24-105 f/4L or 24-70 f/2.8L for my only lens

[jjr512]

I've been interested in photography for a long time but up until now have only

been able to dabble with point&shoots. Now I'm getting serious with a DSLR. I

will probably be only able to afford one lens to start. I don't want to buy

some cheaper lenses because, in the long run, it's a waste of money if/when I

buy the better lenses, anyway. So, as I learn the way my camera works and

start experimenting and trying to build my skills, I'll only have one lens to

work with, at least for a few months.

 

I'm strongly considering either the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, because it has a

pretty good zoom range, or the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM because it's a faster

lens. If I go with the 24-105, I'll lose the faster aperture, but if I go with

the 24-70, I lose the extra zoom range.

 

In terms of image quality, is either lens clearly superior?

 

If you had to pick only one lens to have (for general purpose and learning)

which of these would it be, or would you pick another lens instead, and why?

 

Any comments/thoughts/suggestions/opinions/advice will be greatly appreciated.

 

Thanks!

[tom_burke3]

IMO: 24-105, because it is longer; plus a prime lens to give you back some speed. EF 35mm

f2? Or maybe the Sigma 30mm f1.4?

[jwhite3.0]

Hi Justin, questions that may help you make a decision:

 

1. Do you shoot in low light a lot? Yes, 24-70mm

 

2. Do you want a light lens as a walk-around? Yes, 24-105mm

 

3. Are you in interested in freezing action? Yes, 24-70mm

 

4. What is your dSLR?

 

I faced a similar choice and picked the 24-105mm. I found the contrast to be excellent with this lens. However, since you mentioned you could afford only one lens you may want to pick up a couple fast prime lenses for the price of the 24-105mm ($1200) such as 24mm f/2.8 ($300), 50mm f/1.8 ($70), 70-200mm f/4 ($600), and extra money for a good tripod, memory, etc. You mention you don't want to buy cheap lenses but these are good, affordable primes that could be in your collection for a long time.

 

In the end I sold my 24-105mm and picked up a Zuiko 21mm f/3.5 and Zuiko 35mm-80mm f/2.8 used with Olympus OM-to-EOS adapter. A lighter set-up and arguably optically better. You have many great choices to choose from and if I wasn't interested in trying everthing I would have kept the 24-105mm.

[bongeiste]

This topic has been beaten to death on this forum. The fact of the matter is that there is no clear consensus. When you get right down to it, the two lenses involve certain (obvious) compromises and it's up to you to decide what you want.

 

If you feel like seeing what some of the multitudes of people who asked some variation of this question before you got as a response, the following links should prove to be interesting reading:

 

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

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00DJGV&unified_p=1

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00FX3T&tag=

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00G3Lh

[mferencz8]

Whats wrong with new opinions on equipment already discussed? When you get down to it 90% of this forum is repetitive in nature, but more often then not its the communication with somebody speaking to you that personalizes a decision. I don't know anything about the lens dilemma you have but ask your question without feeling like you didn't do your homework. Ask it again tommorow if you want, maybe somebody else will be looking and give you there point of view. All the rest of us that see your note will just have to skip the link.

[jmoody]

Trade-offs, trade-offs, trade-offs. :-)

 

I went for the 24-105 since I often find myself shooting at the longer end (wish it'd been a 24-200, but could hardly afford it as is!). (I think) It's lighter. Has IS (took some awfully slow speed shots the other day zoomed all the way out and got great sharpness) and the price is almost the same.

 

2.8 might save you indoors or at a concert or something, but then again, as the noise ratios get better on the DSLRs, you could also maybe simply ramp up the ISO a little to offset the difference.

 

I'm not a wedding shooter or anything, but for me, 4 is usually plenty fast.

 

Good luck with your choice

[steve torelli]

Nothing wrong with asking a repetitive question, but as mentioned this is probably the most repeated question that gets posted. I would suggest hitting the "Search" tab at the top of the page and type in "24-70 vs 24-105". You'll get all the opinions you'll ever need on the subject and some you don't need. Good luck.

[shambrick007]

24-105 and 50/1.8

[jason_kim4]

I have both lenses. I find my copy of 24-70L to be better lens optically.

You have to decide on functionality or pure optical quality. If you want less distortion, better bokeh that f2.8 can give you without going to prime lenses, you can't go wrong with 24-70L. It is an excellent lens that can rival primes.

But I use 24-105L a lot more because it's light, small and has IS. Longer focal range also helps.

[pmind]

I also think it's fair to repeat a question as we are always learning new things about our equipment. We could just subdivide this forum into a thread for each piece of EOS gear, then it might be easier to track all those various opinions. If you had a question about the 35mm f/2 lens, then you could go to that forum only (silly, I know)! I would and did go with the 24-105mm. But I would also buy a fast normal to slightly wide prime lens as has been recommended already. Paul

[catchlight]

I own them both, and am about to sell the 24-70mm because:<p> <li>there is no significant difference in image quality <li>the f2.8 unit is very heavy as a walkaround lens<li>I have a 50/1.4 for low light <li>IS is very handy for static subjects <li>the extra 35mm at the long end is often useful.<p>IMO, the only reason to opt for the 24-70mm would be if you will often need the extra f-stop.

[KenPapai]

Faster lens, like the 24-70 2.8L always offer a brighter view finder and higher precision focusing.

 

I would give a slight nod to the faster lens here over the slower, yet I.S. enabled 24-105.

 

The IQ from each is nearly indistinguishble, and when you print no one would ever be able to tell which shot came from which lens. All in all I'd still recommend the faster (and yes, heavier!) lens.

[ccrevasse]

Here's my 24-70 vs. 24-105 story. I have a 1Ds2. First I had a Tamron 28-75/2.8. I decided I wanted a Canon 24-70 or 24-105. I am not a lens-testing expert, but I conducted what I believed to be careful tests pitting the Tamron against a 24-70, two 24-105s, my Canon 50/1.8, and my Canon 70-200. The Tamron was sharper at every aperture and focal length than any of the Canon lenses at comparable apertures and focal lengths. The 24-70 and 24-105 were essentially indistinguishable, except that the 24-105 showed more distortion and vignetting. The Tamron had less distortion and vignetting than either. Nevertheless, the range and IS of the 24-105 appealed to me, so I kept the "better" 24-105 (there wasn't much difference, if any, between the two 24-105s). My thought was that I would use the Tamron except when I wanted to carry only one lens, when I would use the 24-105. Instead, I have found that I almost never use the Tamron. The 24-105 may not be as sharp as the Tamron, but it is a great lens nonetheless. Its versatility is very appealing. The IS is very useful. I wish it were an f/2.8 lens, but it is not. However, my story is similar to the stories of other people. Many people, perhaps most, who have both the 24-70 (or, in my case, the Tamron 28-75) and the 24-105 end up using the 24-105 most of the time. Is it a "better" lens than the 24-70? No. But you ask, "If you had to pick only one lens which of these would it be?" My answer is the 24-105.

[a_foster]

Check out this site.

 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-105mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens-

Review.aspx

 

He makes a great argument for this being the only lens he'd get if he only had one.

However, I knew I would be getting at least 3 lenses. Keeping this in mind, I opted for the

24-70 f/2.8 first. Later I purchased a 70-200 f/2.8 IS. This gave me a great range to shoot

from. My next purchase will be a 16-35 f/2.8. That should make a very nice package when

complete.

 

I love my 24-70. For now it's the lens that spends the most time on my camera (30D). Two

pro photographer friends of mine coached me into this decision and I'm very glad I

listened.

 

Don't worry about folks getting down on you for asking these "repetitive" questions. They

are not the Forum Police of the World. If they don't like people asking things again and

again, they don't have to respond or even read your question. A little kindness and respect

goes a long way. Next time, ask if you should get a Canon or a Nikon. You might get a fine

for that one. ;-)

[a_foster]

Sorry Justin. It looks like I didn't post my link correctly. Just go to:

 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/

 

and look for your lens. And my sincerest apologies to all. Especially to the Forum Police of

the World.

 

Austin

[mendel_leisk]

On the repetition issue: yes, this topic is way over discussed. There's no new ground being covered here. It is getting tiresome.

 

Image quality: I have both, my 24-70 copy is sharper and it's image has less distortion and light fall-off. I posted 2 samples and some comments in this (ad nauseum) thread:

 

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

 

Plus qualities of the 24-105: lighter, IS, a bit more reach.

[mendel_leisk]

Plus:

 

The 24-105 is significantly more compact, in particular with hoods. It's the 17-85 for the 5D.

 

A good comparison review is on the Luminous Landscape site.

[mars c]

IMO, As long as the same topic dont appear in the same page in the thread list. Its ok to repeat it, provided the question is asked properly and politely.

 

I dont have those lens, but tried both, I like the 24-105 because of the IS, the Canon latest gen IS is so effective that I can sometimes handhold a shot at 1/4 sec. at 300mm ( 70-300 IS ). I assume it is the same with the 24-105. Think about that.

[John Crowe]

I'd add $100 USD to your budget and get the Canon EF 17-40mm f4 L and Canon EF 70-200mm f4 L. You will not miss anything between 41 and 69mm on full frame or 1.6x body. If you can afford the extra $80 add the Canon EF 50/1.8.

 

 

While the 24-70 may be superb, it is very limited in range. The 24-105 has a little more range but has the extremely expensive IS option which only helps in lowlight with subjects that are not moving, and when you do not want to use flash.

 

 

The optics of the 70-200/4 L are superb and are said to be better than either of the 70-200/2.8s, which puts it pretty high on Canon's list of lenses. The 17-40 L while not really comparable in focal length to the 24-105 probably has similar optical performance and does give you either superwide or truly wide depending on the body.

 

 

So, the two zooms will give you similar, if not better, optical performance than the lenses you are looking at and much better focal length range.

 

 

Now being a prime lens fanatic and having learned photography that way many years ago I must also mention the trio of lenses that I would have to consider if spending $1100. The Canon EF 20mm f2.8, the Canon EF 50mm f1.8 and the Canon EF 200mm f2.8 L. This leaves a significant hole between 50 and 200 but that could be filled with a 100/2 at a later date. Good luck!

[iori]

I'm also in the 24-105 camp. It has the ideal size and range for a walkabout lens, and the IS is great when you don't want to carry around a tripod.

 

As for the one stop difference between the two lenses, I find that the IS and the adjustable ISO on digital SLRs more than compensates when I'm not trying to capture action. With a walkabout lens, I also find myself usually wanting more (rather than less) depth of field. Note also that if you shot with the lens extended to 105mm @f4, you'll still be able to get some pretty good background blur.

 

If I need a faster lens for action or to induce good background bokeh, I turn to prime lenses. Others have recommended the 50/1.8, and for only $80, I would second that advice, which on a crop camera gives you perfect portrait range.

 

With regard to image quality, you're going to be hard-pressed to notice a difference, particularly when you are not comparing the same images side-by-side.

[iron_flatline]

I really live with my 24-70mm on my 5D. It's a great lens for portraits, especially when shooting at low light.

[yakim_peled1]

>> Whats wrong with new opinions on equipment already discussed?

 

Absolutely nothing but the thing is that there are no new opinions on this topic.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[mferencz8]

Well i'm glad the poster got alot of responses. Maybe at the expense of the tidy.