Canon 24-70 vs. 24-105

[FocusingOnFlorida]

OK, both bet extremely high marks. My question: Would you prefer the f2.8 without IS or the f4, more zoom, and IS? I am getting one, but have been reading and thinking for the last week and am still deciding. The price is pretty close to the same, both are "L" series glass.

Anybody used one or both.

[Darryl_Lessere]

Just picked up the 24-105 as a all around short zoom.
I love having IS on a nice walkaround zoom with this range.
I also have the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 which I hung onto just in case and for the real DOF trickery I have the 85mm f/1.8.

That said, if I could ONLY have one lens, the 24-105 would be it. I'm sure you'll get a bunch who are 100% against the 24-105 and would only get the 24-70. If you can rent one or both, or even just get into a store and play at the counter for a few moments, it helps a lot.

I have a few links here that may help you.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...s/28-105.shtml

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx

[Max@Home]

Originally Posted by FocusingOnFlorida

OK, both bet extremely high marks. My question: Would you prefer the f2.8 without IS or the f4, more zoom, and IS? I am getting one, but have been reading and thinking for the last week and am still deciding. The price is pretty close to the same, both are "L" series glass.

Anybody used one or both.

Russell,

I had the 24-70 (long before the 24-105 emerged), but have also shot the 24-105. A pre-production copy and some production-examples. Both are excellent lenses, with some known flaws and weaknesses. However, on my 20D/350D the 24-70 was never wide enough for a true 'walkaround', so I traded it in for an EF-S 17-55F2.8 IS, as I do not foresee 1.3x or FF in my near(est) future.

But if I ever make that step, for me it would be the 24-70F2.8L again, as *I* value F2.8 higher than IS in a 'short' walkaround, and I already have been in situations, where ISO1600 (ISO3200 is a no-no in my book if I can avoid it...) and F2.8 gave *just* acceptable shutterspeeds to stop the subject's motion. IS wouldn't have helped there...

But it remains a tough and personal choice, as the 24-105IS certainly has a lot to like too

...*my* €0.02 worth of opinion,

Kindest regards,

Max@Home

[dougsmit]

I strongly oppose the concept of one lensany lens) doing it all so the fact that 24mm is too long hold little importance for me. If you buy either, hold on to you kit lens or 17-40 or 10-22 or whatever. I picked the 24-105 for several reasons:
Both lenses are offensively heavy. The f/2.8 is worse.
I like IS. The heavier the lens, the more I like IS.
I rarely shoot wide open with any lens since I am neither a bokeh addict or an available light fiend. If I'm shooting f/8, the extra range and lighter weight help me more than extra focus brightness/accuracy.
IF I ever go FF, the 24-105 is getting pretty close to a do it all lens but, like I said, I don't like that idea.

[FocusingOnFlorida]

I was looking for a one lens to do everything. I guess I should have given more detail. I currently have:

1) Sigma 10-20mm (Love this lens)
2) Tamron 17-35 f/2.8 - 4 (another nice lens)
3) Canon 28-105 f/4-5.6 (Sharp but not really fast enough and no IS)
4) Canon 50mm f/1.4
5) Sigma 105mm f/2.8 DG Macro
6) Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS (Nuf said)*
7) Canon 400mm f/5.6
Rebel XT
9) Canon 30D

Now a little history:

I have been practicing the art of photography for over 25 years. I started with a Pentax K1000 and collected a bunch of all manual lenses over a period of many years. I just recently started using a digital camera. Never thought I would like a camera that thought it knew what shutter speed, aperture, and where I wanted to focus. I found when I tried a digital SLR that I still prefer to control the shutter and aperture, but the new "stuff" can be pretty good for AF. OK, now the last two places I've worked found out that I know how to properly expose and compose photo not to mention talk the light into working with me.

I have been told to go into the photography business for years, but thought it would take a great hobby and make it more like work. I've avoided most paying customers and referred them to a local Pro friend of mine that has a business downtown. He has told me a few times that there is more than enough business to go around.

Over the past two or three years I have done a few favors for some business folks. Most was making websites. The next thing I know they have talked me into taking a few shots for their new website. Next events. I started making a little money on the side which helped me afford more "toys." Lately, I have found that I really do enjoy doing this for a living.*

OK, this year I am the proud new owner of a new set of White Lightning Strobes, a set of soft boxes that I have had in the shed for years, that nice 70-200 that I traded up for last year. Nice lens for my indoor sports that I never thought I would be shooting. Not bad money BTW. I have set up the business (incorporated), have the business account all set up, and now am adding a small addition on to the house. (yes dc2, Michelle talked me into it)* 8-)

I have been talked into a wedding for a friend that said that one photographer backed out and none of the pro business photographers in the area have the date available. I've avoided weddings like the plague for years. I finally told her that I would do the wedding. She is getting the works. Nice engraved photo album. Full day of shooting, I have been studying formal poses and what is expected with the other tidbits. (she* said she didn't want the formals, but it was part of the deal, if I am going to do it then I want to try it all)* I am throwing in a bunch of photos and as my gift to her, I am going to get a canvas print done. I have always wanted to try one. I'm only charging her $1,200.00

Prior to this date, I am selling the XT, Battery pack, six batteries, the 28-105, the Tamron 17-35, and my Canon 400 f/5.6.

I am purchasing a second 30D, and a lens (one of the choices above). Her wedding is at his house and going to be outside (weather permitting). My current 28 - 105 USM would probably be good for that, but if the weather goes sour and we move inside I at least will be able to use Flash.* I know I will probably be doing more of these and also noticed that at some of the wrestling matches that the 70 - 200 was too much zoom and so I had to revert to another wider lens. Sometimes I was able to use Flash and sometimes not. (I respect the ref's as they are trying to keep the kids safe) The 50 1.4 performed nicely, but didn't zoom which can be an issue with kids coming and going.* I know that some churches and other places don't like to allow flash.* Now, that being said and that I am relatively new to the concept of Image Stabilization, I need a lens to fill the gap between 20mm and 70mm. My first thought was the 24-70mm as it has the fast 2.8 glass then thinking of the 24-105mm f/4, I thought the overlap would be good and that I could probably get by with the f4 do to the slower shutter speed allowed by IS. The 70-200 has both 2.8 and IS LOVIN' IT! Now if the 24-105 was 2.8 with IS or the 24-70 2.8 had IS the decision would be much easier.

If you survived my ramblin's thus far, this may help in helping you help me decide. Canon has the Double Rebates through the 19th so I gotta think quick.

Thank you to the many replies thus far. As usual y'all are great.

[Max@Home]

...if you have 1.6x crop bodies, no plans for 1.3x or FF, and like F2.8 and IS, please also try the EF-S 17-55F2.8 IS...

I am sort-of in your shoes also, being/becoming more-and-more the 'company-photographer'. Events *for me* is 350D+10-22 or 70-200, 20D+17-55 as 'main', the 'gap' between 55 and 70 isn't really there *for me* and my €0.02...

...and all the success in the world acomplishing your own business!

Kindest regards,

Max@Home

[FocusingOnFlorida]

Thanks Max, I have to give ya a Karma for reading through all of that.

I thought about the 17 to 55 but the overlap on the wide end isn't going to be as helpful for me as the overlap on the other end. The 24-70 would just about fit in perfectly and is more of the way I am leaning as I love fast glass. The only thing that makes me think twice is the extra coverage and the IS of the 24-105. Darn Canon (to put it nicely) for making two excellent lenses so close together. I'm sure I would be happy with either. Maybe one of those wedding photographers from the OTHER forum will show up and give their two cents worth as well.

Thank you for the reply Max

[cyclohexane]

I need a lens to fill the gap between 20mm and 70mm.

On APS-C, I don't really shoot much between 24mm and 70mm (actual focal lengths, not equivalents) any more. I don't consider this much of a gap, but that's just me.

thought about the 17 to 55 but the overlap on the wide end isn't going to be as helpful for me as the overlap on the other end.

Based on what you're saying, I think the 24-105mm should work for you, and especially this wedding. Since you'll be able to use flash, f/4 should be fine, and it sounds like you really want the long end more than you want the short end. Hopefully, no one should be moving fast enough that the stop of light lost impacts your ability to freeze motion. If they are, well, you can embrace the motion blur and make it a part of your work.

The only thing that makes me think twice is the extra coverage and the IS of the 24-105.

Extra coverage isn't that big, IMHO. Besides, you've got some room to crop on the 30D. If I were in your shoes (and I wasn't getting a 16-35mm f/2.8 or 17-5mm f/2.8 EF-S), I'd get the 24-70mm. Fast glass stops subject motion, while IS stops yours. It's a lot easier to control your motion than it is to control the subject's motion. Have the 24-70mm on one body, and the 70-200mm on the other. You'll learn pretty fast how to switch quickly without missing shots.

[FocusingOnFlorida]

Thank you for the input Michael.

On APS-C, I don't really shoot much between 24mm and 70mm (actual focal lengths, not equivalents) any more. I don't consider this much of a gap, but that's just me.

I find myself using this quite often for certain circumstances. It really all depends on how close or far I can get to / from the subject. I guess that was a DUH comment. Oh well, It's early.

Have the 24-70mm on one body, and the 70-200mm on the other.

This is what I am currently doing except with my current lenses.

It's a lot easier to control your motion than it is to control the subject's motion.

This is true.

Thanks again.

[Padre]

Russ I have the 24-105 and the 17-55. I like both lens but for all around I mostly use the 24-105. My 17-55 has a bit more contrast than the 24-105 and is reasonably sharp, but at 17 it has a significant amount of distortion. I purchased the 17-55 because I was booked to do a couple of weddings but I didn't use it as much as I thought I would. The 24-105 @ f/4 was good enough for general shots and I pulled out primes to do the more traditional shots. I am thinking of selling my 17-55 to get a 300 f/4 IS. Honestly I don't think you can go wrong with any of the lens mentioned. Good hunting!

[FocusingOnFlorida]

Thank you for the input Padre. I'm still soaking in all the information.

[golfer]

You kind of opened a pandoras box with these two lenses, because both are very sharp. I read you goals ad taking quality photos inside buildings [ basically]. IMO this leaves you really needing the 2.8 lense. For quality photos, where you might also want to shoot wide open [bokeh] with or without flash, the 2.8 is going to be very important to you. In no way am I putting down the 24x105, it is on my next lense shopping list. But, for shooting indoors, the 2.8 or faster would be my recommendation.
By the way, this lense is not extremly heavy, it balances well on my 20D and 5D.
One other thought, since the 30D is a crop camera, have yoiu considered the 18x55, 2.8 lense. From what I have read, this is a very capable lense also.

[FocusingOnFlorida]

Originally Posted by golfer

You kind of opened a pandoras box with these two lenses, because both are very sharp. I read you goals ad taking quality photos inside buildings [ basically]. IMO this leaves you really needing the 2.8 lense. For quality photos, where you might also want to shoot wide open [bokeh] with or without flash, the 2.8 is going to be very important to you. In no way am I putting down the 24x105, it is on my next lense shopping list. But, for shooting indoors, the 2.8 or faster would be my recommendation.
By the way, this lense is not extremly heavy, it balances well on my 20D and 5D.
One other thought, since the 30D is a crop camera, have yoiu considered the 18x55, 2.8 lense. From what I have read, this is a very capable lense also.

That's more of the way I'm leaning (24-70 f2. I feel it would better suit my needs. I already have a 10-20mm and the 50mm f1.4 so I have the wider end covered. I need to fill the gap between 20 and 70. Thank you for taking the time to comment. I notice your are without a Camel Karma. I'll see what I can do about that.

[rpcrowe]

although I really like the image quality I get from this lens, it falls short of my needs in two areas:

1. Size and weight. It is a really big and heavy hunker!

2. Long side. The 70mm is not really long enough for many of my needs.

I find myself not carrying this lens often. I will carry my 12-24mm Tokina along with my 70-200mm f/4L. Nice combination but, I miss the area between 24mm and 70mm which i use a lot.

I really like the focal length combination of my 12-24mm Tokina and my 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens. I have a good copy of the IS lens and I enjoy using it. I tend to do a lot of shooting between 70mm and 105mm with my IS lens, so the 70-105mm will be just what I need.

I bought the 24-70mm f/2.8L at the right time. A lot of folks were dumping perfectly good copies of those lenses to get on the 24-105mm F/4L bandwagon and the prices of used 24-70mm lenses did a sharp drop in price for a while. The nice thing about a used "L" lens is that you can always regain your investment if you sell it.

Probably, my "normal" 3 lens battery will be the 12-24mm Tokina, 24-105mm f/4L and a 70-200mm f/4L IS (I am going to replace my present non-IS lens with this one.

I also have a 50mm f/1.8 MK I and a 28mm f/1.8 Sigma which is a great combination for available light shooting.

By the way, I have read a lot of comments regarding the 70-200mm f/4L being conspicious! I find that I attract a lot of attention with the big front element of the 24-70mm f/2.8L.

I plan to soon sell the 24-70mm f/2.8L and replace it with the 24-105mm f/4L. I believe that the extra 25mm on the long end will be what I need.