Own 17-40 4L and 70-200 2.8 IS L, Should I get 24-70 or 24-105

[gene_kublanov]

I already own 17-40 4L and 70-200 2.8 IS L, Should I get 24-70 2.8L

or 24-105 4L IS?

[martin_doudoroff1]

24-70 f/2.8 is faster

 

24-105 f/4 has more reach

 

Which is more important to you?

 

By many accounts, both are excellent lenses.

[gene_kublanov]

Is the IS and more reach better than 2.8 and why?

[steve_dunn2]

<p>Assuming the price difference isn't an issue, you need to decide what's more important: an extra stop of speed, or a bit of extra reach and IS. The 24-70 has earned a great reputation. Reviews and comparisons of the 24-105 are fewer, since it only came out recently, but it seems that other than the ends of its range, it's just as good as the 24-70.</p>

[jon_austin]

I have the 17-40 and a 70-200/4, and I chose the 24-105. Actually, I've been waiting for Canon to release this lens for nearly two years. (I would have preferred a different zoom range, say 28-85 or 35-105, but that's another story.)

 

I stayed away from the 24-70 primarily on the basis of size and weight. Price wasn't an issue.

 

The 24-105 isn't perfect, but it fits my requirements better than the 24-70. Now, if Canon could just get this recall issue cleaned up, and ship some more 24-105's to my dealer ...

[ron_jonson]

It's not an easy decision between these two lenses, given that optical characteristics are essentially equal for 90% of the shots they'll be used for. But it's not rocket science either.<br><br>

I have the 24-70mm and the 70-200mm. I also shoot with primes whenever I know what I'm getting into and if it's possible. For portraits/people, I prefer 85mm anyway. The 24-70mm is a great all around / walk around lens. But I'm going to sell it and get the 24-105mm. Although IS is amazing with the 70-200mm, I don't care about it in this shorter focal length range. <br><br>

I'm getting the 24-105mm because of the smaller size/weight for carrrying arround and because of the extra range at the long end. The speed I can get by bumping up the ISO. Blurring the background I can achieve with my even faster primes. For most shots, I typically don't shoot wide open, so I'm at f/4 or smaller anyway. Think about your style of shooting and make your own conclusions.<br><br>

[grant g]

I have both, and I've been having a hard time figuring wether I like one better than the other. Or what I'd recommend in a thread like this. At the moment, I think you couldn't go wrong with either.

 

I'm pretty well decided that I will keep both.

 

If you shoot with two bodies (like I do for weddings and events) then you don't really need the IS and the 70-105 range since you have that "covered" witht the 70-200IS. I find that when I carry the 24-105 and the 70-200IS, that I don't use the 70-200 much. Maybe less than 10%. With the 24-70 and the 70-200IS, I use the two at about a 70/30 or 60/40 ratio.

 

I find that 105/4IS is better than 70/2.8 IMO for portriats.

 

But if I am shooting at night and have a tripod, I will grab the 24-70 first.

 

Sunrise or sunset work would definitely call for the 24-70 since it's never had flare problems.

 

My copy of the 24-105 is sharper than my 24-70 at f/4 and f/5.6.

 

AF in the dark is great on the 24-70 and very good on the 24-105.

 

On my last trip, I had both with me, and I used the 24-105 most of the time.

 

I hope that helps you. But I'm sorry I can't really pick a clear winner for you. Especially since you have the 70-200IS too!

[rodney_gold1]

What camera do you have , that's important .IE what size is the sensor?

[gene_kublanov]

I have the 10D 1.6

[derek_c.]

one vote for 24-70 L.

[martin_doudoroff1]

Putting on my devil's advocate hat, here's a question for you: are you sure you really need a

zoom for this focal range? Will one of these fancy lenses be meaningfully more useful to you

than a 50mm prime on top of the two zooms you already have?

[shambrick007]

Save some ca$h. I have the 17-40/4 L, 70-200/2.8 L IS, and my 50/1.8 and 28-105 USM fill the gap just fine.

[rodney_gold1]

I was using both on my 10/20D and there really is not much of a gap at all , any other lens is going to overlap really and will just make you carry 3 lenses. 24mm is hardly wide on a crop camera so anything starting there isnt that handy.A better option imho is to sell the 17-40 and get the 17-85 is , you are then covered right thru the range with IS. The image quality of the 17-85 is a smidign less then the 17-40 , but its not a train smash and its range and IS more than make up for it.

Another option is to buy another lens like a 50mm 2.5 compact macro or a 1.4 tc for your telezoom or a nice flash setup etc instead of just trying to fill a hole which cant really be filled well.

[yakim_peled1]

>> I already own 17-40 4L and 70-200 2.8 IS L, Should I get 24-70 2.8L or 24-105 4L IS?

 

No. Get none. The 40-70 gap is irelevant.

 

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[martystock]

I'll recommend the 24-70 2.8L, from my own experience. It's heavy, though, and my best

shots have been when I've used a monopod or tripod with it, but it works great in low

light, hand-held, on my Canon 20D at 1600 or 3200 ISO too.

 

Since you already have excellent lenses in their respective ranges, consider getting the

50mm f1.4 instead of either of the zooms. (There's a review here by Phil Greenspun that

got me to try it, and it's been my favorite lens.)

[gilou]

why not a 50mm prime lense (f:1.8 or f:1.4) ?

this will allow you to shoot in low light conditions + feed the gap between the 17-40 and the 70 -xxx

 

just my two cents .

 

Note : I love my 50f:1.4

[lou korell]

If you need to fill the gap between 40 & 70 the best idea is a 50 1.4. That will also give you a low light capability the other two lenses can't.

[jon_austin]

There's always a lot of suggestions to buy a 50mm prime in these (all too frequent) posts about filling the gap between 40 and 70mm. For shooting on the move, this advice is a load of crap.

 

If I'm out and about and need to shoot in the normal range, I'd much rather have a single lens that covers the entire range than to carry a 17-40, 50 and 70-200, and end up swapping lenses all the time.

 

Even if you take the position -- with which I tend to agree -- that it's not a big enough gap to bother, I'd still rather mount a single lens and be done with it than to swap back and forth between the 17-40 and the 70-200.

 

Gene asked for opinions on the 24-70 and the 24-105, and helpfully informed us about other lenses he owns. If I had narrowed my buying decision down to these two lenses and was asking for help deciding between them, I wouldn't find suggestions to buy a 50 (or nothing at all) particularly helpful.

 

(End of rant.)

[nammyboy]

I vote for the 24-70mm. On the 10D, 70mm is long enough (on a full-frame camera, 70mm is a little short for my taste). I'd take f/2.8 over f/4 and IS in this range.

 

~Nam

[jim_larson1]

Here is my spin: Fast aperture is important for portraits. If your are looking for a three lens solution: Get the 24-70/2.8L.

 

BUT. . . with portraits in mind, this is a suboptimal choice. I would think the 24-105/4L-IS in conjunction with a 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 would be a superior combination. I would advocate this path (with one caveat noted below).

 

My current "common" travel bag (on a 1.6 crop camera) is 17-40/4L, 50/1.8 and 85/1.8. I will also carry either a flash or 70-200/4L (but generally do not need both).

 

Note: I recommend the 24-105/4L-IS above. However. . .I am personally a bit leary of the warts that have been reported in various reviews. I do not expect these warts on a lens in this price range.

[danny lee]

Hi, Gene. 10D, 17-40 4L, 70-200 2.8 IS L

 

 

Should I get 24-70 2.8L or 24-105 4L IS?

 

It really depends on what you do with your camera.

 

One route is to sell your 10D and get a 20D and then have a very good iso 3200 so F4 is more usable.

 

if you gonna bring one lens with you, the 24-70 2.8 is better, because you have the 2.8 which cannot be changed easily in bokeh and one stop exposure time, rather you can always crop a little to get a 105 view.

 

if you really are going to do low light faster exposure work, those 50's are great

 

So try it, strap on the 70-200, set it to 70 and look, then set it to 105 and look, isnt much of a difference a little cropping wont fix, and if you take one or two steps forward, there really is no difference

 

Also, the 40-70 range is just a differce of 3 steps for me, or one step plus a little cropping so I think you shouldnt get either because you got the 17-40 already, and 17 is much more useful than the 24. you can always crop, you cant make more photo appear out of nowhere.