Canon 24-70 f2.8 vs Canon 24-105mm f4

K

Keith Fusco

Messages
334
Name
Keith Fusco
Edit My Images
Yes
I've been after a 24-70mm lens for a while now, but they seem to have jumped up in price quite a lot, so I'm looking at alternatives.

I wanted the 24-70mm due to the F2 number, but is the F4 ok?

It'll be mainly used for weddings, portraits, car shoots etc. I have a Canon 580EX II to go onto the camera too, so if it's dark, I can use that...
 
This is a much-discussed topic. Some prefer the length of the 24-105, and the IS, but in my opinion there's no replacement for f/2.8 of the 24-70.

They're both fantastic lenses mind :)
 
How does the IQ compare?
 
The 24-105 is smaller and lighter which may also factor into the decision.

I've never used the 24-105, but all that have them seem to really like them as do the owners of the 24-70.

I've got the 24-70 and really like it, I really don't think the extra reach is anything I "miss" as such, however if i used a 24-105 I might do.
 
I went through the same thought process, along with many other people & bought the 24-70, mainly because of the f2.8, as I can't often use flash & prefer to use natural light whenever possible anyway.
Also for me, haivng a 70-200 f2.8 helped make the decision, as I have everything about 70mm covered in another lens.
 
I went for the 24-105 as I wanted the extra reach and the IS is nice too. Have to say I don't use it a right lot to be honest as I prefer the 17-40 but thems the breaks.
 
i sold my 24-105 F4L IS, which was a very good copy, to buy a 24-70 F2.8L.....I wish I'd done it earlier. Despite having one of the best copies ive ever seen of the 24-105, the 70 is still better, less distortion and sharper yet again!

One of the biggest differences though is in the autofocus speed, using an f2.8 lens really allows you to use the cross type af sensors that only come into action on F2.8 lenses, makes it night and day quicker!

Also, the extra shutter speed afforded by f2.8 is more valuable than the IS for any moving subjects.

My 2p: Get the 24-70 :)
 
When I shoot weddings I'm at f/2.8 a lot of the time, and at high ISOs. IS certainly has its place but it will not do as well as f/2.8 at....

- reducing subject blur;
- brightening the viewfinder image;
- increasing selective DOF;
- improving AF accuracy and speed.

You can always used a monopod or tripod as a substitute for IS but you can't do much to replace the loss of 1 stop on your aperture. Bumping up ISO to keep your shutter speed up is only a tiny fraction of the problem solved.

If you've got a crop body then the 17-55/2.8/IS is the better choice, in my opinion, and that way you get f/2.8, IS and a decently wide wide end. Of course, you can't call it an "L", but who cares? It's about the pictures, right, not the red rings. The 17-55/2.8/IS and 70-200/2.8L/IS is the perfect wedding combo in my book (for a 1.6X cropper). If you have a 1.3X cropper or full frame then replace the 17-55/2.8/IS with the 24-70/2.8L and perhaps chuck in the 16-35/2.8L/II for good measure.
 
try this link
I went for the 24-70 based on IQ, as I already had the 70-200 so everything was covered. Sometimes a 24-105 with the extra reach would be handy, save my needing 2 bodies on some occasions. Image Quality was the deciding factor.

Food for thought:- I have heard discussions that canon may bring out a new version of the 24-70 to match that of Nikons, also the current 24-70 was designed for film and not digital so it is due a replacement.
 
I haven't used the 24-105 but went for the 24-70 so won't do any comparing to something I haven't used ;)

The 24-70 is very good, fast and has a good range on a 5D, when I had my 350D however I did find it lacking on the wide end. It can also be a bit heavy, not that it's a problem but with a grip the combo comes in at about 2Kg or about 4.5lbs in old money. It's also quite big with the hood on.

If you don't mind the size and weight then it's a first class lens :) It's the default lens that is on my camera when I go out.
 
I wanted a walkabout lens to replace the kit lens and already had the 10-22. Weight, IS and range sold it to me and I haven't been disappointed, it's rarely off my camera. I've had great handheld shots at 1/8 shutter.
 
I love my 24-70, it's very rarely off my camera, only when I challenge myself to a 10-22 day.
 
Some very good advice here. To add my own experiences - for landscapes and outdoor stuff, my 24-105mm f/4 IS is rarely off my 5D. For people and indoor stuff, my 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is rarely off my 20D. So, with a crop body as you have, and your subject matter, I think I would agree with Tim above...17-55mm f/2.8 IS. Tack sharp lens (y)
 
I have both and the 24-105 is a more handy focal lengh
but I find the 24-70 a better lens as far as IQ goes.
 
But then you could get a 2nd hand 17-55 and put the money towards something else? I suppose it also depends if you wish too upgrade to full frame in the future?
 
Pretty much every Canon armed motorsport journo I have seen in media scrums is using the 24-105. Really versitile bit of kit that I wish was available in some similar version for Nikon...
 
I think you should go for the 24-70 Fusco.
 
Name any job that the 24-105 can do and there is something out there that will do it better. What there isn't, is a lens that can do more jobs than the 24-105.
 
Count me in for a vote for the 17-55. I've used it with my 40d for a wedding and found it perfect for the wide group shots and medium portraits. Personally I wouldn't put anything longer than 17 or 18mm on a crop body for a walkabout/general purpose lens.
 
natjag said:
Food for thought:- I have heard discussions that canon may bring out a new version of the 24-70 to match that of Nikons, also the current 24-70 was designed for film and not digital so it is due a replacement.
Click to expand...

:thinking: How so?

BTW, I'd love to have a 24-70 with IS. Don't fancy paying for it, though!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top