Canon 24-70 2.8 or 24-105 F4

H

HASNIC

Messages
11
Edit My Images
No
Out of those two which would you recommend to compliment a 70-200 2.8 as a more general lens, and why?

I'm swaying to the 24-70 2.8 but I think i need convincing?

This will be on a 40D by the way:)
 
I've just swapped my 24-70 for a 24-105. I think it depends what you want it for. The smaller, lighter lens with IS seemed more appropriate as a walk around lens for me. Also, a bit of overlap in lens ranges can be useful. I found myself wanting the 70 to be a bit longer a number of times.
 
a better option in my opinion would be the 17-55mm if you have the 70-200mm already for added reach.
 
That's my worry, about not having the reach on the 24-70 and having to chop and change between the 24-70 and the 70-200 more often than i'd really like.

I think it's going to be a case of trying to find somewhere that has both in for me to actually try them on a body and see how i feel afterwards.

I just keep being swayed by the 2.8 of the shorter lens, but I suppose everything ends up being a trade off at some point!
 
I swopped my 24-105 with Paul (Grumpybadger) for his 24-70 & find it much more suitable for my work but I like low light stuff, the IS & longer reach is not to be sneezed at but for my work the 24-70 was more suitable.
All depends on whether you like the range & need the extra stops over the IS imo
 
I got the 17-55 EFS IS f2.8

instead of the:
  • 24-70, because it's wider, cheaper and has IS
  • 24-105, because it's wider and f2.8 and dont need the overlap with the 70-200

oh and the IQ of the 17-55 f2.8 is wayy up there with the other 2 even tho its got no little red band

HTH
 
walls said:
a better option in my opinion would be the 17-55mm if you have the 70-200mm already for added reach.
Click to expand...

I have thought about that, but then the aim is to treat myself to a 16-35 2.8 II in the early part of next year, so kind of discounted the 17-55mm?
 
Personally as a user of both the L Series 2.8 70-200 and L Series 2.8 24-70 I would opt for the 24-70, this is not because I have one but purely for the reason that it fills the range the 70-200 is not cabable of. Ie I found that if the 70-200 is providing me with little le-way then the 24-70 is usually perfect for the job.

-Xclam
 
depends on what you like to shoot...the 17-55mm may not sell itself in the shop...it's only when you're in a real, and in this country, a common low light situation when you'd kill for IS and a fast lens.

dunno though.
 
I've got the 24-70 but will probably get the 24-105 at some stage as well. Reason? The 24-70's great for low light stuff but it's slightly too short for most of what I do. Different lenses, both very good in their own way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top