canon 24-70 f/2.8 vs 24-105 is f/4L

phildaintith

phildaintith

Messages
325
Name
phil
Edit My Images
No
im in a bit of a dilema here- going out to buy a 5dmkii tomorow and im stil undecided as which lens to go for- the 24-105 is a few hundred cheaper which means i can also get a big of dolar towards a wide angle lens (17-40)

i shoot alot of night stuff but never really go below f4, is there much difference in both lenses in terms of image quality etc
is there much weight difference between the 2 as this would be more of a walk about lens and i tried a friends 24-70 and found it quite weighty

any help is much appreciated, phil
 
The biggest downside is the extra weight of the 24-70 about 300g more I think (about 1/3rd of the weight extra). I was in a similar situation as you choseing between the 2 lenses. I was dead set on the 24-105 and even went to a few shops in LA to buy it, fortunatly it was out of stock and when I got home I realised the importance of that extra stop of light you can get in with a f/2.8 over the f/4.

Image quality is awesome from the 24-70 it is pretty much always on my 500D and I only swap the lens if I am primarily shooting either long or UWA. Being on a crop its not that wide but I do get the extra length which I think I would miss a little on a full frame body but with the 5D over the 500D you can bump the ISO up a few more stops without an issue and compensate a little for the loss of 1 stop. The place you will miss out is the low light focusing speed and accuracy of the 2.8 over the 4.

Tough call good luck with it.
 
I have just got the 24-105 on my new 5d2 . like you, traded up from my 40d. What I miss is the f2.8 of my 17-55, but love the extra reach as it overlaps my 70-200 a bit which saves me changing lenses so often. It is a great walkabout lens.

I'd be tempted to do the 24-105 + 17-40 thing as they are both superb lenses.
 
just about to go for a 24-70 - looking forward to seeing what it produces, hoping the weight won't be an issue
 
Here we go again! Have a look on photography-on-the-net for at least a million threads on this very topic.
 
I've never found it heavy myself even on a 1D body with flash (often actually accompanied by anoher 1D.)
 
If you think your in a dilemma now wait till they release a 24-70 f2.8 IS :thinking:

I was in the same situation a few weeks back, deciding what to get for my new 1D after upgrading from a 30D. I got the 24-70 for the extra stop, the camera has extra sensitive focus points for 2.8 lenses and it just fits neatly with my 70-200 2.8.

I don't find the 24-70 heavy, but must say on a FF the 24-105 must be the ultimate walk about lens. As has been said there are thousands of threads on this choice, but basically do you want the extra stop or IS.
 
Had to make the same decision recently, settled on the 24-105 and don't regret it for a second. The IS compensates for the smaller aperture, better range on the FF sensor, a bit lighter and saves a few quid without it being an obvious compromise.
 
Its taken over completely from my 24-70 which I always thought was great. Hardly any difference at all at the wide end, lighter and extra length. Unless of course you want 2.8 (y)
 
I went for the 24-105L. And I would again. Fantastic lens, great range, IS, not too heavy, cheaper.

If it's the difference between getting the 17-40L and not, well, that surely clinches it in terms of all round picture potential with your new camera? The sensible choice.

The only problem is, that 24-70L is utterly gorgeous... :D
 
Little John said:
Image quality is awesome from the 24-70 it is pretty much always on my 500D
Click to expand...

Yep agree but once i put mine on a FF the IQ dropped drastically at the wide end whilts the narrow end reamined sharp. have i got a lemon or has other observed this?:thinking:
 
I sold my 24-105 last week after buying a 24-70 and I have to say at the moment I'm really missing the 24-105 :(
 
LOL I am sure all the replies on here have confused the hell out of you now. Everyone loves both lenses as they seem to be great peices of kit, I know the 24-70 is and those with the 24-105 say they love theirs so the only thing I can see is that you will like which ever one you choose.

In your shoes I would probably get the 24-105 with the kit, and hire a 24-70 and see which you prefer. The 24-105 seems to sell much easier than the 24-70 on the 2nd hand market as there are more people out there who will spend £600 on a lens than £950 just incase you wish you had the other one.
 
you guys sure know how to confuse me and make me stil even more undecided aha- whats the image quality like on both? does the 24-70 come out sharper? im probably just nit picking here im sure being L lenses the quility will be spot on either way?
 
This has got to be one of the great dilemmas in recent photography history; 24-70 f/2.8 or 24-105 f/4.

For a mere mortal, I seriously doubt you'd see much difference in picture quality. They are both sharp, with great colors.

Various reports suggests that 105 it *slightly* sharper at it's wide aperture, whilst you need to stop down the 70 about 1-2 stops to get full sharpness.

In end, it depends a bit on what you shoot. f/2.8 is great for low-light situations with moving objects, and it provides great bokeh (Japanese term for depth-of-field blur). f/4 + IS will provide you equally, if not better, low-light opportunities but for static objects. The 70-105 range is great for portraits.

I personally use a 24-105 on my 5D2, and I couldn't be happier. I haven't yet wished I had the extra stop light, but I have been glad I've had the extra reach. Though having said that, I sometimes ponder if I should switch to 24-70... It just looks so good on paper! ;)
 
24-70 may be a stop faster but the IS on the 24-105 will offer 3 stops advantage so for still objects it essentially becomes an f/1.4 lens in terms of how much light you can get in a sharp shot. The only thing you won't get is the shallow DOF effects of a faster lens and in dark areas, or indoors it will be useless at freezing movements unless you flash it.

Given it's cheaper and lighter than the 24-70 I'd be inclined to go for it... I'm not all that fond of slow lenses but the IS and other savings do make up for it.
 
I will offer you the chance of trying the 24-70 but seeing as you probably haven't tested the 24-105 you will have nothing to compare it to so makes the exercise a little pointless. I'm not that far away just at the bottom of the M61 if your interested.
 
Love my 24-105, the focal range is great. I had the 17-55 when I had a 40D and I thought that I would miss the f/2.8 but in practice for same focus distance and equivalent focal length (and image plane size), you get shallower depth of field from f/4 of FF than f/2.8 on crop anyway.

The only issues I have had is the focusing abilities in very low light. This is only a problem as I know the 5Dmk2 can take very acceptable high ISO shots in very low light but this doesn't help for focusing in the first place.
 
In photographic terms I guess its extra stop against extra reach + IS. I went for the extra reach of the 24 - 105 and I've never regretted it, but then I've never used a 24 - 70 brick to compare it with.
 
The weight isn't that much of an issue and I have a plastic camera but it does need the grip on there to ballence things out better.
 
I think the 24-105 is the better walkabout lens due to the IS and extra reach. Also, a lot of people forget that f/4 @ 105mm produces more background blur than 70mm @ f/2.8 if that is the primary objective.

I almost thought of trading my 24-105 for the 24-70 recently but the extra reach is sooo useful and in my case I have other fast primes / zooms (50 1.4, 135 f2, 70-200 2.8) that I decided the 24-70 wasn't adding much to my arsenal.

Having said that, if I didn't have any primes or a fastish longer zoom the decision would be much harder.

HTH

Phil
 
In exactly the same situation, I went for the 24-105. It's just better as a walk-around lens - lighter, longer range and cheaper for it. IS helps a bit for low-light performance which takes the edge off that benefit of the 24-70mm. And as far as playing with DOF goes, a cheap prime is always going to offer more.

So I went with the 24-105mm. It's ace.
 
my 24-70 arrived last week, weight is fine, feels well balanced on 5dII - top notch build quality, hood bag etc. Haven't really given it a proper outing yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top