canon 24-70 or 24-105?

S

sting

Suspended / Banned
Messages
163
Name
Neil
Edit My Images
Yes
I have decided to get either the 24-70 L f2.8 or the 24-105 L f4 as a general use lens. I really want to get the f2.8 as I tend to shoot a lot of photos in low light but do not want to regret not getting the extra reach of the 105. I have a 450d so I am not confident increasing the ISO will make up the difference from 2.8 to 4 any opinions?
 
Get the f2.8!

The f4 is a great outdoor allrounder but indoors I always said mine was the best doorstop I had ;)
 
24-70 F2.8 then save up for the 70-200 F2.8 to assist you for that little bit extra :)
 
Has to be the 24-70, as per the above comments the F:2.8 comes in very handy for both indoors and reducing DOF..

I too have the same lens, it's ultra sharp and in June of this year I will pick up a EF 70-200 F:2.8 IS L to make up that missing length...
 
I see you have a 450D - have you considered the 17-55/f2.8? OK, the build quality isn't L but it's not crap either and optically it is a very good lens, has IS and doesn't weigh as much as the 24-70 if you want a walkaround lens. I guess it depends if you tend to shoot wide or long. If long then one of the L's would be better.
 
When I used Canon I had the 24-105. It's very good...but I really needed 2.8. Don't underestimate the value of the extra stop. I wrongly figured that the IS would make it all OK
GET THE 24-70 you'll be glad you did.
 
I just went for the 24-70, not had the chance to use it much yet but it does seem lovely. If you're really in two minds you could try and hire them both and see which you prefer? See Lenses for Hire thread on here, he's a good bloke and it doesn't cost all that much.
Pip
 
24-70 if you're going to choose between the two, although I had the 17-55 when I had my 450d and that was a corker - L quality optics without a doubt. People say the build quality isn't up to scratch but I disagree; it's not L quality but it really isn't far off and vertainly not enough to make a difference. The dust issue is an annoyance only.
 
i chose the 24-70 as just loved the results got fom it. Yes its heavy but the DOF can be used to great effect. a feature you cant get with the IS on the 24-105.
 
Just to add . . . Rumours are circulating that the next new lens announcement from Canon will be a 24-70 2.8 IS mk II.
 
they're all wrong, f2.8 is too slow these days pick up a trio of primes 28/1.8 50/1. 85/1.8

to answer the actual question 24-70
 
Troglodyte said:
I see you have a 450D - have you considered the 17-55/f2.8?
Click to expand...

Canon EF-S 17-55 F:2.8 IS USM is with out a dout the best EF-S lens for a crop camera, very sharp and the IS really help's in those low light situations. At 17mm is much wider than the 24mm and lighter too...

Think about it - if your plan is not to upgrade to full frame for a while then maybe the 17-55 is a much better option - build quality is outstanding..
 
I was faced with the same choice a couple of months ago, and went for the 24-70 in the knowledge that what I was losing between 70-105 would be covered when I got my 70-200.

Haven't regretted that decision at all, the 24-70 is a lovely lens.
 
I had to make this decision also, and like many others have mentioned, I went for the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM. It has the best of everything.....L quality optics, wide constant aperture, IS to help when handheld, and also is wide enough to use as a walkabout lens. I found that the range between 17-24mm is really useful especially for landscapes and close quarters.

The main downfall of the 24-70mm L is that it doesn't have IS.....and it is a pretty big one considering the price. I'm not entirely convinced that the red 'L' status and build quality makes up for this.

The obvious downfall of the 24-105mm L is that it is f/4 and not f/2.8. This is even worse if you are considering it for low light situations.

The 17-55mm has both f/2.8 AND IS........and it has the extra focal range at the wide end........for low light situations and on a crop body, I'd say it's the best choice and fully recommend it. If you need extra reach, you can do what I've done and get the 70-200mm L for the extra reach at some point, because I doubt you will notice not having 55-70mm focal range anyway....less so than not having the 17-24mm range. The build quality is not as bad as people make it out to be........it's actually built the best out of all of the non-L lenses I've used, and the zoom is very smooth. Definitely doesn't feel cheap. Another bonus is that you can pick one up used for less than the 24-70mm f/2.8 L.

On a full frame body, obviously it would be different, but on a crop sensor the 17-55mm is hard to beat, and many people write it off because it doesn't have the red 'L'.
 
with a 450d you will not see the full potential of the 24-70. 450D is cropped thus the 24 will be x 1.6. Thus you will be shooting really at 38 mm on the wide angle. Like wise in the 70 u wont be shooting at 70 but higher.

Plus read some reviews. The 17-55 2.8 is a perfect match for your 450 and optically Full Frame people wish they had this lens. From reviews I read (not me testing them) it nails the 24-70 IQ wise.


On the other hand if you want reach get the 70-200 L2.8

On a last note dont ever think that u could do without the 2.8 if you had the chioce between the 2 lenses. U dont get the 2.8 when u had the chance and u will regret it indeed
 
i've just got the 24-70L on my 30D - also a cropped sensor. Not as wide as the 17-50 I'm used to, but the quality is awesome and I need the f/2.8 for indoor shooting.
It also means I shall be able to use it to it's full potential when I upgrade to a full frame body, which I intend to be my next big purchase
 
Funnily enough i have had the same dilemma having played with the 24-105 only breifily in Jessops i took a shine to it, only thing i wasnt keen on was the zoom mechanism, really quite stiff but i assume this is because it was brand new, overall the lens is rated very highly but having seen an offer for the 24-70 at £750 i took the risk and have yet not regretted it, its amazingly sharp even up to ISO 500 on my Canon 30D the DOF is brilliant, having never experiened a wide aperure and the use of DOP i was suprised at the different things it would acheive, the extra stops in light were what really made me go for this lens. Look up Fredmiranda and see his review, very honest and mixed opinions from both canon and nikon users alike so no worry over bios reviews. If you have the money i would get the 2.8 it really is lovely but weighs and absoulte ton. :lol:

Hope you can pick one :thumbs:

Regards

Dan
 
Have a look at the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 very very good IQ and cheap £260 from onestop and a much better focal lenght than the 24-70mm on a crop body - then use the money you save to get a 70-200mm f4 L
 
Thank you for all the replies I will have a look at the 17-55mm 2.8 but I have got the Sigma 10-20 for when I need to go a bit wider than the 24. At least it seems clear that I need to go for the 2.8 so the 105 is now not an option. Thanks again
 
Dogfish_magnet said:
Have a look at the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 very very good IQ and cheap £260 from onestop and a much better focal lenght than the 24-70mm on a crop body - then use the money you save to get a 70-200mm f4 L
Click to expand...

Unless you are planning an upgrade to FF in the near future, this is a very sound suggestion. The Tamron may not have the USM or IS, but I have never found the need for it when I had one. A great sharp lens, highly recommended. Also that means you can get the F4 70 200L which is regarded as an amazing lens.

If it were me that is how my money would be spent. Saying that I sold the Tamron and got a 24-70L. But I am upgrading to 5D2 so there is logic. If not my trusty Tamron would still be there.
 
ding76uk said:
Unless you are planning an upgrade to FF in the near future, this is a very sound suggestion. The Tamron may not have the USM or IS, but I have never found the need for it when I had one. A great sharp lens, highly recommended. Also that means you can get the F4 70 200L which is regarded as an amazing lens.

If it were me that is how my money would be spent. Saying that I sold the Tamron and got a 24-70L. But I am upgrading to 5D2 so there is logic. If not my trusty Tamron would still be there.
Click to expand...

I'm waiting for delivery of a Tamron 28-75mm to try on FF - i had the 17-50mm on a 50D and it impressed me that much i thought i'd try the 28-75mm on the 5D2.
 
sting said:
Thank you for all the replies I will have a look at the 17-55mm 2.8 but I have got the Sigma 10-20 for when I need to go a bit wider than the 24. At least it seems clear that I need to go for the 2.8 so the 105 is now not an option. Thanks again
Click to expand...
I have the 10-22, 17-55 and the 70-200 f4L IS. The 17-55 is by far my most used lens. Even though I have the 10-22 it's nice not having to change lenses all the time. I considered the 24-105 before I got the 17-55 and looked at the focal length of what I'd shot recently. It struck me that if I got the 17-55 I'd be changing lenses a lot less.

The 17-55 is a really cracking lens but, then again, so is the 24-70 (my father-in-law has one). You'd probably be very happy with either. It comes down to the focal lengths you use and on which side of the lower weight+IS+cheaper vs build quality+FF compatibility argument you come down on. The IQ on either is so close it's not really an issue IMO.
 
On crop, the 17-55 every time. It is a great lens, had one with my 40D and loved it to bits. It took pictures and held its value like an 'L' even if the build wasn't quite there. Don't read that as it was flimsy, far from it, but both the 24-70 and 24-105 are built like tanks in comparison (with the associated weight).

On FF the extra length of the 24-105 is more important to me than the extra stop of the 24-70. Both are great lenses and it really depends on the subject matter and conditions you shoot in.

Also, I think that I would find myself changing lenses far more often if I had a 24-70 paired with my 70-200 rather than a 24-105.
 
Sigma is a little soft for my liking, i have used my dads 24 - 70 f2.8 sigma and was not impressed maybe it was a bad copy but it also put me off getting the 70 - 200 f2.8 sigma, Canon all the way :thumbs:
 
I've owned both the 17-55 2.8 I.s and the 24-70L. Optically there isn't much to part them if anything so don't worry about IQ of either. L quality is better but you would have to be quite hard on the 17-55 to break it and it feels a substantial lens in hand.
Personally I always wanted a little more reach that 55 but that's my style. That said my 24-70 is now on my new 5d II so that's a moot point for me now as they both pan out the same more or less now.
I don't miss the IS but can say hand on heart that if I had have stayed crop the 17-55 would have never been sold, superb lens!!!!
 
+1 for 24-70L as AliB said
 
Dogfish_magnet said:
I'm waiting for delivery of a Tamron 28-75mm to try on FF - i had the 17-50mm on a 50D and it impressed me that much i thought i'd try the 28-75mm on the 5D2.
Click to expand...

my 28-75 was an apalling flare monster on 50d, sold for 17-50. Coulda been a bad copy though
 
david1701 said:
my 28-75 was an apalling flare monster on 50d, sold for 17-50. Coulda been a bad copy though
Click to expand...

Thanks for that................:'(



It dose appear to be hit and miss , theres a thread over on POTN showing very good results.
 
From the same dilema I chose the 24 - 105 (got it 2 days ago). I won't really be using it indoors without a flash or additional lighting so I dont have a great need for the 2.8.

I did a lot of research and the 24 - 105 seems to be the slightly sharper lens but hey, they're both L lenses so IQ shouldn't be an issue uless you get a duffer.
 
Hi Neil,
well it looks like most people here vote for the 24-70!
I have a 30D and I wanted a walkabout lens and I chose the 24-105 (having had a 28-135).
I use it all the time on my camera both indoors (with external flash) and outdoors when I go walkabout. I find it the most useful range lens for what I want (and I have a 70-200 and 18-55)!
I think AliB's comment is a little unfair on what is a great lens (doorstop indeed).
The question of walkabout lens comes up frequently both here and on another site and the argument always provokes comment. The real issue is what focal length do you use most of the time? I downloaded an analyser from the net and looked at the focal lengths that I used most often, made my decision to buy the 24-105 much easier!
Your mileage may vary.
 
mbscad said:
I downloaded an analyser from the net and looked at the focal lengths that I used most often, made my decision to buy the 24-105 much easier!
Your mileage may vary.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply, this seems like a good idea where did you get this from?
 
Another vote for the 17-55 here, although I do still find myself hankering after the 24-70L sometimes, not sure why.
 
BRASH said:
I did a lot of research and the 24 - 105 seems to be the slightly sharper lens but hey, they're both L lenses so IQ shouldn't be an issue uless you get a duffer.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by IQ?

Ive had a play with my friends 24-105 and love it, but figured the 24-70 would suit me more. But I assume the 24-70 would suit a FF camera better, as ive only got a 400d. But I guess in the long term I will upgrade to a FF (probably the 5d Mrk II) which was one reason I was thinking of getting the 24-70. One think I didnt notice until someone said was that it doesnt have IS :s
 
Great thread, been trying to decide on a fast walkaround lens for a while. Now I've got it down to either the 24-70 or the 17-55. Price wise there's not much in it, probably a guy/macho thing but for the money it would be nice to have the 'L'. Need to put my brain in gear and sort out my priorities - for me wide is probably better than long, but no doubt that will change on an hourly basis (if not more) and weight looks like a factor as well -aaaaargh too many choices as usual.
 
jimmy83 said:
What do you mean by IQ?

Ive had a play with my friends 24-105 and love it, but figured the 24-70 would suit me more. But I assume the 24-70 would suit a FF camera better, as ive only got a 400d. But I guess in the long term I will upgrade to a FF (probably the 5d Mrk II) which was one reason I was thinking of getting the 24-70. One think I didnt notice until someone said was that it doesnt have IS :s
Click to expand...

IQ = Image Quality in this case :)

Also, the 24-70 range is short enough to not really need IS, especially with the f/2.8 and especially when used on full frame
 
Weetobix said:
IQ = Image Quality in this case :)

Also, the 24-70 range is short enough to not really need IS, especially with the f/2.8 and especially when used on full frame
Click to expand...

Ok thanks...I really want one of these top end lenses...but which one and like others have said the Canon 17-55 IS USM f2.8 looks good too :thinking:
 
Having both, I find comparisons between the two a bit chalky/cheesy.

The 24-70 is my first choice for indoor shooting and portraits without fail, but then the 24-105 is better for going out and about (and I'm planning on taking it on holiday instead of the 24-70), just because of the increased focal range and being slightly lighter to carry.

I know, people will say that the IS makes up for the loss of stops at F4 and is thus effectively the same as 2.8 indoors, but you know, you work with what you like, comme ci comma ca.

I'd recommend renting & trying both, and you'll soon see the difference!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top