Both great lenses... what will you mainly be shooting... what other lenses have you got in your arsenal?
I went for the 24-70f2.8 myself, as I feel IS isnt needed on such a short lens and my 70-200f2.8IS covers the extra bit of range between 70-105 that the 24-105 gives... The f2.8 to me is more useful for what i need... hand held low light indoors shots where longer shutter speeds arent really possible... this was shot at 1/83 at f2.8, with an f4 aperture id have been at 1/40th which would make it hard to capture a sharp image of someone even with IS due to them moving.
Thanks guys for all your wise words. Are you using any filters covering the lens to protect it? If yes then could you please let me know what works best?
just for the proverbial spanner - I've managed low light in churches and catherderals and such with the 24-105 and been pleased with the sharpness. Dreeder has a point that largely, IS is rarely required with this lens, but at the upper end of the zoom it works.
However, if you're after a moving target, the 24-70 is your lens.
77mm Hoya Pro1 (HMC) is your most economic filter option
I have the 24-70 l, the 70-200 is l and the 100-400 is l and I think its a well balanced set up. For some events I have all 3 on digital bodies. The best thing I find with this set up is the fact that you only need to buy 1 polarising filter. Also I recommend Hoya pro 1 filter as well....Ian
I only use the Hoya Pro1D filters... they seem good, my old 75-300 had a cheapo filter and it was amazingly difficult to clean, these Hoya filters are much easier... must be something to do with the coatings.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.