Canon 24-70 mm vs. 24-105 mm

<p>I would say the 24-105 if you can live with the F4. Because, eventually all SLR digital cameras will be full size sensors. Then you will be glad for the 105mm. Second, if you shoot film,,you know that roll stuff that goes in the back of the camera, the 24-105 is a fantastic lens on a EOS film camera. Lens is heavy, but that is what you get. I have a 17-40L that is nice on a crop sensor. Wish it had a little more on the strong end. I wanted the 24-70L but had to shoot a building during a remodel & needed the 17mm end. If I had the chance to do it again, I would have bought the 24-70L & just made it work for the building shoot. But today, the way didital cameras are changing, 24-105L would be it. Sigma makes a 18-50mm F2.8 & a 70-200 f2.8. I have not tried any sigma lenses, I do like the Tamron, esp. the 28-75 f2.8. BUt if you shoot professionally, people look at your lenses. You will feel funny when you are shooting a wedding for $$$ & uncel joe has a 5D with a L series lens & you have a sigma lens. That is what I miss about FILM,, nobody had a Hasselbald at a wedding other than me.</p>

<p>"If you have both lenses, you will use the 24-105 more often than the 24-70."</p>

<p>Not in my case. Both have pro's and cons.</p>

<p>24-70 2.8L always and forever. Easiest question ever asked.</p>

<p>The 85 F1.8 is much cheaper and (on full frame) a better portrait lens. I sold my 24-105 and bought the 42-70 which I prefer and it is a great general purpose lens. If you want IS or use a crop body the 24-105 may be the better option. If you are full frame or shoot film the 24-70 is the better option. For portraits even the 70-200 F2.8 makes a better zoonm and as I said the 85 F1.8 beats them all. If you shoot APS-C then the 50 F1.4 is probably the way to go for portraits.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Tommy, I am astounded at how thoroughly the 50/1.4 outperforms the 24-70 at 50mm.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The 24-70 f2.8L is amongst the highest quality zoom available regardless of price and make. I have one.</p>

<p>However, at 50mm and f2.8, even the $90 EF 50mm f1.8 is sharper, and is higher contrast in high flare situations. Very simply, the capacity to zoom is paid for with image quality.</p>

<p>For portraiture, get primes - any three of Canon's 50mm offering and any two of the 85mm offering.</p>

<p>I believe the 50mm f1.8 is sharper than the f1.4, all the way through the apertures, at least at center. The f1.2 is the softest of the lot. At least this is the finding at The-Digital-Picture.</p>

<p>Regarding the 24-70 vs 24-105, I think a lot of the responses are more pledges of loyalty than objective opinion. If you read up a bit you'll find each's strengths and weaknesses, and can decide which is more important to you.</p>

<p>IMHO the reason this question comes up so often is because they are so close, and yet have frustrating differences:</p>

<p>The 24-105 is lighter, more compact and has IS, and yet is f4.0.</p>

<p>The 24-70 is is faster at f2.8, has a slight edge in sharpness, and focus a fair bit closer, and yet doesn't have IS, is more bulky and heavier.</p>

<p>The 24-105's 24 is actually a bit wider than the 24-70's 24, and of course the 24-105 has more reach at 105.</p>

<p>The 24-70 seems "ruddy" in some shots, and more prone to diffuse flare washing out shadows, comparing to the 24-105's cooler, more flare resistant results. See my recent posting on this.</p>

<p>At the end: I have both, and still can't make up my mind on which I prefer.</p>

<p>I have owned both lenses. I sold off the 24-70 and kept the 24-105. Why? It was not because I thought that the 24-105 was the better lens. In my opinion, the 24-70 took better images. The reason I unloaded the 24-70 was based on my shooting style. I was looking for an excellent all-purpose lens. I mostly do event (not wedding) photography. The 24-70 was both heavy and (this is purely subjective) felt more vulnerable to damage. Since I can be both hard on camera equipment and often operate in enviornments where equipment could get josled, I took the safe road and stuck with the 24-105. I have not been dissapointed with my choice. I get excellent images. <br>

If I were working in a studio, doing portraits, etc. I would have gladly stuck with the 24-70, for a number of reasons, mostly addressed in previously comments. However, since I am out and about, on the road, and often find myself in the situations where I can only carry one lens with me, I have found the 24-105 the perfect all-purpose, "walk-around" lens. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><strong>"*Possibly growing into shooting weddings in the future under lower light situations"</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hope this helps you a bit > http://www.photo.net/learn/wedding/equipment</p>

<p>Thanks for everyone chiming in. Its really helpful to me as a novice, to get a better understanding of the pros and cons.<br>

Peter J, thanks especially for that wedding photog link, thats really informative.<br>

I guess a good bet is to rent the two one day and spend a weekend shooting with them, since its a chunk of change to put out for either one, firsthand experience is the best way to go.<br>

; )</p>

<p><strong>Kristin Trummer:</strong> You are welcome. Renting to buy is definitely the way to go. But, remember, not all lenses are created equal. For example, you may have to cherry pick from a reputable store a 24-70/2.8 to get one that is sharp. My money would be spent on the 24-70 because of the f/2.8 which allows for faster auto focus tracking of those wild child critters at weddings and (of course) better bokeh for those "Holy WoW Batgirl!" captures at f/2.8.</p>

<p>I don't have either lens. However, I find lenses as heavy as the 24-70 too heavy for carrying around. For low light I use a prime like the 50mm f1.8 which is significantly rather than slightly faster so I would go for the 24-105mm. You could try hiring both and trying them out if really not sure.</p>