Lens choices - 5D MKII

  • Thread starter Thread starter gingerweasel
  • Start date Start date

24-70L or 24-105L

  • 24-70L

    Votes: 17 53.1%

  • 24-105L

    Votes: 15 46.9%
  • Total voters
    32
  • Poll closed .
G

gingerweasel

Guest
After a fair bit of research, mind changing , and counting the pennies from my money jar I decided against the 50D and 7D and went straight for the full frame.

This means I have less for lenses but after a previous discussion where Arkady pointed out that I was trying to purchase all my lenses at once without thinking about what I actually needed, I realised that it wouldn't hurt to spend some time with a lens mastering that before jumping onto the next purchase.

Anyhow I will soon have my hands on a 5D MKII and need to hurry up and make my lens choice.

Initially I was thinking 35mm Prime but this may not be the most practical choice (stunning quality though from what I've seen).

This left we with 24-70L and 24-105L as a starting point. I've done so much research and thread reading my eyes hurt and neither one stands out beyond the other.

As I don't yet shoot enough to know what I'd want more (the extra stop or the extra focal length) I'm looking to the TP gang to help me out.

One thing I might be able to do is pickup a 50 f1.4 with the saving from the 24-105L so that might be a consideration...

Help!!!!!!
 
Having used both, I personally found the 24-105 suited my needs, the extra reach more than made up for the f4, and it has become an almost permenent fixture on one of my bodies, It really is a cracking bit of glass, and for the saving over the 24-70 if you can get the 24-105 and a 50 1.4 for similar money personally I would say it was a no brainer.
 
When you get used to using the camera more, you'll probably notice that you really would love the extra stops on the 24-70.

Although the 24-105mm is an absolute gem of a lens.
And the mkII will handle noise pretty well, so you can crank the ISO up in low light.
And it awesome to have a wide lens than goes all the way to 105mm!!!

Guess it comes down to what you reckon you'll most likely appreciate more, the 2.8 goodness, or the extra focal length of the 24-105??
Luckily, if you get either for a good price they would pretty much hold their value, so you could always change over later.......
 
Have a look at this thread

The consensus seems to be that the 24-105mm and a 50mm f/1.4 (or f1.8 if you're skint) is a winning combo. You're unlikely to need to go beyond f/4 for general walkabout photography, and when you need to shoot in very low light or want extreme depth of field effects, the 50mm will sort you out.

The 24-70mm is a lovely lens, but in choosing it over the 24-105mm you're trading extended reach for a larger aperture. For me the former would be more useful. It's also heavier and more expensive. (I have one BTW ;) )

A.
 
Have the 24-105 and a 50 1.4 and 70-200 f4.

They all sing with the 5Dmkii, and I find f4 to be enough on full frame most of the time.

I love that the 24-105 overlaps with the 70-200 as it means I can get the longer FL without always having to change lenses.

Go for it! You could always sell the 24-105 if you didn't like it that much, and make most of your money back!!

Mark.
 
24-105L here.

I added the 17-40L and 100-400L and thats all I need.

I do have a nifty fifty but never tried it on the 5D2 :D
 
Ah, here we go again... :)

I replaced my 24-105 for the 24-70 and I couldn't be happier; in the end I just found the IQ to be better with the 24-70. I don't really miss the extra reach or IS, and the extra weight of the 24-70 doesn't bother me.

Though getting the 24-105 + 50 f/1.4 would be a cracking combination. In fact, you should get the 50 no matter what other lens you get! ;)
 
I know which ever I choose will be a smasher based on all the research I've done. I do tend to think the extra reach will be good for me when I'm out and about but having used the 24-70L before it just feels amazing to use.

at this rate I'll be flipping a coin...

Poll added
 
Without wishing to sound rude, this is at least the 3rd thread in a very short space of time asking the same thing. Both threads contain exactly the same opinions as to whether you want the extra stop for the sake of more weight, cost and lack of IS, or not.

Worth having a little look and read over the last couple of pages of this section for those threads, lots of very worthwhile opinions to confuse you further.

Oh, and it's 24-105 you want ;)
 
It's true this question is often debated and I've resisted posting before. When I had a 5D I had the 24-105, it was good....but always hankered after 24-70. I missed the extra stop. Remember that IS is only useful for static subjects.
Get the 24-70. It's more versatile.
 
@ shine on - Totally understand, I had read those threads already and just wanted to post something more specific to me.

I can say I finally made my decision and stumped up for the 24-70L from Kerso this morning. Having handled the lens before I knew it was a quality piece of kit from a build perspective and being able to use this in the house with the f2.8 is useful to me.

I know I will probably miss the extra reach when I out and about but hey I have the 70-200 on my 'to buy list' :lol:

Now I have to stop lusting over kit and go and learn to take some stunning shots ... watch this space!
 
gingerweasel said:
I can say I finally made my decision and stumped up for the 24-70L from Kerso this morning. Having handled the lens before I knew it was a quality piece of kit from a build perspective and being able to use this in the house with the f2.8 is useful to me.

I know I will probably miss the extra reach when I out and about but hey I have the 70-200 on my 'to buy list' :lol:
Click to expand...

That was exactly my reasoning - with the 70-200 on my shopping list, I wasn't bothered about the extra reach of the 24-105 and went for the 24-70 as you have done.

Haven't regretted that decision so far.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top