canon 24-70 or 24-105?

17-55/2.8 IS gets my vote as well. Excellent IQ and helpful IS as said before, but just as import.. 17mm at f/2.8 is just so nice indoors where you often just can't step back to get everything in the frame with a 24mm (my house has interior walls - a design flaw clearly). For the f/4 with IS argument.. IS doesn't stop people from moving so it's only half the solution compared to f/2.8 - and with the 17-55 you get BOTH :)
 
I had this issue myself and ruled out the 17-55 as I have this desire to upgrade my 40D to a FF at some point, and I plumped for the 24-105, the extra reach was the issue. Yes you loose an f-stop, but i've got IS and a good flash gun so really don't think that's an problem. & IMO the 24-105 is sharper and more usable that the 24-70.
 
it's bizarre, almost scary... I've spent this morning considering a new outdoor walk about lens, had decided through various reviews the 24-105 looked good.
I log back on here, and lo-and-behold there is a thread about the very 2 lenses I was thinking about.
very strange indeed! :S
 
RacingSnake said:
it's bizarre, almost scary... I've spent this morning considering a new outdoor walk about lens, had decided through various reviews the 24-105 looked good.
I log back on here, and lo-and-behold there is a thread about the very 2 lenses I was thinking about.
very strange indeed! :S
Click to expand...

Not that strange as it's virtually discussed every day somewhere on the planet!

I had the 105 and changed to the 70. Very happy personally. Everything is well documented and clear from the specs. The 105 distorts more wide and is F4 - those were both things I could not live with.

The 105 is lighter, but not if you have to carry a flash unit with you.

Graham
 
I'd have to rule out the 17-55 option (even though it's rated highly) as my intention is at some point to upgrade to FF.
will continue reading as I'm not in a rush... but will continue to read the other 'daily' threads :D
 
24-70 seems incredibly heavy at 950gm! So it's either 17-55 or 24-105 & 50 1.4 would be ideal but a bit expensive. I would like to go FF at some point but it looks like the 17-55 holds its value so not really an issue.
 
The 17-55/2.8 IS is more expensive than the 24-105 L hmmmm both would work fine on my 400d?
 
For those people who are thinking of going FF, and don't want to get the 17-55 f/2.8 because of this, the lens can easily be sold on in the future and will amost certainly be snapped up straight away because of it's reputation. It holds it value and if you buy used and get a bargain, it may even be worth more when you come to sell. You never know, by the time you move to FF, a new FF lens may have been released that beats both the 24-70 and 24-105.
 
lauy said:
For those people who are thinking of going FF, and don't want to get the 17-55 f/2.8 because of this, the lens can easily be sold on in the future and will amost certainly be snapped up straight away because of it's reputation. It holds it value and if you buy used and get a bargain, it may even be worth more when you come to sell.
Click to expand...

I agree, and it will make an excellent kit with the APS-C body for selling. I resisted EF-S lenses for too long because I was fixated on FF.. but the 17-55 is really worth having and I love it. Moving to FF would mean giving it up :lol:

lauy said:
You never know, by the time you move to FF, a new FF lens may have been released that beats both the 24-70 and 24-105.
Click to expand...

In September, rumors say... EF 24-70 f/2.8 L IS on the way and announced in Photokina.
 
Interesting! 24-70 f/2.8 L IS sounds tasty.........I've been wanting a 5DmkII........I can see myself falling for this lens and body combo come September time!
 
I toyed with the idea of a 17-55IS f/2.8 when I bough my 50D.
However, as I mainly shoot outdoors in good light I opted for the 24-105 and the extra focal length is more suitable for me for a walkabout lens.
I really like this lens a lot and the IQ results really impress me.
I have a 10-22mm so that covers super wide angle as an when I need it.
 
I have to agree with most of the posts above, the 24-70 would be my choice, or if you want to save a little you could get a used 28-70mm F2.8 like me?
 
personally, i'd take f2.8 over reach and IS but the 24-105 f4 IS L is a cracking bit of glass for travel . I have both, the 24-105 on my 1dmkIII and the 24-70 f2.* on my 5d.
 
Anyone tried the sigma 24-70 f 2.8 ?
 
I have a 24-105 and I would recommend getting one on a crop sensor camera.
 
I use the 25-105 outside and with flash. It really is a great lens but.....I also use the 20-70 and it's a stonker. If you can afford it, get em both and then remortgage your house for the 70-200 2.8 IS as well.
 
The 24-70mm F2.8 goes well with my 70-200mm F2.8 L is and the 24-105mm goes with my 100-400mm. Problem is these four lenses weigh a lot (Which I carry around with me 7 days a week), so if weight isn't an issue get both !
 
Had the same dilemma. I went for the 24-70 in the end, and haven't regretted it. I wanted the f2.8 over the IS for low light. I don't think there's much to choose between these 2 lenses, maybe try them both? Although that might make it harder to choose! :D
 
MatW said:
Had the same dilemma. I went for the 24-70 in the end, and haven't regretted it. I wanted the f2.8 over the IS for low light. I don't think there's much to choose between these 2 lenses, maybe try them both? Although that might make it harder to choose! :D
Click to expand...

I agree about LL, but to be honest, out of all my lenses, the 24-105mm is my favorite alrounder and most used, excuse me............just gave it another kiss !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top