??? Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L vs. 24-105mm f/4L IS

  • Thread starter Thread starter englandshottest2
  • Start date Start date
E

englandshottest2

Guest
hi guys, was wondering if maybe you all could help me out of this 'toss-up' situation i seem to be in :(!
i really am torn between the two of these lenses-
24-70mm f/2.8L USM & the 24-105mm f/4L USM IS

reasons being...
i've got the 70-200 L glass lens from Canon, and instantly became aware that I needed to upgrade to L glass throughout my kit, as the noticeable difference is amazing compared to without. Those two choices are around the length Im after, but problem is, the 24-70 is not IS (which will be a pain at weddings, and will have to drag out the monster 70-200 for those in-church shots), and the focal range isn't huge, and is about £300 more than the other choice
but.... the 24-105 has a not so great f/4, but is longer focal range and has IS & is still L-glass, and cheaper I might add...

I haven't heard many reviews for the 24-105 so am a bit worried about getting it over the 24-70, as I know basically you get what you pay for with glass, it's just that both seem to have pro's and con's that equal each other out!
Anybody have any feedback on either of them I could put towards this decision??? would be much appreciated!!!!
 
the 2.8 is a small range zoom designed to maximise IQ and offer a fairly fast aperture. the f4 is jack of all trades lens and frankly doesn't excel at any one thing.

the f4 is a good tool to have in the kit as it can turn it's hand to more situations than just about any other "walkabout" zoom but it's not even close to class act the 2.8 is for smooth bokeh and overall sharpness.
 
Daz is right on the money there, exactly why I picked the 24-105 :thumbs:
 
dazzajl said:
the 2.8 is a small range zoom designed to maximise IQ and offer a fairly fast aperture. the f4 is jack of all trades lens and frankly doesn't excel at any one thing.

the f4 is a good tool to have in the kit as it can turn it's hand to more situations than just about any other "walkabout" zoom but it's not even close to class act the 2.8 is for smooth bokeh and overall sharpness.
Click to expand...

In fact, having them both in your Arsenal isn't a bad idea (if you can afford it) as they do different things.

Much better portrait potential from the 24-105 though, but the 24-70 is also a great walkabout lens.

Steve
 
exactly why I picked the 24-105
Click to expand...

Me too but I suspect we'd have both rather have been able to get away with the 24-70. :lol:
 
Well TBH I've looked at it a couple of times but it's never impressed me wide open compared to my primes at f/2.8 so I just couldn't see myself using it wider than f/4 so I passed on it. What can I say, I like my primes :lol:
 
pxl8 said:
Well TBH I've looked at it a couple of times but it's never impressed me wide open compared to my primes at f/2.8 so I just couldn't see myself using it wider than f/4 so I passed on it. What can I say, I like my primes :lol:
Click to expand...

I'm wondering whether 28, 50, 85 and 100 primes would be a better investment than the 24-70.

A lot of potential lens switching though :(
 
rdh said:
I'm wondering whether 28, 50, 85 and 100 primes would be a better investment than the 24-70.

A lot of potential lens switching though :(
Click to expand...

I think that's the nicest way to work personally. Each lens has its own personality and you do react differently to each and that in turn, opens up your creativity.
 
Another vote for primes here, I find myself shooting 'lazy' if I use zooms.

Loving the 35 1.4 on the 5D at the moment, although I seem to drift around different favourites at different times.
 
I settled on to 24-105 even though it over-laps my 70-200
I decided I wanted the extra reach & IS more than the "2.8"
I am more than happy with it :thumbs:
 
I have exactly the same problem. I have the 24-105 and I've found it to be pants in low light IS or no IS.

I bought a little Sigma 24-70 f2.8 just because I had the offer of one cheaply so I could try it out and see if I liked the range and the f2.8. The idea being that if I liked it I could save up for the Canon version and I could always sell the Sigma.

I thought it would help crystalise my thinking and it made it even worse! I find I have to get closer to the subject and found that it was doing the focusing between subjects trick at a recent wedding. :nono:

TBH I don't really like it and when the light permits I'd much rather use the L glass. (I know I'm comparing Sigma here and not Canon vs Canon)

24-105mm f2.8, That's what I want, what I really, really want.........
 
hmmmm oh dear :(. lol. the prime lens idea sounds great, but at weddings, that's a lot of switching, or moving back and forth ;). hmmmmmmmmmmmm decisions decisions
 
Two bodies is the way to go, one for wide, one for detail :thumbs:
 
hmmmmmmmmmm

can see this is gonna get more expensive than the original idea (lol)
by the looks of things if my mind goes the way it should, that'll be another nice new camera body, and two wide-ap. prime lenses :eek:

but may actually solve the problem :D
 
but for all you wedding toggers out there, how do you overcome the problem of no I.S. on your lens when shooting in low-light and no flash aloud situations (i.e. church)...i always relied on my 28-135 in the early days, then the 70-200, but I can't imagine without.....?? theyd come out rather fuzzy :thinking: ... tripod/monopod yes, but who wants to cart that around with two camera bodies as well :lol:
 
Never use a mono or tripod just good hand holding technique and shooting wide open with fast lenses. If you can find a wall or pillar to lean against or get down on one knee - whatever works :thumbs:
 
pxl8 said:
Never use a mono or tripod just good hand holding technique and shooting wide open with fast lenses. If you can find a wall or pillar to lean against or get down on one knee - whatever works :thumbs:
Click to expand...

:agree: this is becoming a habit

Hi ISO, good technique, fast lenses
 
englandshottest2 said:
but for all you wedding toggers out there, how do you overcome the problem of no I.S. on your lens when shooting in low-light and no flash aloud situations (i.e. church)...i always relied on my 28-135 in the early days, then the 70-200, but I can't imagine without.....?? theyd come out rather fuzzy :thinking: ... tripod/monopod yes, but who wants to cart that around with two camera bodies as well :lol:
Click to expand...

I shot a couple of weddings with a Tamron 17-50 2.8, Speed over IS. 2.8 gets you the shot, F/4 + IS may give you the shot only if people stay still and in a wedding, who knows !

There is a reason why the 24-70 is THE lens for wedding togs, the 24-105 is just not fast enough. As for how to overcome the really dark situation? Lean on something, technique, higher ISO, and double tap the shutter.
 
hmm well always lean on my knees or the benches in the church!
 
^^ yea but by the time the champagne comes around, you can use flash :D
 
errrmmm well the lefty goes underneath the lens and the righty holds the body
 
englandshottest2 said:
errrmmm well the lefty goes underneath the lens and the righty holds the body
Click to expand...

But which hand takes the weight? All the weight should be on the left, your right hand should be relaxed not tense. Tuck your left elbow into your body. Then you're transferring the weight down your arm and into your body giving a much firmer stance. The right hand is relaxed and you can squeeze the shutter - some people roll their finger across instead but I never liked that method. If you're tense you lose fine motor control and that will cause camera shake.

Practice, practice, practice and on a good day you'll be able to get away with shutter speeds half the focal length without IS.
 
and extend your first finger along the length of the lens
 
And press the shutter when you reach the end of your breathing cycle, i do it when i breath out, snap and then breath in again.
 
hmmm now the lens thing issue is sorted, now the fun will be trying to find a new 2nd body (as no way the 350D is gona get used unless of an emergency!)... can feel my muscles getting beefier as i think (all that weight!) :D.
 
I am looking to get the 70-200L at some point but right now the 24-70L stays on the camera 90% of the time. I don't often use it wide open but it's good to have the option and now and then where I am in a darkish room and I dont want to use much flash I will open it up and go for higher ISO - no more than 400 if I can help it though.

You want to swap your 70-200 for my 24-70 for a couple of weeks to try it out? ;-)
 
AndyB said:
no more than 400 if I can help it though.
Click to expand...

Can I ask why ? Especially as I notice you have a 5D, it produces great results at high ISOs
 
i'd be dead lost without my 70-200, it gets used for most of my work :D, i do like my little cheapy nifty-fifty (50mm f/1.8 MKII), that gets used tons at weddings during the preparations, etc. Most of the time the aperture is bumped up to 2-ish though, as I still haven't really found much use for anything under the 2 mark, unless im standing far away from the subject of course! lol
 
i never shoot past 400, 500-ish if i HAVE to, but honestly, the images are corrupt otherwise!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top