24-70L or 24-105L ?

[joaquimjssoares]

Hi Guys,

I need your opinion. I have the 24-105L but can change it for the 24-70L with almost no cost (£50 to be precise). Which one would you choose and why? Is the 2.8 the only advantage, or is the IQ really better with the 24-70?

Thanks for your opinions.

Joaquim

 

[susie]

It depends what you want it for and if you need the f/2.8 for low light.
I have just sold my 24-105 and bought a 24/70 because I do need a lens for low light pictures, but the 24-105 was a good weight and range for a walkabout if I had wanted that sort of thing

 

[BertRoot]

I like the 24-105 for the extra length it gave me over my previous Sigma 24-70 which was also a 2.8, granted it wasn't a Canon L series but the IQ was great on it. I also like the IS on the 24-105 but to be fair this question has been asked a dozen time on here and gets different views depending on the needs of the punter.

 

[barrypriddis]

I think with lenses you get what you pay for. I have the 24-70 f2.8 and have never been disappointed.

 

[Chappers]

The 24-105 does have IS but the 24-70 doesn't. But the 24-70 is a 2.8 against the f4 for the 24-105

I've the 24-105 cos of the longer reach and IS. I have hand held down to 1/10 second with it but wouldn't normally do that without some support.

To be honest whichever you chose you won't be disappointed. it boils down to

Do you need the 105 focal length?
Is IS important ?
Is f2.8 important ?

It's down to ticking the boxes and see what comes up as the best option.

 

[cmonkey]

There are advantages and disadvantages 24-70:
+It's 2.8
+It's optically better, better bokeh, narrower depth of field
+The hood is more effective

-It's heavier and less compact
-It's more conspicuous
-Less telephoto reach
-Doesn't have IS

I personally went for the 24-105 as it's more compact and 2.8-4 is only one stop which isn't bad given the usable ISO range on most cameras.

If you have a crop consider the 17-55 F2.8 IS too.

 

[mbscad]

The 24-105 does have IS but the 24-70 doesn't. But the 24-70 is a 2.8 against the f4 for the 24-105

I've the 24-105 cos of the longer reach and IS. I have hand held down to 1/10 second with it but wouldn't normally do that without some support.

To be honest whichever you chose you won't be disappointed. it boils down to

Do you need the 105 focal length?
Is IS important ?
Is f2.8 important ?

It's down to ticking the boxes and see what comes up as the best option.

Well Said Chappers

 

[rpcrowe]

1. Should I use a UV filter to protect my lens?

2. Should I buy a 70-200mm L series lens with or without IS

3. Should I buy a 24-70mm f/2.8L or 24-105mm f/4L IS.

Each poster answering the above questions has his or her own ideas - mostly very valid.

I have a 24-70mm f/2.8L which I use mostly for studio work. I replaced this lens with the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens for outdoor work which I use in conjunction with a 70-200mm f/4L IS lens on a pair of 1.6x cameras.

I always needed to carry a wide lens when shooting with the 24-70L but can do 90-95% of my shooting with the above two lenses.

If I were shooting outdoors with a fill frame camera, I would probably use a 16-35mm f/2.8L and a 24-105mm f/4L IS because of the longer end of the 24-105mm and its slightly lighter weight.