canon 28-70L vs 24-105L

E

edinburgh

Messages
26
Edit My Images
No
Just considering to purchase one of these two lenses

Canon 28-70 L f2.8

Canon 24-105 L f4


Anyone used them? especially the 28-70, is it too old? hows the performance in 2.8 aperture? Does it like other old lenses which require aperture one or two step down?

Please advice...
 
Bare in mind that canon can no longer service 28-70 so if anything went wrong help would be hard to find. 24-105 has much better range and IS, unless 2.8 is a deal breaker. Don't expect either to be as sharp as 50mm prime or even 70-200mm wide open - they are too complex for that.
 
OK I am using 7D
having 17-40, 28 1.8, 70-200 f4 IS

I love to snap with 28mm and also love something longer so I bring my 70-200 as well
as you guys can realise that 70-200 is quite heavy for hours or traveling ......

So I want something a bit handy and with a convenient zoom range...

I considered the 24-70 and found some reviews said that it is not that sharp and not value to money...
What do you guys think??
 
Therefore I am considering the 24-105
it is almost the same weight as 70-200 f4 but with a snappy range
 
Have you looked at the 17-55 f2.8 ?

It's cheaper than the 24-105 and on a crop sensor I find the range more usable.

Steve
 
There are a massive amount of choices in the range you are looking at.

What is the biggest contributing factor? Just curious as you have asked about the 28-70 and not the 24-70.

Cheers

Rob
 
daugirdas said:
excuse me, that 70-200mm f/4 is feather light travel lens. Hold 24-70mm and you will see what heavy lens really feels like. If you want 'light' just add 50mm prime.
Click to expand...

It's only 11g heavier Daugirdas, hardly going to have you on your knees before lunchtime is it?

For what it's worth, I have both the 24-105 and 28-70. The 28-70 has better contrast and bokeh (IMHO) but the 24-105 has the advantage of being lighter and a wider coverage. The f/2.8 would be my pick of the two.

Bob
 
I used the 24-105 on my Canon 350D some years ago. Very good lens. Sharp and fast focus. The only downside is that there is not much wide-angle.
 
Canon Bob said:
The 28-70 has better contrast and bokeh,

Bob
Click to expand...

:crying::crying:

Bob knows what I'm talking about lol.

Only problem I found with the 28-70 that I felt it was wide enough, but it is a cracking lens.

Mike.
 
taz said:
What about the 15-85mm, that's supposed to be good.
Click to expand...
Yup, on a crop, that's a great lens as long as you don't need fast glass... Personally, unless the OP has the NEED for L glass or a desire to go FF, I'd swap the 17-40 for the 15-85 and just have 2 lenses - 15-85 and 70-200. Works very well for us :)
 
When I had the 24-105 on my 40D it rarely left the camera, it was certainly a big favourite but the f4 does take a bit of living with.
 
Thanks for the responses....
I have 17-40 and find it is too wide for me to snap...
so the 17-55 2.8 and 15-85 are not a choice for me
I may change it to 10-22 or just a Tamron 14mm for ultra wide trip use

I consider 2.8 more as I am going to snap with it
SO think will go for a good copy of 28-70
if cant then 24-105
 
If you live in Edinburgh you could try out my 28-70 2.8 on Sunday, PM for a meet if available though rain is forecast.
 
I've been pondering the same. I have no experience of it, but the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 seems to get reasonable reviews, and is comparatively cheap. Build quality does not look L standard, and low light af could be better, but image quality seems good and it is light.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top