24 - 70L or 24 - 105L?

Cris_L

Cris_L

Take That's Biggest Fan
Messages
1,923
Name
Cris
Edit My Images
Yes
Well I've decided to bite the bullet and get eithetr one of these lenses. Will be mostly for home studio portraits where currently I hardly ever go past 50mm but there are times when i need a bit more. I may also upgrade to full frame next year.

also want it to be general use for walkabout etc?

which should I go for? I'm more towards 24 - 105
 
Don't know about studio work but for walkabout I'd get the 24-105 although 24 on a crop sensor really isn't wide enough for walkabout, which is why I've stopped using my 24-105 and use a 15-85 instead.
 
There are oodles and oodles of threads on this topic. Do a search and you'll find plenty to read. :)
 
another vote to do a search. people hate repeating themselves :)
 
My vote is the 24-70L for the following reasons:

1. It's f2.8
2. If you don't go much past 50 and only need a "little" more reach it should be long enough.
3. Whilst not good as a "walkabout" lens on your 500D if you go to a 5D in future it's the perfect walkabout match.

The only thing to consider is that if you use a 24-70 on you 500D then go full frame in future you may be surprised by the lack of reach that you're used too, though then you will get a much wider outlook at the other end of the scale.

My suggestion to you, hire both and see which suits you :)

I've currently got the 25-70 on hire and after using it all weekend for my little boys first birthday party it's the perfect match for my 5D and I shall be buying one. Hiring is a great (and not all that costly) way of seeing is an expensive lens if the right choice or not IMO :)
 
Speaking as the owner of a 24-70, which I love, for your described use I'd recommend the 24-105 in a heartbeat. My favourite studio lens is my 70-200 on full frame, and often I'll use it at around the 150mm mark, especially for headshots. I'll also shoot at around f/8 or so, which makes the fast aperture of the 24-70 entirely moot. Personally I think you'll find the extra focal length far more useful than the extra stop of light, and more so if/when you move to full frame.
 
Thank you for the replies. I am leaning towards the 24 - 105, then I'm still unsure if I want to spend so many pennies on a lens at this stage...
 
Last edited:
24-105



If your thinking of going full frame in the future then imho it will be great...


MD:wave:
 
I've got the same dilemma at the moment. I want to get a 7D and either a 24-70 or the 24-105.

As I've got a 70-200 f/4 at the moment I was leaning to to the 24-70. Still undecided though :thinking:
 
Wookey, if you're staying invested in the APS-C format I think you might want to look at the 17-55 rather than the 24-70. IMHO the gap between 55mm and 70mm is not a big deal, fixed with a little cropping if necessary, but the extra width that 17mm offers over 24mm is huge. Of course, if you have the wide end covered, or have no need to shoot wide then fair enough.

In your position, with 70-105 already covered by your longer lens I'd bag the 24-70 for the additional flexibility offered by the extra stop of light. On a cropper that extra stop becomes more important. Of course, the 17-55 gives you the extra stop, and IS, and more width. It's also smaller, lighter and cheaper than the 24-70. Build quality is lower, but in terms of IQ it is right up there.
 
Last edited:
After being welded to my collection of primes for a number of years, I had the opportunity to pick up a 24-105 when I moved from to a 5D Mk I. I found it slow, and the IQ just didn't compare to my previous lenses.

Sold it and picked up a 24-70, and while I still don't use the zoom as much as the primes, it's my walkabout lens and can just about hold it's own. It's fast, good focal range, and sharp.
 
hmm.. that's thrown the cat among the pigeons... i was all set to go and get a 24-105 for my 5d as a walkabout.. but now i'm not so sure?!?! i have a 70-200 to carry on where a 24-70 would finish off... and i do like the sound of 2.8! :thinking:
 
For walk about either are fine and like you I would probably be looking at the 24-105, but for portraits, and given that you are considering going FF in a few months time, I would be looking at the 85mm F1.8 as it will give you more reach now and most likely become your main lens when using FF.
 
leftcurl said:
hmm.. that's thrown the cat among the pigeons... i was all set to go and get a 24-105 for my 5d as a walkabout.. but now i'm not so sure?!?! i have a 70-200 to carry on where a 24-70 would finish off... and i do like the sound of 2.8! :thinking:
Click to expand...

Those are the two lenses I use most on my 5Dii. 24-70 makes a really good walkabout lens on FF, and the 70-200 substitutes when a bit more reach is needed.

Excellent combination.
 
Have to say I find IS more useful than an extra stop of light....
 
Buttkicker said:
F2.8 over F4 with IS every time for me
Click to expand...

Can always try increasing ISO - though dependant on low-noise capability of the camera sensor.
 
Last edited:
groovyf said:
Can always try increasing ISO - though dependant on low-noise capability of the camera sensor.
Click to expand...

been their got the T shirt and there is no substitute for a fast Lens but having struggled many times using F4 lenses in low light I prefer to have a fighting chance indoors

F4 is fine for outdoors but at the price I think the 24-70 is a far more versatile Lens being good for most shooting situations

as for upping the ISO still have to do that using F2.8 a lot of the time but I like to keep the noise to a minimum
not saying the 105 is a bad Lens - I just think the 24-70 is a better all round performer
 
Buttkicker said:
been their got the T shirt and there is no substitute for a fast Lens but having struggled many times using F4 lenses in low light I prefer to have a fighting chance indoors

F4 is fine for outdoors but at the price I think the 24-70 is a far more versatile Lens being good for most shooting situations

as for upping the ISO still have to do that using F2.8 a lot of the time but I like to keep the noise to a minimum
not saying the 105 is a bad Lens - I just think the 24-70 is a better all round performer
Click to expand...
Really depends what you are using it for. Surely for the OP intended use (home studio and walkabout) where I'd assume a lot of light generally available, the IS would be the better option - assuming they are equally as sharp a lens...
 
Buttkicker said:
been their got the T shirt and there is no substitute for a fast Lens but having struggled many times using F4 lenses in low light I prefer to have a fighting chance indoors

F4 is fine for outdoors but at the price I think the 24-70 is a far more versatile Lens being good for most shooting situations

as for upping the ISO still have to do that using F2.8 a lot of the time but I like to keep the noise to a minimum
not saying the 105 is a bad Lens - I just think the 24-70 is a better all round performer
Click to expand...

That's only true for moving subjects though. For just about everything else the 105 will give the 70 a true rogering, for the IS makes up for the extra stop of the 70, and about 2 more thereafter. Handholding in low light despite being f/4 wouldn't be a problem, but it would with the 70.
 
arad85 said:
Really depends what you are using it for. Surely for the OP intended use (home studio and walkabout) where I'd assume a lot of light generally available, the IS would be the better option - assuming they are equally as sharp a lens...
Click to expand...

With what I saw (mine V my brothers) mine was sharper in fact he never stopped moaning saying he thought it was not sharp

he sold it
and I have a few friends who have had the Lens and are not entirley convinced with it but as stated earlier Its the wider aperture that swings it for me every time

I appreciate what your saying about outdoors and in a studio - but with the price diffence not huge I think its a no brainer to get a Lens for most occasions

I went to the World Rugby League final with an F4 Lens under spotlights a few years ago and did not get a picture worth a carrot - and made my mind up then that the faster apertures are the way to go

I have had a whole range of F4 Lenses over the years and good as they were it always came back to losing images with my equipment letting me down in low light

anyway I had better stop rambling on :D
 
trencheel303 said:
That's only true for moving subjects though. For just about everything else the 105 will give the 70 a true rogering, for the IS makes up for the extra stop of the 70, and about 2 more thereafter. Handholding in low light despite being f/4 wouldn't be a problem, but it would with the 70.
Click to expand...

My point being
I want my lenses to be able to shoot moving subjects as well as static one's
and cannot agree with you at all about the 105 giving the 70 a rogering

I would also just out of interest like to know how many wedding togs use the 70 over the 105

but In guess we will have to disagree about these 2 Lenses

as I said earlier both are fine Lenses but on the strength of what I have seen I would never buy the 105 over the 70

I guess the original OP will make his decision and be a happy bunny with which ever he gets
 
Buttkicker said:
F2.8 over F4 with IS every time for me
Click to expand...

So he should get the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM.

Equivalent focal length of 27mm to 90mm on crop, brilliant IQ, decent build quality. Holds it's value really well should you want to shift it if/when you move to FF.

I would agree that f/4 for home studio portraits would be a bit limiting but I also think that 39mm (24mm x 1.6) might cause you problems too in close quarters.

If you really want a red ring, my usual advice is that the post office sells elastic bands in a variety of colours. ;)
 
Last edited:
Thanks for all the replies guys. It's a tough one, I think the 24-70 might be just outside my price range. Depends if it's really "that" good.

I'm not really fussed if I get an L lens or not, what I'm after is pin sharp iq with versatility. I am a bit concerned 24 may sometimes be a bit tight but i definately nerd more than 55 at the long end I think.

For me it's a hell of a lot if money to spend so I really need to be sure it's the right choice.
 
Hi Chris I moved from a 17-85 to a 24-105 as my standard walkabout lens firstly on a 40D now on a 7D. I find it a geat bit of kit. I think the 24-70 is a fab lens and I am sure the IQ is a tadge better than the 105 BUT it is a very restictive range.

Personally I find the 24 is fine(Ido have a Siggy wide angle if I really need it) and rarely a hinderence.

If you do go for one get an ex 5D white box they are considerably cheaper!!

Hope this helps!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top