24-70 f/2.8L or 24-105 f/4 L IS?

8utters

8utters

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,449
Edit My Images
Yes
Normally I woulden't ask for advide on lenses as I always know what I want, but this is quite a difficult decision.

Basically i'm thinking of adding a new lens, either the 24-70 or 24-105 as I sometimes find my 17-40 a bit too wide, and when I eventually get a 5D (or 1Ds perhaps, i'v already started saving and the 1Ds MKIII is actually becoming more affordable, now down to just over £4,000 when imported from HK) I would like to have something a bit narrower. I also find the range on the 17-40 a little restrictive at times and need more on the longer end.

Have been concidering taking out a graduate loan to buy a 1Ds MKIII, I only have £3,000 of debt after uni which is ALOT better than most students. Going to have to decide this when the 5D MKII/3D/7D finally arrives :D

I like the 24-70 becuase of it's nice f/2.8 apature, good for low-light but the 24-105 has a better top-end range. The 24-105 is also cheaper...

Does anyone have both? I read a review which says the 24-205 is slightly better, a bit sharper. Anyone got some more advice?
 
For me I'm going to probably get the 24-70. With that aperature it means I could do away with taking a 50mm f/1.4 about with me.

However for me a contender is the 17-55 f/2.8 IS. I don't think I will move from the small sensor camera and this is still nice and wide.

Too many decisions...
 
Yeah i'm definately moving to full-frame as soon as possible! Just need the cash to support it :D

I also now refuse to buy any lens that isn't L series, they are just too good and so worth the extra money :)
 
I was considering both of these at one point, but when I got offered a 24-70 at a stupidly low price, without even getting to try the 24-105 I jumped at it, have not regretted it since.

There are a few times that I have had to grab the 85 for that little extra reach, but you soon get used to it.

Highly recommended lens, thumbs up from me.
 
I went for the 24-70 but sometimes wish I had the 24-105. I do love my 24-70 though, great colours and sharpness with lightning quick AF, very good build quality and fully sealed. As for the sharpness debate I imagine the 24-70 will be sharper at f/4 than the 24-105 as it's been stopped down.

Also the lens hood on the 24-70 is really nice. It's attached to the body of the lens so doesn't extent when zooming unlike the 24-105. As the lens is longest at 24mm it always provides optimum coverage. It's a really good design.
 
Yep I do prefer the design of the 24-70 and I don't like the way the 24-105's hood extends.
 
8utters said:
Yeah i'm definately moving to full-frame as soon as possible!
Click to expand...
8utters said:
Basically i'm thinking of adding a new lens, either the 24-70 or 24-105 as I sometimes find my 17-40 a bit too wide, and when I eventually get a 5D (or 1Ds perhaps, i'v already started saving and the 1Ds MKIII is actually becoming more affordable, now down to just over £4,000 when imported from HK) I would like to have something a bit narrower. I also find the range on the 17-40 a little restrictive at times and need more on the longer end.
Click to expand...
I think you need to do the maths here.

You're using a 17-40 on your 40D and you say it's too wide and you want something longer. But on a full-frame body you'd get the same field of view with a 27-64 lens.

So both the 24-70 and 24-105 will be wider on a 5D than the 17-40 is on your 40D. And the 24-70 will only offer you a very marginal increase in length.

Forget about the details about design, sharpness, hoods and such like. The simple fact is that the 24-70 doesn't do what you want it to in terms of focal length.
 
Good points from Stewart.

I'm probably one of the few who has moved from a 24-70 to a 24-105. I did it because I wanted more reach at the top end on 1D/1Ds bodies and it was worth losing an extra stop. Since I mainly use it for landscapes where it will be stopped down, it was less of an issue for me.

On a 1Ds, the 24-105 makes it into a superb 4x optical zoom point and shoot
 
I've got a Sigma 24-70mm and the Canon 24-105mm on a 5D and IDs MKII.

I bought the Sigma just so I could get f2.8 for indoor shots. The 24-105mm is a fab walkabout lens and it is the one that spends the most time on the 1Ds. BUT.. It's not a good lens indoors. It's slow, the autofocus is hardly lightening and at f4 indoors it leaves something to be desired. So I bought the Sigma for those occasions where I need f2.8.

If you are going to be doing weddings, get the 24-70 f2.8 and team it with a 70-200mm f2.8 and you are sorted. If you are going to do more in the way of journalistic togging and expect to spend most of your time outdoors, go for the extra focal length of the 24-105mm.

Depends what you want to shoot. (as is usual in lens choices!)
 
I started with a 24-105, then went to 24-70, and now back to 24-105. Let me explain why.

On a crop body, I found the 24-105 wouldn't allow me the tight DOF I wanted, and I found I didn't need the extra 70-105mm reach. I then got a 24-70, and loved it. My only reason for now having a 24-105 is I want to go FF, and on FF, 70mm isn't long enough for me, but due to the larger sensor, I will be able to get the DOF I want from the 24-105.

I would have thought that the 24-105 would be fine for you on FF. It's got a useful range, yet still retains a wide angle end for when you need it. Coupled with a fast prime or two for low light, I can't see how you can go wrong with it.
 
StewartR said:
I think you need to do the maths here.

You're using a 17-40 on your 40D and you say it's too wide and you want something longer. But on a full-frame body you'd get the same field of view with a 27-64 lens.

So both the 24-70 and 24-105 will be wider on a 5D than the 17-40 is on your 40D. And the 24-70 will only offer you a very marginal increase in length.

Forget about the details about design, sharpness, hoods and such like. The simple fact is that the 24-70 doesn't do what you want it to in terms of focal length.
Click to expand...

Yep, I did realise that.

The 17-40 is only too wide in some circumstances, most of the time is fine. Even though I said it's too wide at times, I also find it not wide enough for some photos.

The reason for getting a 1Ds / 5D is not just lens wise, i'v always wanted to move to full frame for the reason that I need 2 bodies for the type of photography that I do, I find myself CONSTATNLY changing lenses which is a pain and means that I get tons of dirt on my sensor and mirror. With a second body, I use one as wide (i.e a 1Ds or 5D with a 24-70 or 24-105) and one as long (40D with 70-200).

I have been leaning towards the 24-105 becuase it's longer at the long end and 70 on a FF body probably won't be long enough for what I need it for.
 
That's exactly my usual set up with two bodies, a 40D with a 100-400 and my 1DsIII with the 24-105, and it is excellent. I went through exactly your dilemma, though, but I haven't regretted my choice. Sure, 2.8 would be great, especially for weddings etc but for my general all round work, the set up I have is as near ideal as I can get.
 
I started with 24-105mm and now have 24-70mm 2.8.

I haven't regretted at all. Don't get me wrong, the 24-105 is a lovely lens, but the 24-70 copes better in low light for which I encounter often in churches.

Like someone mentioned above, sometimes when 70 isn't enough, I either put on my 85mm 1.8 or 70-200mm 2.8.
HTH
 
From what I've seen, which is alot of the 24-105 and very little of the 24-70, they are designed to do totally different jobs.

The 24-70 is a general purpose small range zoom, with it's priorities on being fastish and providing a high image quality.

The 24-105 is all about ticking as many boxes as possible and it does tick quite alot of them too. It's got a good range, with a constant aperture throughout. It's got a pretty respectable IS and it's on the right side of affordable, for canon "L" badged stuff.

It's a really versatile bit of kit but it doesn't do anything that well. As said, the AF is not quick, f4 is not fast and the bokeh is a far cry from rich and smooth.
 
I don't shoot weddings, don't do alot of low light like I used to so I think the 105 long end will be more usefull than the f/2.8.

Since i'm going into press photography/photojournalism then most of my shots will probably be outdoor.

Also read reviews which state that the IQ of the 24-105 is excellent, one of the best. This review on it is pretty positive stating that 'If I had only one lens, this would be it':

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-105mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
 
for what you're wanting to do, ie. photojournalism etc. i'd say that you'd maybe be better served with the 24-105. i'd also say that maybe you might want to buy a 1dmk3 rather than the 1ds mk3 for this kind of work.
 
Agree with plenty of the views above. In good light, as a walkaround, the 24-105 is very nice. But I also have a Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8, which is dead handy for indoor stuff, and is actually sharper.
 
nowler said:
for what you're wanting to do, ie. photojournalism etc. i'd say that you'd maybe be better served with the 24-105. i'd also say that maybe you might want to buy a 1dmk3 rather than the 1ds mk3 for this kind of work.
Click to expand...

No I want to have 1 cropped body and 1 full frame. I'l use my 40D for the higher fps shots.

I may buy a 1D MKIII sometime in the future if I find myself restricted by the 40D. Eventually I will hopefully have a 1D and 1Ds with a few more lenses if I manage to do photojournalism professionally.

Not even sure i'm getting a 1Ds anyway, I might get a 5D MKII / 3D / 7D or whatever it will be called. Gonna have to wait until it's announced hopefully in late September.
 
I had the same decision to make and went with the 24-105. I use a 1Dmk3 body.

My rationale was that the 24-105 has IS which would probably let me shoot a slower shutter speed than the 24-70 at 2.8. It also has the extra reach which is always handy. The 1Dmk3 is superb at focusing in low light so again no need for 2.8. Also I can pop the ISO up on the 1Dmk3 and still get top quality images, so 2.8 not required again.

The only thing I may miss is a tad narrower depth of field for creative shots, but I can always pop a 50mm 1.8 on for that.
 
I've got a 5D and a 40D and do photojournalism for newspapers/magazine ect.. I currently use a 24-105mm L on the 5D and a 70-200 on the 40D. Its a nice set-up and i think that 70mm on the 5D would like me too short.

95% of the time i dont need to go down past f/4 (bar sports).

Ask yourself if you will need the extra stop of light... i dont think you do.
 
8utters said:
No I want to have 1 cropped body and 1 full frame. I'l use my 40D for the higher fps shots.

I may buy a 1D MKIII sometime in the future if I find myself restricted by the 40D. Eventually I will hopefully have a 1D and 1Ds with a few more lenses if I manage to do photojournalism professionally.

Not even sure i'm getting a 1Ds anyway, I might get a 5D MKII / 3D / 7D or whatever it will be called. Gonna have to wait until it's announced hopefully in late September.
Click to expand...

fair enough, i just couldn't see the need for you to dive into debt to have a 1ds mk3 when it's probably not needed for what you are thinking of doing.

the reason i suggested the 1dmk3 was that it only has a 1.3x crop as opposed to the 1.6x crop of your 40D. it's half the price of a 1dsmk3, it's a superb camera with lightning AF and it's good at high ISO and it's a pro camera. not that you can't do such work with a 40D or a 5D etc. etc. but they don't have the build quality or weather sealing or AF of a 1 series body....

if you want the full frame option, then obviously you'll need a 1Ds or a 5D or whatever the newer version of it might be. it will be really interesting to see what the 5Dmk2 or 3D or 7D or whatever it's called turns out to be like. i can't see it being weather sealed or having a built in grip like the rumours seem to predict but i may be wrong......

however, good luck with whatever lens you choose. i have a 24-70 and it's a great lens. but probably not the ideal choice for your interests.

cheers

d.
 
Tobers said:
I had the same decision to make and went with the 24-105. I use a 1Dmk3 body.

My rationale was that the 24-105 has IS which would probably let me shoot a slower shutter speed than the 24-70 at 2.8. It also has the extra reach which is always handy. The 1Dmk3 is superb at focusing in low light so again no need for 2.8. Also I can pop the ISO up on the 1Dmk3 and still get top quality images, so 2.8 not required again.

The only thing I may miss is a tad narrower depth of field for creative shots, but I can always pop a 50mm 1.8 on for that.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's a particularly valid argument for f/4 over f/2.8. While the MkIII is undoubtedly very good at focusing and high ISOs it's going to be even better at f/2.8 No matter how far camera tech advances larger apertures are still going to be advantageous.
 
Don't have either but have hired both. The 24-105 was great in the studio and immeadiately went to the top of my "want list", until I used the 24-70.

The 24-70 is better quality, no doubt about it, and the dof at f2.8 is a great tool to have (even better on full frame). If I could, I'd have both as they do different jobs.

Saying that, I couldn't stretch to the Canon 24-70 as I'd just bought the 40D & grip, so I got the Sigma instead. Not as good but about 1/3 of the price.... Have to agree with whoever it was that said the 24-70 & 70-200 f2.8's made a great set up - the latter is now top of the "want list"....

I think that for your requirements, the 24-105 should tick all the right boxes.

Steve
 
Never used the Canon 24-70, but use the 24-105 L on a FF body (1DS MKII), and it's a great walk around lens, ticks most of the boxes you want, and produces great quality images.

My only concern would be in what you want to use it for, (photojournalism), quite often you need to be quick for that front page exclusive shot, therefore regardless of the focal length and aperture/shutter speed used, a 2.8 lens will always focus faster and achieve focus lock before a f4 lens.
 
nowler said:
fair enough, i just couldn't see the need for you to dive into debt to have a 1ds mk3 when it's probably not needed for what you are thinking of doing.

the reason i suggested the 1dmk3 was that it only has a 1.3x crop as opposed to the 1.6x crop of your 40D. it's half the price of a 1dsmk3, it's a superb camera with lightning AF and it's good at high ISO and it's a pro camera. not that you can't do such work with a 40D or a 5D etc. etc. but they don't have the build quality or weather sealing or AF of a 1 series body....

if you want the full frame option, then obviously you'll need a 1Ds or a 5D or whatever the newer version of it might be. it will be really interesting to see what the 5Dmk2 or 3D or 7D or whatever it's called turns out to be like. i can't see it being weather sealed or having a built in grip like the rumours seem to predict but i may be wrong......

however, good luck with whatever lens you choose. i have a 24-70 and it's a great lens. but probably not the ideal choice for your interests.

cheers

d.
Click to expand...
Yeah I have been concidering the 1D MKIII and now that you mention it it does seem like more and more of a sensible option. That 10fps is amasing, i'v always wanted a 1D, amasing cameras. Half the price which is definately a bonus.

Also, when the new 5D, 3D or 7D comes out it's likely to retail at around £2,500 - digitalRev have 1D MKIIIs for just over £2,000.

Hmmmm, perhaps a 1D MKIII does seem like a good buy, i'v wanted a full frame body for a while, perhaps I will wait on the FF and get a 1D MKIII with a 24-105.

Also, how well does the 1D MKIII handle high ISOs? I know the 1Ds is brilliant due to it's insanely high-quality sensor, but what about the 1D?
 
I had the same decision for my 40D as I wanted to replace the kit lens with a general walkabout lens. I went for the 24-105 and haven't regretted it. I've handheld shots at 1/8th with it and love it.
 
Les McLean said:
My only concern would be in what you want to use it for, (photojournalism), quite often you need to be quick for that front page exclusive shot, therefore regardless of the focal length and aperture/shutter speed used, a 2.8 lens will always focus faster and achieve focus lock before a f4 lens.
Click to expand...

Interesting point.... Personally I hadn't considered that (and that 24-70 does focus awfully quickly!)

Steve
 
8utters said:
Also, how well does the 1D MKIII handle high ISOs? I know the 1Ds is brilliant due to it's insanely high-quality sensor, but what about the 1D?
Click to expand...

the photo below was taken at iso 6400 (it's really 3200 expanded) with a 1Dmk3 and a 70-200f2.8IS lens last month at T in the park. it's maybe not the best example but it's had no noise reduction and it's quite a crop to post it on here and it's still ok. i haven't got a 1Ds mk3 but i'm pretty sure they only go to iso1600 (or 3200 expanded).

stipescopy.jpg
[/IMG]

i think you really need to think about your intended type of photography and take it from there. i would love to have a 1Ds mk3, but it's just not necessary and a little bit over priced to my mind.

instead of going into so much debt, why not get a 1Dmk2n or a 1Ds mk2 if you really want the fully frame thing. remember that camera bodies loose money as soon as you buy them, but glass generally only takes and initial hit and levels off in terms of depreciation. i'd also say you're better off with decent lenses first if you already have a 40D.
 
I have descent lenses, a 70-200 f/2.8 L, 17-40 f/4 L and possibly soon a 24-105 L or 24-70 L that I might buy either on it's own or with a second body.

The whole point is that I need two bodies becuase I chop and change the type of shots (long and wide) quickly and often find myself missing shots becuase i'm faffing about changing lenses. Also manged to get tons of dirt and dust on my sensor becuase i'm changing the lenses over so much.

For press photography / photojournalism, two bodies is essential, alot of photojournalists will use more than 2 at once.

Oh and the 1D MKIII goes up to 6400 ISO.
 
Just been doing some price hunting for a 1D MKIII, digitalRev are offering the body with free shipping and refund on any import taxes all for just over £2,000. That's a great price! The cheapest I found elsewhere is like £2,200 and most places offer it for like £2,500 - £2,900.
 
point taken on your lenses, i never read your signature.

and i know that the 1dmk3 goes up to iso 6400, it's my camera that i took the shot of michael stipe with.......

but my understanding of it is that the sensor's iso range is from 100 - 3200 and it's a software conversion/interpretation that gives you the extended high and low iso's of 50 and 6400. so it's not a true iso 6400 but it serves as the same purpose. if i'm wrong on this then i'm sure someone will correct me.

however, best of luck with whatever you decide to buy.
 
there is someone on ebay with a
1D MK 2 N for £1150
1D MK 3 for £1800
5D £650
2 x 1D MK2 £900 each

I was after a lens and he sent me prices on everything!!
 
This thread has been a good read as i'm hoping to maybe add one of these lenses into the bag at some point.

I went dog training the other night & found that to take photos, I was basically going to need something with some decent range, but I want to keep the sharpness & low F range of the nifty fifty as I really enjoy using it. I've got the 75-300mm, but i'm going to sell it and aquire something with better quality, faster focusing & more of a walk-about type feel to it.

Didn't take any photos at the dog training as A) didn't want to move about constantly with the nifty fifty, as that would have distracted the dogs/owners, and after all, they're their to be trained, and B) I didn't want to scare anyone by slapping the 75-300mm onto the end of the camera as I know a good amount of people are shy when cameras are around.

So basically, it got me thinking. I've never been in a situation like that where i've needed decent range, but limited to space/movement, which is why I think something like the 24-105 would come in handy, as i'm confident i'd have snapped some nice photos had I had one of those strapped to the end of the camera the other night. It would have given me the range I needed, the quality I wanted, and all without having to move around a lot & avoiding distracting people/the dogs & also having a nice sized lens so to not scare folk.
 
I'd definately get rid of that 75-300, it's been described as the worst lens Canon make.

Go with L series, you can't go wrong :)
 
You can go wrong when it comes to the cost of an L lens though
 
this has been an intresting read as I am in the same predicament re hiring a lens for a wedding in goa ( a few threads further on)

It seems that there isnt really much between theses two lenses and it reaslly boils down to the specifics of usage

Now, this may be a dumb question but......is the difference between f2.8 and f4 really that significant.

I guess, what im thinking is if im shooting a wedding what is more usefull. The extended length/range, or the F2.8 .i.e. with f4 at say, a distance of 15 feet to subject at say 105mm, can you isolate the subject enough to make a great portrait. If you can, then im thinking this is a more versatile lens for shooting a wedding in bright sunligt, whereas you would need the f2.8 if you were shooting indoors.....

Whooops, slight thread hijack....sorry.......
 
30psi said:
You can go wrong when it comes to the cost of an L lens though
Click to expand...

Depends on how you look at it. I'm pretty sure that L glass must be amoungst the slowest depreciating of all lenses. So from an investment point of view, its all about the L :-D

(Thats what I tell the Mrs....):nono:
 
8utters said:
I'd definately get rid of that 75-300, it's been described as the worst lens Canon make.

Go with L series, you can't go wrong :)
Click to expand...

It'll be going soon enough, it was an impulse buy about a week after I got my first camera (around 18 months or so ago) when I knew nothing about photography.
 
Yep I agree with hyakuhei, they retain so much of their original value.

However, that being said, I had a 28-135 a while ago, bought it for £220 and sold it for £230 about 6 months after purchase which was pretty sweet (especially concidering I bought it brand new and sold it as 2nd hand).

The image and build quality on L series is worth the extra money in my opinion, excellent lenses, i'm never going to buy a Canon lens that doesn't have a red ring around it again :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top