Canon 24-70 or 24-105 (Please help me before I go insane)

<p>Greg -- you nailed it. The 24-70 has one serious hood. I love it.<br>

Also, yes, it is heavy; but any fast, quality, well-built zoom is gonna be heavy.<br>

The 24-70 focuses rather closely and is one of Canon's sharpest zooms.</p>

<p>Yep + 1 on the hood, its the only hood that I actually prefer on the lens.</p>

<p>sell the 24-105mm and buy the 70-200mm f/2.8 back, IS or non IS. You talk about liking the 2.8 but also the extended reach, now you'll have 2.8 from 24-200mm.</p>

<p>I know I'm belabouring, but: regarding the 24-70 hood, even though it is a very innovative design, I've found it does squat for diffuse flare, from just-out-of-frame light source. With or without hood the 24-105 is much more inclined to stay cool/neutral, while the 24-70 get's a golden hue and contrast goes down ;(</p>

<p>I did some test shots with both here:</p>

<p><a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=908977">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=908977</a></p>

<p>There were some comments about my using UV's in the first shots, so I posted some, noted as being without UV's. Did not seem to change things.</p>

<p>I just made this decision myself. I have the 70-200 2.8 II, so the extra reach was not essential for me. It came down to the IS vs the extra stop.<br>

The IS corrects for hand shake. The rule of thumb for hand shake is shoot faster than 1 / focal length. For the max extension of the 105, thats 1/105. <br>

The IS gives you 3 stops more shutter time wrt hand shake. At one stop, that means you can shoot at 1/52.5. Useful.<br>

At 2 stops that is 1/26.5. Less useful. Subjects (unless they are posing) start to get blurry.<br>

At three stops, that is 1/13.125. Not useful unless you are shooting still life.<br>

These numbers are also at the extreme end of the zoom. At 24mm, the IS isn't that useful at all.<br>

Therefore, since I only found 1 stop of IS to be really useful, and the 24-70 gives you that stop advantage for all situations (not just hand shake), I went for the 24-70.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"I picked up the 24-70 for $900...what I saw as an unbeatable deal...and the 24-105 for $800 (again a great deal). Now I'd like to unload one of them. After an afternoon of test shots, I've discovered I got lucky and they're both sharp wide open. I plan to use the primes for indoor events, thus all I'm looking for is a walk around lens to capture family moments at the park, the beach, and wherever else the wind takes us. Yes, I love the 2.8, but I equally love the extended zoom. On the other hand, I fear missing the great bokeh of the 2.8 if I were to get rid of the 24-70."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Given that <em>you have both lenses</em> and have, we assume, shot with both of them, it seems a little odd that you are asking others what to do here. You have pretty much described some of the significant differences between these two excellent but different lenses - all you need to do is think carefully about how those differences have played out in your photography.</p>

<p>Ken wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Fastest glass <strong>always trumps</strong> the slower glass.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ken, that just isn't true.</p>

<p>Both of these are excellent lenses, and for some photographers either could be the better choice. But there are many considerations other than the maximum aperture that are important to making the decision. I'll simply mention a few to illustrate why some might logically choose the f/4 lens over the f/2.8 lens in this and other cases:</p>

<ul>

<li>The 24-105 has a larger focal length range, making it a more flexible lens for a number of types of photography.</li>

<li>If the issue is more about camera stability at low shutter speeds than about stopping action in low light, IS extends the useful low light range of the lens several stops rather than just one.</li>

<li>For some, the combination of larger aperture primes and smaller aperture zooms provides a greater range of options than the f/2.8 zooms provide.</li>

<li>While neither is perfect and each has its own strengths and weaknesses, both of these lenses can produce excellent image quality.</li>

</ul>

<p>My point is not to suggest that the 24-106 is a "better lens" than the 24-70 (or vice versa), but rather to make the important point that choice of "best lens" comes down to matching features to needs - and each photographer needs to think through his/her shooting style when making such choices. All too many of them get caught up in the "larger aperture is always better" or "L is always better than non-L" or "the biggest and most expensive lens is always better" modes of thought and make decisions that are not necessarily right for them.</p>

<p>Take care,</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>I'm firmly with G Dan on this one. Although I have the 24-70/2.8, my other three EF zooms are f/4. And I have a good number of faster EF primes. My reasoning for this lens choice is that I use the zooms primarily outdoors, where the light is generally good and the flexibility of zooming is useful, and the primes primarily indoors, where the light is lower and it's less important to zoom with the lens. (Or course, I use primes outdoors, and, occasionally, zooms indoors, as well).</p>

<p>My point is not to <em>prescribe</em> my lens choice for others but to simply state <em>what best works for me</em>. For example, the advantage of carrying lighter lenses while I'm out and about outweighs the 1-stop advantage provided by the f/2.8 zooms. Every photographer has to come to these kinds of decisions for him/herself. Not that advice from others hurts, but the person who has to live with your choice is you.</p>

<ul>

<li><em>The 24-105 has a larger focal length range, making it a more flexible lens for a number of types of photography.</em></li>

</ul>

<p>That point though, is *OBVIOUS*... but, I'd wager more design compromises go into making a more than 4:1 zoom (24 - 105) than a less than 3:1 zoom (24-70) resulting in inferior optics between the two. I do not see the point of megazooms in that range. I'd rather carry the 24-70 and 85 mm when traveling light.</p>

<ul>

<li><em>If the issue is more about camera stability at low shutter speeds than about stopping action in low light, IS extends the useful low light range of the lens several stops rather than just one.</em></li>

</ul>

<p>Modern Canon CMOS sensors are rather useful up to an exceeding 1600 ISO. Sure IS is pretty sweet, no doubt; I'd still prefer and recommend the faster glass sans IS.</p>

<ul>

<li>For some, the combination of larger aperture primes and smaller aperture zooms provides a greater range of options than the f/2.8 zooms provide.</li>

</ul>

<p>I almost think it provides them LESS options (telextenders on relatively slow f/4 glass not a match made in heaven). AF likes faster glass. My eyes like faster glass thru the VF. Beginners are *unaware* of these aspects.</p>

<ul>

<li><em>While neither is perfect and each has its own strengths and weaknesses, both of these lenses can produce excellent image quality.</em></li>

</ul>

<p>No doubt. Points made. When push comes to shove I prefer the bulk over the sleek. ;-)</p>

I own a 24-70 f/2.8 and have used it a ton on the street; both for urban photography and street portraits.

Have also borrowed a friend's 24-105 IS. For me, the 24-105 was clearly a better lens. Smaller, lighter,

sharper, faster AF, and **much** more resistance to flare. The 24-70 flares so easily; thus you have to

use that Frankenstein of a hood to be safe. With the 24-105 I never used the hood and came away with great results.

 

If I were going to do it over again with a zoom (I now shoot almost 100% with a 35mm f/2 on my 5DII)

where IQ, versatility, and size/weight were key, for me it would definitely be the 24-105...

<p>I don't find the difference at the long ends of both lens to be a big factor. First off: the difference from 70 to 105 in itself is not that much. For anyone with just the 105: dial in 70, then turn to 105. It's a modest, noticeable step, but not a lot.</p>

<p>Secondly, having both, I've often done test shots, trying to set both to the "same" focal length. My experience: the 24-105 is consistantly wider than the 24-70, when both are set as carefully as possible, to any focal length. The one plus: with both at 24, you've got a bit more width with the 24-105. But with the 24-70 at 70mm, you have to set the 24-105 somewhere close to 80mm to achieve the same field of view.</p>

<p>Don't forget that the 24-105 also has IS. This, and the 70-105 range are for me much more useful than the f2.8 aperture (See <a href="http://terragalleria.com/blog/2009/11/11/canon-ef-24-1054-l-is-vs-24-702-8-l/">review</a>). For blurry backgrounds, you already have the 35/1.4, and a 85/1.8 isn't very expensive.</p>

<p>I had one (the 24-105) and replaced it with the other (24-70). In reality they are both great lenses but as I still shoot film I prefer the 24-70 and just live with the extra weight. I found that the edges of my 24-70 were sharper than the 24-105 but I suspect that this is only noticible on full frame bodies, although when I owned the 24-105 I only had full frame and APS-H bodies so I never checked. As others have said it comes down to what you prefer - for me the extra stop is more important than the weight saving and IS. Would I like to own both - YES but I try and limit lens duplication (although I do own both the 70-200 F2,8 and F4 IS as there is a significant weight saving but you need F2.8 for indoor sports). Whichever one you keep you cannot lose but look and see which one spends the most time on your 5DII and keep this one.</p>