28-70 F2.8L or 24-105 F4L

John Middleton

John Middleton

Suspended / Banned
Messages
73
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
I've had L series in the past and still use a 17-35 F2.8L. About 10 years ago, I sold my 70-200 F2.8L and also my 28-70 F2.8L I loved both units, but ended up selling it during a business venture start up to free up some cash. I replaced them with the 28-135 USM that was fairly new to the market. At the time, I really appreciated the longer focal length. I wasn't using the 70-200 much.

My 28-135 has died (screws loose inside and repair is close to replacement cost) I still have the 17-35 but for a longer range option, which advantage would you go for? Focal length or Aperture?

Used generally, indoors and out.

John
 
I guess what I'm trying to say is this:

Would I realistically notice the difference between 2.8 and 4.0 to be able to get a more zoom?

John
 
I'd chose aperture, every time! I'm not sure why, just personal preference I suppose. If you're going to be indoors, there will probably be a few times where f/4 just won't cut it, unless it's very very well lit or you'll be using flash.

It comes up quite often here, if you do a search I'm sure you'll find pages and pages of debate!

Chris
 
Depends if you want a faster aperture over focal length.
Personally for me a 2.8 would mainly be beneficial in poor lighting conditions but as Chris said, if you are shooting indoors a 2.8 would be favourable.
 
The 24-105 has IS, which I find very useful, but it's still no replacement for f2.8. I like fast lenses, but I'm terrible with camera shake, so I'd opt for the 105 personally.

Also, that 24-70 has a HUGE filter thread, so putting a CP filter on it is expensive (83mm if I remember correctly). I guess it depends what you're going to be using it for.

Steve
 
24-70mm - Better lens.
24-105mm - More convenient lens (range, size, weight, filters, IS, price). And still bloody good.

I went with the latter.
 
Jelster said:
Also, that 24-70 has a HUGE filter thread, so putting a CP filter on it is expensive (83mm if I remember correctly).
Click to expand...

The 24-70L (and 28-70L) has a 77mm filter thread, same as the 24-105L.

Personally, I would always go for a faster lens over range (I suppose you can always crop a bit if necessary), but it depends whether you shoot in low light or need the option to have a shallow depth of field.
 
I've got the 24-105 and find it fine inside and out as I us it with a 5d mkii so can increase iso in low light situations.Depends on how much extra range you need or if you shoot in low light conditions.
 
The question of choice between these two lenses come up again and again. In the end you should base your decision on your style of photography. If you don't know what you'll be doing (i.e. all-around) then 24-105 is probably the better choice.

I have had both, and they are both excellent lenses. Recently I decided to favour the 24-70 simply because I personally find that the IQ is better, and with less distortion. Others will say that they think the 105 is sharper. Basically there's an equal amount of supporters for either lens, and asking for help in choosing will yield equal amount of favourable comments for both lenses.

If I were to make a choice now, having used both lenses, I would go for the 24-70. I don't miss either IS or the slight extra reach of the 105. But I do love the f/2.8, solid construction, and unbeatable IQ.

In the end, they are both great and produces stunning results and you can't really go wrong with either.

I'm sure this reply didn't help you one bit... It's a tough choice, if nothing else just go by instinct! :)
 
I have the 24-70mm. It's a lovely lens, but it's also a big heavy chunk of glass to be carrying around all day.

I've found myself using my 50mm f/1.4 instead of the 24-70mm, because it's so light and nimble.

I think in hindsight I would have gone for the 24-105mm. The 50mm sorts me out for the odd low light situation :)

A.
 
Anorakus said:
I have the 24-70mm. It's a lovely lens, but it's also a big heavy chunk of glass to be carrying around all day.
Click to expand...

I've found the difference of the 280g to be quite negligible; I've carried around the 24-70 all day without any noticeable strain. The only time I really notice the difference in weight is when I try to do one-handed photography; which to be honest is not very often... :)
 
I had this choice to make and I went for the 24-105, I am very happy with it. Sometimes I wish it was a 2.8 lens, but most of the time I am glad of the 105 mm and the IS.
I think which ever one you get you will be happy.
 
Anorakus said:
I have the 24-70mm. It's a lovely lens, but it's also a big heavy chunk of glass to be carrying around all day.

I've found myself using my 50mm f/1.4 instead of the 24-70mm, because it's so light and nimble.

I think in hindsight I would have gone for the 24-105mm. The 50mm sorts me out for the odd low light situation :)

A.
Click to expand...

Interesting you should say that Anorakus, I've been thinking of getting a 50mm f 1.4 for my inside carpet work.

I have a fairly steady hand so that almost dilutes the IS arguement, but I did appreciate the extra focal length when I went from the 28-70 up to teh 28-135.

At this stage, I'm very tempted to go for the 105.

I appreciate the advice and words, thank you!!

John
 
Another one who uses the 24-105 + 50 f/1.4, but then I have got a 70-200 f/2.8 if I need 70mm @ f/2.8.

Phil
 
That extra weight could be a concern for tramping (I don't know what you call that in the UK, but downunder a bush walk or hike into the mountains is a tramp)

Last year we went on a 4 day tramp and weight is crucial. Every gram matters. In fact, usually I'd only look at carrying one lens instead of 3 for the longer trips if I can get away with it.

John
 
If weight and mobility is of paramount importance, go with the 24-105.
 
I see the 24-105 as a full-frame lens. F4 dosen't matter when you've got a 5DII and you can up the iso, but on a crop sensor you might struggle a bit in bad light. You get more shallow DOF too with full frame so again the f4 isn't as much of a compromise if you're wanting to isolate your subject.

why not try the 17-55 f/2.8 IS? fast, sharp, light....
 
It depends on what your main focus is. I have the 24-70 2.8 and it's an amazing lens. I have never missed the IS and to be honest, I think the aperture allows for higher shutter speeds, so you wouldn't really miss the IS that much anyway. Come to think of it, I don't think any of my lenses has IS (need to check that).

For me, it'd be aperture anytime.
 
Anorakus said:
I have the 24-70mm. It's a lovely lens, but it's also a big heavy chunk of glass to be carrying around all day.

I've found myself using my 50mm f/1.4 instead of the 24-70mm, because it's so light and nimble.

I think in hindsight I would have gone for the 24-105mm. The 50mm sorts me out for the odd low light situation :)

A.
Click to expand...

Same sort of story here. Got the 24-105mm plus a 50mm f1.8 for indoor low light situations and this combination has not left me feeling the need for any other combo yet.
 
bomberman said:
I see the 24-105 as a full-frame lens. F4 dosen't matter when you've got a 5DII and you can up the iso, but on a crop sensor you might struggle a bit in bad light. You get more shallow DOF too with full frame so again the f4 isn't as much of a compromise if you're wanting to isolate your subject.

why not try the 17-55 f/2.8 IS? fast, sharp, light....
Click to expand...

It won't fit on a 10D though.....

As a general lens I'd go for the 24-105, the extra range is useful as is the IS.
 
I think the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 will work with a 10D (not 100% sure) as it is a crop lens, but unlike the Canon 17-55IS it can mount on a EF body. My 17-50mm mounts on an old EOS film camera I have (but vignettes a lot) but it should theoretically work fine because the 10D has a crop sensor.
 
Canon EF-S lenses will not interface with a 10D. Whether or not third party crop sensor lenses will, I don't know. Sigma lenses for crop digital cameras are actually EF mount but just project a small image circle.
 
My understanding is that EF-S lenses weren't even invented until a short time after the 10D, so in a similar manner to inserting an NTFS formatted drive into a Windows 98 system (for instance...) the 10D just doesn't know what an EF-S lens is. Whether or not it physically fits is a null point as it won't work...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top