24-70 2.8L -- vs -- 24-105 4L IS

hmm. I'm just a hobbyist and have been taking pictures in parties and outdoor

events. indoor, i use alot of flash. However, flash does not come handy all the

time.. I'm also learning to take pics for weddings and portrait. and i do some

shootings in my mini studio.

 

have anyone regretted getting 24-105 IS instead of 24-70 2.8? experts, go for

the range+IS or f2.8? anyone?

The choice is very personal IMO. I went with 24-70 and have not looked back, except that I didn't like the oversize hood. Kalo ngga cocok bisa tuker tambah Jo :)

Yes, I have to agree with FD. The choice is personal...I happen to love my 24-105...probably the most used single lens in my bag.

I have both lenses. The 24-105 is my favorite for general wedding shooting because of the range and because I use Quantum Flash (plenty of light). For non-flash though, the 24-70 is my choice. If I had to choose only one for general shooting, it would be the 24-70.

>>>to take pics for weddings and portrait <<<

 

On this criterion, there no issue, IMO, between the two: F2.8 must win.

 

WW

I use the 24-105L and it is a very nice lens, but for weddings and potraits I would go with a f2.8 lens or better still a couple of fast primes, eg 85/1.8 and 28/1.8.

I have to vote for the 24-105, for its versatility (especially in weddings), and in 20 years of

shooting i have never owned a sharper lens. my shooting partner however swears by the

24-70. i just like the extra length, i rarely need the other 3 lenses in my bag, and my next

lens purchase will be a fixed length 1.4 or 1.2 lens to use in low light. is there a rental shop

in your area that you can try both of them out at? that would be the best way to choose.

1. Better walk-around lens = 24-105

 

2. Better at wide end = 24-70

 

3. Better between 35-70 = 24-105

 

4. Better wedding lens (w/out flash) = 24-70

 

5. Better reach = 24-105

 

6. Better for lowlight (static subjects) = 24-105 (f/4 lens w/ 3-stop IS makes it theoretically 2-stops better than a f/2.8 lens)

 

7. Better outdoor events = ? or 24-105 for range, blending in, and lightweight since you'll be moving around a lot

 

As a hobbyist I chose the 24-105 because I don't make money off the bokeh. Nobody can agree on which one is sharper. Contrast good with both. As a pro I might invest in both, with the 24-70 attached to a backup cropped body for portraits. As GF mentioned primes might be the way to go without a flash. You can rent all of these.

You might consider a good, second-hand 28-70 2.8L, which as a hobbyist may be more affordable than the others and offer similar quality.

I also agree with what has been previously said, it is a personal choice. I went with 24-70 and have no complaints so far.

I went with the 24-105 1-1/2 years ago for all the pro-24-105 reasons mentioned above. (I'm not a professional.) That said, it wouldn't be my choice for portraits (I have 50mm and 85mm primes for that, as well as a 70-200/2.8.)

 

If I came across a good deal on a used 24/28-70 in great optical condition I'd probably buy it, but there are a few other lenses (primes) I would otherwise get first.

I would only opt for the 24-105 if for some reason I REALLY needed the extra range. The size is appealing, but it is just too slow for most of what I shoot. The IS is nice, but is not a replacement for an extra f-stop, unless you are never shooting things in motion. I have also heard that the 24-70 is pretty obviously superior as for as image quality, although I cannot tell you from experience. I can tell you that for a zoom, I love the 24-70, and the 28-70, but I have not tried the 24-105. The range is certainly appealing, and if you don't need the speed, and the image quality is good enough for your needs/wants, I'd go for it.

 

Keith

Sutejo, I went through this exact choice myself nearly two years ago.

 

I really wanted to prefer the 24-105 f4 IS. I liked the slightly smaller size and weight, I

liked the extra 35mm of reach over the 24-70 f2.8 and I wanted the IS. I rationalized that I

could always up the ISO to compensate for the stop lost in maximum aperture.

 

After trying them out in the store, side by side on a 5D, I walked away with the 24-70mm

f2.8. I couldn't live with the vignetting wide open at 24mm - very noticable - and there

was definitely an increase in barrel distortion at that focal length over the 24-70. I liked

the slightly brighter viewfinder of the f2.8 lens also.

 

I haven't regretted my decision for a moment, I love the 24-70 f2.8 - it is as good as I'd

hoped it would be in every aspect. I'm sure the 24-105 would also make you happy on a

1.6 crop bpdy, but on a full frame body, I couldn't deal with the limitiation of not being

able to shoot with confidence at 24mm and f4.

The 24-70 has less distortion and chromatic aberrations on the wide end. f2.8 as well as having an advantage in low light also allows background blurring due to the reduced DOF (though not a well as a faster prime for portraits). Both have fairly good sharpness and contrast. For weddings, portrait and indoors the 24-70 wins hands down, and for outdoors the 24-105 has the advantage of the extended range on the long end but at the cost of the distortion and chromatic aberrations on the wide end. If you have one of the APS-C EOS SLRs you might also want to consider the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 USM IS. It's quite a bit sharper than either of the 24-xx lenses with less distortion and chromatic aberrations, though it does have a lot of vignetting when wide open, but at f4 and above it's no longer an issue. I would also recommend checking out the reviews at http://www.photozone.de and http://www.the-digital-picture.com to help with the decision. I have the 24-105 and will either be replacing it with or adding the 24-70 to my kit.

None of the above. For your use I would look at the Ricoh Caplio GX100.

 

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Ricoh/ricoh_gx100.asp

 

I have been wrestling with this for a while. When I want a walk around, party, travel, type of lens, I really want something smaller than an SLR. So my kit now consists of 5D, 16-35II, Ricoh Caplio 24 70mm (35mm equivalent), and the 70-200 2.8 IS.

An interesting suggestion - I'm all for out-of-the-box thinking. In this case, however, and

after reading 3 reviews and tests, I'm surprised that you would give up the the range of

35mm to 70mm on your 5D to a camera whose main negative seems to be excessive noise

(at all apertures, unusable above 400 ISO) when this is such a strong feature of the 5D.

 

Also the DOF and bokeh issues (plus different RAW format) inherant with a small sensor

would seem to be too much of a compromise... The beauty of choice though is that it's

individual and everyone's needs are different.

Again, it is how you're going to use the camera. For me, travel, parties, and walk around...I like it better than a large SLR or crappy compact. For pro wedding photographers...not.

 

Try reading the Ricoh forums instead of the reviews.

I agree with William here. For the intended use, f2.8 wins over IS. Remember: IS does not stop subject motion.

 

While I purchased my 24-70 before the 24-105 was announced, if I had it to do again, I'd get the 24-70 without a doubt.

 

That big hood is like that for a reason. The 24-70 design probably makes the most efficient use of it's hood of any zoom I've encountered.

Thx for the responses everyone.

Sadly, i didnt find any rentals around my area.

but I'm going with 2.8 :)

This is such an interesting post. Cheers for posting this sutejo..I've been wondering about the same options for my new 40D :) (not yet) I think 24-70 covers quite a lot of area although its a personal thing as everyone said here...

 

Bob- read your suggestion and i was like - 'are you taking the piss'? Obviously not - looks like a great camera. Yes and it surely will have its advantages at parties. Big huge camera with all the props can scare people at times . Forking 700 quid for another camera? Oh not sure - I suppose this comes down to personal choice as well at the end of the day..

You know, one way to get a "pulse" from each of the submitters here is to check out their website - if they have one - and determine which style of photography you like best. That will give you some notion of how to "weight" the theories you've been reading.

f4 is pretty useless IMO. Not for speed, but for being able to isolate subjects. I have the 24-70 but I find myslf using fast primes 99% of the time.

<p>

One thing I like about the 24-70 is its pseudo-macro ability.

<p>

I know 2 photographers who've complained about vignetting with the 24-105. YMMV.

check and compare vignetting of your favorite lenses here;

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Vignetting-Test-Results.aspx

"f4 is pretty useless IMO. Not for speed, but for being able to isolate subjects."

 

I'd have to dissagree. We forget. Dof is not just a function of Aperture. It has two other components, focal length and distant to from subject. Bob A had a link to a dof calculator some time ago. Maybe he can post it again. All my zooms are F4 or slower. I like the compact size as compared with F2.8 zooms. Ok I like the price too ;-) For critical/staged portrait work I do use fast primes 35 F2, 50 F1.8 and 85 1.8. But for most of the time F4 is fine. Check out this candid portrait of a child in the patriot parade at F4. I think the backgournd is blurred nicely.<div></div>

Whoops!