the option to crop.
 
personally, i wouldnt consider the 24-105. mainly because i shoot moving kids inside without flash. the IS can stabilise your movement but cant cope with the kids running round, the faster shutter will always help more with that than anything else. that is the reason my 17-85IS got upgraded to the 24-70. if you dont need the higher apertures then i can see the benefit of the 24-105, but wouldnt work for me.
 
FWIW I thought about this for quite a long time before going for the 24-105. What swung it for me was the extra reach.

It's horses for courses. Unless you have particularly shakey hands I would think the choice is between the extra stop or the extra reach. Which of those will be more useful to you? When you have an answer to that you know which lens you want.
 
I'd been using the 24-105 for a year or so, and it's great. However, I found myself wanting nicer (and more) background blur at times, and so sold it to get a 24-70 as the bokeh is more important to me than the extra reach. Something to note of course is that the 24-70 is a fair bit bigger and heavier than the 24-105, which might be an issue. Given the choice between the two I'd opt for the 24-70 again.
 
ive moved from the 24-105 to the 24-70 recently and it's miles better. Do it! Focusing is much faster as it allows you to take advantage of the cross type points, it's a brighter viewfinder and has less distortion and vignetting.
 
For me, the extra reach of the 24-105 would have been handy, but the wider aperture was what swung it for me and I've been very happy with the 24-70 ever since.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top