24-70 or 24-105

just out of interest does anyone know why the 24-70 does not have IS?
 
Most likely as it is faster due to the 2.8. There were rumours going on for ages about a IS version but I don't think it really needs it. Just sold my 5D MK2 and the 24-70 was fantastic. I would say if your a enthusiast and want to travel the 24-105 is a very good range, but if you have some spare change pairing the 24-70 2.8 with the 70-200 and your covered :)

Time to list my 24-70 in the classifieds as I am now shifting back to Nikon.
 
wazy15 said:
Most likely as it is faster due to the 2.8. There were rumours going on for ages about a IS version but I don't think it really needs it. Just sold my 5D MK2 and the 24-70 was fantastic. I would say if your a enthusiast and want to travel the 24-105 is a very good range, but if you have some spare change pairing the 24-70 2.8 with the 70-200 and your covered :)

Time to list my 24-70 in the classifieds as I am now shifting back to Nikon.
Click to expand...

ah ok, thanks for clearing that up. on another note you cant access the classifieds section until you have 100 posts.
 
Ah b****r :( I bought something from classifieds earlier and it allowed me to post in a thread, but may not allow me to make a thread in there :( Looks like the 24-70 will be in my possession for a while then!
 
wazy15 said:
Ah b****r :( I bought something from classifieds earlier and it allowed me to post in a thread, but may not allow me to make a thread in there :( Looks like the 24-70 will be in my possession for a while then!
Click to expand...

well i maybe interested, :thumbs:
 
'Ecky thump. How manytimes has this comparison been aired. I'll stick in my 6 penn'orth. I considered both before I finally bought the 24-105. The reason was simply the extra reach, plus as a bit of an also ran, the IS. As I've never owned a 24 - 70 I can't really comment on a direct comparison but I have never regretted buying the 105. It does everything I want it to. If I really have to work in low light, and flash isn't an option, then I clap on my nifty fifty.
 
I def think the 105 reach does make a difference, saves you having to slap on a telephot when the 70mm doesnt cut it
 
the 70-200 2.8 IS MKII is great, only issue it is heavy if your on holiday :D? The 24-105 is good in such an instance
 
Eighth Avenue said:
Or a bad copy of the 70-200 as mine is noticeably sharper than my 24-105! Not to mention the AF being a hell of a lot better!
Click to expand...

No lol. my 70-200 is my favourite lens - although maybe not the most used. Both sharp. Regards AF I don't see it that much better either? Better yes no doubt as the 2.8 does help but not significantly - although I suppose it depends what you shoot.
 
Last edited:
boliston said:
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.
Click to expand...

Both Pro L series lenses mate.
 
EOS_JD said:
Both Pro L series lenses mate.
Click to expand...

Well, they are not made the same. a photo from a 85L is not the same from a 100L. The price will give you a clue already, there is like a £150 to £200 difference for a start between the two zooms.
 
Raymond Lin said:
Well, they are not made the same. a photo from a 85L is not the same from a 100L. The price will give you a clue already, there is like a £150 to £200 difference for a start between the two zooms.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Would you compare the 200 f/2.8 to the 200 f/2? ;)
 
Well I love my 24-105, use it all the time but it went wrong last week so whilst it's off for repair I've rented the 24-70 as a replacement. I've now shot with it almost exclusively for the last 3 days.

Conclusions? To be honest i prefer the 24-105. I don't find any difference in the image quality between the two lenses, the 2.8 is useful in the studio for small depths of fields but the lens is heavier. I've missed the extra reach only a couple of times.
I do find the lens cap weird on the 24-70 as I mounts part way down thenlens, not on the end.
 
boliston said:
At least with Nikon it's more clear cut what is pro and what is not - there are the trinity pro zooms and there are the other zooms, none of this "red ring=pro" confusion.
Click to expand...

I say it's the other way actually. Its clear what's prof and what's consumer with canon.
 
With Canon you have 1 series bodies and L lenses but I do wish that all this pro / consumer snobbery stuff could be dropped.

I'm pretty sure that people making a living from photography are able to choose equipment that'll do the job regardless of what the badge says.

I'm pretty sure that there are pro's making a living from xxD and xxxD bodies and consumers using 1 series bodies. I'm also sure that plenty of pro's use non L lenses (even third party lenses-shock horror) and that consumers can enjoy L lenses even if they never make a penny from their hobby.

So why should gear be classified as pro or consumer?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top