canon 24-70 2.8 Vs canon 24-105 IS

Andy77

Andy77

Messages
2,543
Name
andy
Edit My Images
No
Hi guys, well im going to buy either of these lens for my new home studio setup, but which do i buy, will be using on 40d (1.6x crop). Advice apprieciated.

Andy:thumbs:
 
That's a no brainer, it has to be the 24-70mm, you can zoom with your feet but there's nowt you can do to change an f4 to a f2.8!
 
If it's for a home studio then the 17-55mm 2.8

You'll get an effective 27-88mm due to the crop of the 40D

That range is more useful, you have the benefit of the 24-70 (the F/2.8) and the benefit of the 24-105 (the IS)

Plus it'll be sharper than the 24-70 is wide open, and almost half the price leaving you with £400 spare to buy a 50 1.4 and a used 580EX

There are few non L lenses as good as an L lens. The 17-55 and 50 1.4 are the only two I can think of.

You don't need 2.8 in a studio, but it's a handy thing to have anyway.
 
Last edited:
These threads come up often but since the search function is busted I'll let you off :P

What it usually ends up coming down to is whether you'll be shooting moving things or not. The 4 stops of IS on the 24-105 is actually more useful in low light than the 24-70, IF you are shooting still subjects. However the 24-70's stop faster aperture means double the shutter speeds for freezing movement. If you'll be using it in a studio then you'll have no shortage of light, and since the two lenses start at the same focal length, I'd get the f/4. You'll save cash, it will be lighter, and you'll be stopping down anyway.
 
Last edited:
Gel said:
If it's for a home studio then the 17-55mm 2.8

You'll get an effective 27-88mm due to the crop of the 40D

That range is more useful, you have the benefit of the 24-70 (the F/2.8) and the benefit of the 24-105 (the IS)

Plus it'll be sharper than the 24-70 is wide open, and almost half the price leaving you with £400 spare to buy a 50 1.4 and a used 580EX

There are few non L lenses as good as an L lens. The 17-55 and 50 1.4 are the only two I can think of.

You don't need 2.8 in a studio, but it's a handy thing to have anyway.
Click to expand...

This is only good advice if he never aims to go full frame. Otherwise he'll have to sell this lens and buy either one anyway so if you have aspirations to go full frame then go for the L lenses.

Sure you can sell the 17-55 and you won't lose too much but it's still a pain to have to do so, depending on when you might go full frame
 
It's a pain to sell a 35mm 2.0 but one of the most popular EF-S lenses would sell like a hot cake.

I bought my used one for £550 and when I went full frame it was posted out my door in under 3 days for a £25 mark up.

I feel it's more important to work to the perceived weaknesses. Home Studio, not particularly deep or wide. the long end of even the 24-70mm would be a 116mm equivelent.

For example, I have a 7 metre long garage, of which on full frame I shoot mainly at 50mm to get the whole of a subject in with them 1 metre from the background.

If I was using a 40d I'd have to shoot the same subject at 31mm for the same framing.
 
joescrivens said:
This is only good advice if he never aims to go full frame. Otherwise he'll have to sell this lens and buy either one anyway so if you have aspirations to go full frame then go for the L lenses.

Sure you can sell the 17-55 and you won't lose too much but it's still a pain to have to do so, depending on when you might go full frame
Click to expand...

Moving to full frame completely changes the FOV of your lenses though, so a reshuffle of the equipment is quite likely anyway. one of the reasons I got rid of the fifty and upgraded to the 85 is because I liked how the fifty looked on crop, but on FF it was just too "middle of the road" for me. The kinds of things that I shoot require a pretty wide lens and one that is a short telephoto. (Urbex, people and a bit of closeup) On crop and FF, that's two completely different sets of focal lengths.

Personally I'd rather not buy for "what if" situations, cos life's too short...
 
Last edited:
I'd definitely go for the 24-70 over the 24-105... I've got the 28-70 (the model that the 24-70 replaced) and it is stunning, it's plenty sharp enough wide open. I have tested it against a 24-105 and it's sharper at through out that range, even stopped down to f8/f11 with studio lights I can stil see a clear difference between the two lenses. I like the IS and the wider range of the 24-105 but for me it's all about image quality so mine will probably end up sold.
 
Just because it's a studio with no low-light problems doesn't mean you don't need a fast lens otherwise why do people use f1.2 etc? Depth of Field for creative purposes etc is important also.
 
Gel said:
It's a pain to sell a 35mm 2.0 but one of the most popular EF-S lenses would sell like a hot cake.

I bought my used one for £550 and when I went full frame it was posted out my door in under 3 days for a £25 mark up.
Click to expand...

yes fair point, knowing I was going to full frame wouldn't have stopped me buying a 10-20 sigma on my crop.
 
gman said:
Just because it's a studio with no low-light problems doesn't mean you don't need a fast lens otherwise why do people use f1.2 etc? Depth of Field for creative purposes etc is important also.
Click to expand...

Plus focusing is easier.
 
I had the 24-105. Always regretted not having f2.8. Sure f4 is plenty fast enough for the studio, but you're limiting creative use of DOF.
 
As a personal preference I would go for the faster lens too. I rarely use any VR/IS I've had to be honest - definitely less so than using 2.8.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top