24-70 f/2.8 or 24-105 f/4

This question has been asked a lot, but I still don't know which one to get.

You're right, this has been discussed to death. If you are still undecided, go read over all the previous posts on this topic. Not much new will be added. As a start here is my original post listing my reason for pucchasing the 24-105:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00L6J3

 

It's a very fine lens, but recently I have added th Tamron 28-75mm F2.8, direct competitor to the canon 24-70. After playing around with the Tamron, I am very happy with it and I doubt the Canon could offer better IQ. The only thing I don't like is the limited zoom range, but that goes for both the Canon and the Tamron. My 2 pence....

If you need a longer reach for portraits etc: 24-105

 

If you shoot in low light with moving subjects: 24-70

 

If you shoot in low light with static subjects: 24-105

 

If you are shaky: 24-105

 

If you are mostly concerned with weight: 24-105

 

If you are mostly concerned with image quality: Doesn't matter, they are equally good

 

If you are mostly concerned with cost and value: 24-105

 

If you shoot a lot of landscape hand-held: 24-105

 

If you shoot a lot of landscape on a tripod: 24-70

 

If you have a camera store close by: go try one out

Sara, it would be easier to give you some useful feedback on this if we knew more

about your photography: what camera do you use? what other lenses do you own?

what sorts of things do you shoot?

 

I'm a 24-105 user (on full frame 5D) and I use it to shoot a wide variety of subjects in

a wide variety of conditions. As David rightly points out, both are excellent lenses

and there are good reasons for choosing either of them - or one over the other

relative you your own particular needs.

 

Dan

Regarding your "night life photography" (by which I'm assuming you mean urban night photography?) both have their

advantages. Obviously, the f/2.8 24-70mm lens provides one additional stop which would permit you to use twice the

shutter speed to deal with moving subjects if necessary. On the other hand, the f/4 lens picks up more than 1 stop (2-

3 stops IIRC) via image stabilization for shots in which handheld camera shake is the limiting factor rather than subject

motion.

 

Yes, it is a compromise.

 

You still don't share what camera you are using. If you are using a crop sensor body (e.g. - a digital rebel or one of the

X0D bodies) you should also consider the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens. If I were shooting a crop sensor body and doing

night street photography or similar I would choose this lens over either of the other two unless I a) didn't like wide

angle, and b) needed long. This lens combines the advantages of the other two lenses, providing both the f2/8 aperture

and image stabilization.

 

For really dark conditions, a prime or two might also be useful.

 

Dan

Consider buying both.

 

WW

I have come to the conclusion that Mr Williams answer is the only real answer to this question. I own the 24-105 and I have wondered if I should have the 24-70 every since...I just have not been able to give up the extra 35mm and IS. But I really need f2.8.

 

Beyond that, I like David Bowens logic.

 

Jason

I'll assume you shoot digital.

 

With the 24-70 you can use the "poor woman's IS", i.e., set the firing sequence to multi shot, hold as steady as possible, then fire five shots straight. 1,2 & 5 will be shaky, if speed slow, but 3 and/or 4 should be good. Repeat as needed, delete fuzzies.

 

The 24-70 will aid in stopping subject motion, and will give nice shallow depth of field....neither of which are of interest to me so I have the 24-105 , for the extra reach

First I bought the 24-70. It's too heavy to carry around, so when the 24-105 came out, I bought it as well. Then I sold the 24-70, and lost only 8% Amazon comission, to buy the 35L. Now I'm happy.

Jason, I feel the same way about them. I have the 24-105, keep thinking of the 24-70, but not quite ready to give up the reach & IS: I like William's solution.

"Consider buying both" or Buy both, play for a while, then decide if to kepp both or which one to keep.

 

This seems the only way to get a correct answer, because only after using both, one can tell which one is better for ones particular shooting situation.

 

Another way is to rent both. But with high resale value for these lenses, it seems rental may be less economical.

You don't have to buy both, and if you are like most of us that isn't realistic advice

anyway.

 

Think through the types of shots you do - in particular whether your issue in low light is

camera shake or subject motion. The answer to that question can help you a great deal

in this decision.

I'd wait until I knew what I wanted before parting with my hard earned money. Therefore, I vote for neither.

I bought both and use both. For your type of photography, 24-70 with the 1 stop advantage.

You stated you wanted a walk around lens. IMO 24-105 is the best walk around lens. The extra reach is nice and when I need to go wider, I have 17-55 in my bag.

Tamron's 28-75 has gotten some good reviews, but I used this lens, a few years ago and I wasn't at all impressed by this lens. It was very light and fun to carry around, but made of so much plastic. Aside from that, the lens had no usable sharpness and I sold it after six months. It's hardly a "competitor" to anything Canon has to offer.

Apart from that, Canon's 24-70 is better than the 24-105 mostly because of the number of people I know, that shoot with it(both professionally and non-professionally)and love the lens. It's a stop faster than the 24-105 and doesn't suffer the same flare problem as the 24-105. It also has consistently better IQ and really isn't that heavy to use as a walk around lens and the difference in weight(compared to the 24-105)is only a few ounces.

The 24-105 is 1.5 lbs, and the 24-70 is 2.1 lbs. The difference is .6 lbs or 9.6 ounces. The 24-70 is 40% heavier than the 24-105.

Renting the lenses and try them out before buying are good suggestions. Rent each one for a weekend. Only your own experience can tell you whether you need the IS more than the f/2.8, or vice versa. Also the two lenses are different in size and weight, maybe after using them both youﾒd come to the conclusion that ﾓman, I love f/2.8 but the darn thing is heavy and bigﾅf/4 is lighter and smallerﾅ and if I want f/2.8ﾒs equivalent Iﾒd just crank up the ISO...or...I'm already using ISO 3200 and the shutter speed is not even enough to stop action, f/2.8 could really be handy now..." so again, only your own experience.....

 

Iﾒd get the 24-70 f/2.8L over the 24-105 f/4.0L IS just because the 24-70 looks cooler with its lens hood on :) j/k

 

I heard a rumor that Canon is introducing the 24-105 f/2.8L IS :)

Philip, unless a person is a wimp- you'll hardly notice 9.6 ounces additional weight.

With the 24-70 it protrudes quite far at 24mm and has a big deep hood and so it is a lot

bigger than you think and you must always use the hood with lens, its one of my

favorite however I find myself using my 17-40 f/4 or even my 70-200 f/4 as they are so

much easier to carry around. It can be soft at the wider aperture so if you really are

into low light then it probably won't be fast enough so I would consider a prime for that.

Brian wrote: <i>"Philip, unless a person is a wimp- you'll hardly notice 9.6 ounces

additional weight."</i>

 

<p>I frequently see this response when one mentions the weight of lenses and other

photo equipment as a factor - suggesting that a Real Photographer would not be

bothered by a mere half pound of weight, and often accompanied by some

demeaning comment about the photographer's lack of <i>macho</i>. (Or <i>macha?

</i>)

 

<p>It almost goes without saying that 9.6 oz. is not "a lot of weight." But it isn't that

simple.

 

<p>A bit more than a half a pound of extra weight... added to camera weight... hung

around your neck... all day... while also carrying a bag of other gear... can indeed to

a factor for many photographers, and not just those who are "wimps."

 

<p>I don't regard myself as a wimp. One kind of photography I do a lot of involves

carrying a backpack over alpine and subalpine (and frequently trail-less) ares of the

Sierra Nevada range for a week or longer at a time. I carry a full frame camera body,

a tripod, a few good lenses and other photographic stuff in addition to the other gear

I need to live on the trail. I count every ounce and nothing goes into my pack -

photographic gear or otherwise - unless it has significant utility. (OK, I do sometimes

carry a couple 2 oz. chocolate bars, but we all have our weaknesses.)

 

<p>My point: While equipment weight/bulk may not matter to you, it very definitely

matters to a number of other photographers, and <i>wimpishness</i> is not the only

possible explanation for this. (And backpacking is not the only circumstance in

which this is an issue.)

 

<p>Dan

 

<p><a href="http://www.gdanmitchell.com/wpg2-3?g2_itemId=320"><img

src="http://www.gdanmitchell.com/gallery/main.php?

g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=320&g2_serialNumber=3&g2_GALLERYSI

D=2026d78f83023f04b87281361197392b" alt="tarn near blue sky lake,

evening"></a><br><i>Tarn Near Blue Sky Lake, Evening. Sequoia-Kings Canyon

National Parks. August, 2007. ﾩ Copyright <a

href="http://www.gdanmitchell.com/">G Dan Mitchell</a> - all rights reserved.</i>

Looking at the photos on your site which are almost without exception shot with a flash, and knowing that you already have a crop sensor body, I would go with a 24-105 and a 50mm, either 1.8 or 1.4 as your budget allows. The zoom is perfect for when you are using the flash and will give you more reach than the 24-70, especially if mounted to your crop sensor body. The 50mm will give you plenty of latitude with available light shots in the club or on the street.

 

If you are hoping to try doing some available light shots with a zoom, and assuming that it would be with people, as are all of your photos, then get the 24-70.

"I heard that it is quite blurry at 24mm with the 24-105."

 

No.

 

The lens is not at its _best_ at 24mm, and at this extreme wide end of its focal length range you will see more vignetting and barrel distortion

than in the middle of its range - but "quite blurry?" No, indeed not.

 

You can check out the numerous reviews, reports, and lens tests to see how these lenses perform in terms of sharpness, barrel/pincushion,

distortion, the works. The bottom line is that neither is a slouch in the image quality department - both are excellent lenses.

 

Most Canon photographers (with L level lenses) have one or the other in their arsenal. They don't pick one over the other because one is

"blurry" and the other isn't, but because the specific features of one are more useful in their particular photography. These features include:

different focal length ranges, different max apertures, inclusion or not of IS, weight and size, how each fits into the overall collection of

lenses, etc.

 

And there is no f/2.8 version of the 24-105mm lens.

In relation to the total weight of a camera bag, with a body(possibly even backup body), multiple lenses and maybe even a flash I really don't see how a photographer will "notice" the difference of 9 ounces, additionally.

"In relation to the total weight of a camera bag, with a body(possibly even backup body), multiple

lenses and maybe even a flash I really don't see how a photographer will "notice" the difference of 9

ounces, additionally."

 

If weight is an issue - and it is for some of us - and the weight is carried extensively and in difficult

condition, we think about the weight of the complete kit. As backpackers like to say, "Pay attention

to the ounces and the pounds take care of themselves."

 

If you work out of the back of your car this matters a lot less than when you work on foot. I know

because I do both.

 

YMMV.

 

Dan