24-70 or 24-105

O

outdoor

Suspended / Banned
Messages
6
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi All. I have a Sony A700, And thought I would like to try FF, so I bought a Canon 5D 1, Now I want a lens, Some advice please 24-70 2.8 non is, or 24-105 f4 is, Thanking you John.
 
Whilst I can't comment on the 24-105 (I do hear it's excellent) , I personally went with the 24-70 and I have loved every moment of it, images are pin sharp (or at least have been until my camera tried to kill its focusing system.

There is a little vanity with having a red ring, plus it's designed for full frame cameras, and well worth the money if you ask me. 77mm filter ring means it can feel a little expensive, but it's great otherwise!
 
24-70: possibly sharper, f2.8, no IS
24-105: longer reach, lighter, IS, slower, possibly less sharp (i.e. you'd only notice it pixel peeping)

For most people, most of the time, the 24-105 is the better choice. Whether you fit that profile is another matter.........
 
Really depends what you use the camera for! Having used both, the sharpness is not an issue for either. The trade of is IS against the extra stop......
 
Hi thanks for advice, But do you think f4 IS would be equall to 2.8 none IS ?.
 
outdoor said:
Hi thanks for advice, But do you think f4 IS would be equall to 2.8 none IS ?.
Click to expand...
If you want to take pics of things that move in low light, no. If you want to take pics of things that don't move in low light, yes.

Simples.
 
outdoor said:
Hi thanks for advice, But do you think f4 IS would be equall to 2.8 none IS ?.
Click to expand...

Again depends what you shoot. If you need to shoot fast moving subjects, the extra stop will be more useful.

If you shoot moving subjects in lowish light then the extra stop "may" help as it will depend on the light levels and the speed of the subjects - but you will get double the SS the f4 can get (this is all without taking flash into consideration).

If you shoot static subjects then IS will help a lot more - some 3 stops better.

I like the IS as optically it's on a par with the 24-70 and is much lighter

Usually if light levels are that low, the extra stop won't make that much a difference and I'd be reaching for a faster prime or using flash.
 
Asked myself the same question when I had Canon. Went with the 24-105. It's good....but always regretted not getting the 24-70. But then I do a lot of low light no flash stuff. Moving targets.
 
I had the same question. I went with the 24-70. The main reasons were the f2.8. Lack of IS didn't really bother me. On a 5D2 I can always increase the ISO a bit to get some extra shutter speed if I need it.

Plus IS does not help with moving subjects. It does have it's place but it is NOT the same as a faster lens. It will never turn a f4 into a 1.4 nor will it give you the bokeh.
 
outdoor said:
Hi All. I have a Sony A700, And thought I would like to try FF, so I bought a Canon 5D 1, Now I want a lens, Some advice please 24-70 2.8 non is, or 24-105 f4 is, Thanking you John.
Click to expand...

I'd go for the 24-70 having used both. range is smaller but for why I shot f2.8 was more important. if you never shoot in low light the 24-105 looks a better deal since you get less DOF @ 105mm f4 compared to 70mm f2.8
 
POAH said:
snip .......

since you get less DOF @ 105mm f4 compared to 70mm f2.8
Click to expand...

That's an interesting bit of information, and something I had never considered. However, if you need to shoot at 105mm, then you wouldn't have bought the 24-70 in the first place :lol:

Steve
 
POAH said:
you get less DOF @ 105mm f4 compared to 70mm f2.8
Click to expand...
True if the subject is at the same distance, but not true if you have the same framing (i.e. move from 10.5ft away to 7ft away with the 70mm)
 
I love my 24-105. Its light, has a versatile focus length range, very sharp and the IS is a boon. It is possibly a perfect walk-about lens for Canon FF.

That said, there are occasions where I would have like the utility of that extra stop the 24-70 gives for either creative or practical reasons. For that reason it is on the list of things to buy when funds permit. The 24-105 will be kept though that's for sure.

I like the idea of the rumored 24-70 IS, whether it will ever materialise and if it is affordable to me when it does is another question though.

In summary, as others have said in this and other threads on this question, it boils down what you shoot and whether an extra stop is more important than extra focal length and IS. In my opinion there is nothing in it optically, they are both great.
 
The rumour about a 24-70 IS has been around for years, and still no sign of it...
I have both and have had both before - it is not an easy question as there are advantages to both as have already been pointed out.
For me, the 24-70 is too short a lot of the time, but I really miss the 2.8 aperture more than i want to so still have both lenses.
You really need to try both if you can and think hard about what you shoot, or just save and buy both......
 
Hi All, Thanks for all the advice, told me things I never thought of, Wiil have to have a play with both, Had a look at the spec on the2.8 didn't relise how heavy it is, The sony 70-300G that I have weighs 760g the Canon 2.8 weighs 950g, and I thought the sony was heavy. Thanks again John
 
you'd need a rather large bar to prise the 24-70 off my 5d2, by far my most used lens.
 
I have the 24-105 (as I went for the 5D2 lens kit). I think it's a great general walk around lens, as folks have said it's light and it has the reach. Can't comment on the 24-70 myself, but have seen a number of reviews where the sharpness between the two is mentioned as negligible.
 
Eighth Avenue said:
I have the 24-105 but imo the 24-70 is a far better lens, lightening quick focus, tack sharp and good in lo light. Only annoying thing is the zoom barrel twists the other way :S
Click to expand...

You used the 24-70?

I'm surprised you think it's "far better"!
 
I deliberated over this for ages. Just bought the 24-70. Really pleased with it. Like shooting wide open so it was the extra stop that persuaded me. Also saw on the net seemed to be a few problems with the 24-105 with bellows failing. No idea how wide spread it is but there's a reasonable amount of disgruntled people if you google it. It is reassuring heavy, it would probably double as an offensive weapon!
 
EOS_JD said:
You used the 24-70?

I'm surprised you think it's "far better"!
Click to expand...

Having owned both the 28-70 and the 24-105 and having used a 24-70 for long periods of time, I also think the 24/28-70 is much better. The 24-105 is an easy lens to use and produces good results, while the 24-70 takes a bit more effort but gives noticeably better results.
 
If only one lens, I'd go with 24-70, for the better bokeh and low light. If you're getting a prime or two, then 24-105 for general purpose.
 
Don't kick me too hard for not answering the exact question you asked but if I wanted to get in touch with the 5D magic, I'd start with a 50mm f1.4 or 85mm f1.8. Big aperture on FF is very seductive indeed.

In more direct answer to your question, I made the choice recently and went for the 24-105. It was a very easy decision, IQ is terrific, range good and size easy. The 24-70 is massive and I'd miss the reach of the 105. I always intended to back it up with a wide aperture prime or two. Saving up now for the 35mm f1.4L and 135mm f2L.
 
postcardcv said:
Having owned both the 28-70 and the 24-105 and having used a 24-70 for long periods of time, I also think the 24/28-70 is much better. The 24-105 is an easy lens to use and produces good results, while the 24-70 takes a bit more effort but gives noticeably better results.
Click to expand...

That's the thing I can't really see is the noticeably better results? Maybe better bokeh in a head and shoulders shot - i too have used both and have a 28-75 (not canon) that sits in my bag unused - the extra stop rarely makes the diffference - although there are times when it can.

Maybe I have a good copy of the 24-105 - it's as sharp as any lens I have includiong primes and as sharp as my 70-200 f2.8L IS

maybe just me then :)
 
tomqh said:
If only one lens, I'd go with 24-70, for the better bokeh and low light. If you're getting a prime or two, then 24-105 for general purpose.
Click to expand...

The 24-105 with IS can be a much better low light lens (depends on the shot you are taking)
 
Eighth Avenue said:
Yep, borrowed it from a friend for a week, didn't use the 105 once
Click to expand...

If I borrowed a lens for a week I'd use that one too :) I don't see in most uses that it's any better than the 24-105. Not saying that it *24-70) doesn't have some advantages as clearly the extra stop can make the difference but i just don't see any better quality images from it (as I say above maybe I just got a great 24-105)?
 
I'm amazed that people are even comparing these two lenses. I'm not a Canon person, but presumably the 24-70 is a pro "trinity" lens, so can hardly be compared the 24-105 which is more aimed at the "enthusiast" market.
 
Both are L series lenses, so both regarded as pro spec
 
Interested in bumping this debate.

I had a play with both in a camera shop yesterday.

The 24-70 was nice and the 2.8 enabled a lot of freedom in low light.
But, my god it was heavy. After 5 minutes my wrist felt it.

The 24-105 was excellent for that extra reach. Also I took a 1st shot in the low light in the shop and looked at it (admitedly only on my lcd display) and it was fuzzy. Looked at the lens and saw the IS had been switched off. Turned it on and took the same shot and it was pin sharp.

If I was buying now I would say that the 24-105 would tempt me more because of longer reach and IS. But for either, it must take a lot of thought because;
a) Both are big bucks
b) They both inhabit the middle "most used" lens ground so you want to get it right.

Comments?
 
Last edited:
PCPhil said:
Interested in bumping this debate.

I had a play with both in a camera shop yesterday.

The 24-70 was nice and the 2.8 enabled a lot of freedom in low light.
But, my god it was heavy. After 5 minutes my wrist felt it.

The 24-105 was excellent for that extra reach. Also I took a 1st shot in the low light in the shop and looked at it (admitedly only on my lcd display) and it was fuzzy. Looked at the lens and saw the IS had been switched off. Turned it on and took the same shot and it was pin sharp.

If I was buying now I would say that the 24-105 would tempt me more because of longer reach and IS. But for either, it must take a lot of thought because;
a) Both are big bucks
c) They both inhabit the middle "most used" lens ground so you want to get it right.

Comments?
Click to expand...

i did the same thing this week and prior to entering the shop and taking some pics with both lenses had initially decided upon the 24-70. the 24-105 is very versatile and offers more scope in a 'one-lens' does it all secnario however, as i have a 70-200 i am still happy going for the 24-70, although the weight of it is a bit of a concern.
 
PCPhil said:
What was the logical (or gut) feeling that drove you to the 70?
Click to expand...

the majority of the pics i will take will essentially stay within the focal range offered by the 24-70, anything above i would use the 70-200, that is my only reason to be honest.

i cant give any opinion on which lens gives a better pic etc. as i haven't looked into it that deeply.

whether my logic to go for the 24-70 is right or wrong i dont know.
 
Nah, I don't know about right or wrong. I can see with your setup that you already have the >100 covered. Interested in feelings. I feel that one of these will be my next er...investment? :)

Just interested in gathering as many views as possible, from a purely selfish point of view.
 
PCPhil said:
Nah, I don't know about right or wrong. I can see with your setup that you already have the >100 covered. Interested in feelings. I feel that one of these will be my next er...investment? :)

Just interested in gathering as many views as possible, from a purely selfish point of view.
Click to expand...

i am apprehensive about the 24-70 not having IS, i am sure it helps me out greatly on my other lenses. maybe before i make this next purchase i will rent both of the lenses plus the 17-55mm and then make a slightly more informed decision. as it is a lot of money if afterwards you realise you have made a mistake!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top