Which Lens: f2.8 24-70 L or f4.0 24-105 L?

[ben_kopland]

These lenses are so durn close it's giving me fits makiing a decision.

 

I'm shooting with a 40D so either of the above are multiplied by 1.6x. Given I

have a telephoto from 100 to 300, I tend to lean toward the 24-70. I just want

to know that I'll be able to take close to moderate distance without having to

switch lenses back and forth. Some sports and all kids seem to move to fast

and have NO patience for too much transition... I'm looking for comments from

any and all.

 

Thanks,

 

Ben

[leopoldstotch]

If you do a search here you'll find hundreds of results which can more than answer this. Basically, if you shoot moving subjects indoors, or if you want shallow DoF for portraits then the 24-70 is the obvious choice. Otherwise the 24-105 should do fine.

[andys]

Personally, for this camera neither of these two lenses is wide enough for me, and I would look at the 17-55 2.8 ef-s. (and I am doing).

 

Given the choice of just these two though, I would (I think) go for the 2.8 lens, just for that extra stop...

[ronald_moravec1]

One is faster. One has much less, almost none, according to the view in the viewfinder.

 

I would get a 24/70 & 70/200.

 

If you frequently use lenses shorter than 35 on film, look at something even wider.

[images_in_light_north_west]

for outdoors the 24-105 will be great anything shorter and and you will regret it for sports

[anthony_chapa]

I would personally go with the 24-70mmL because of it's speed. The 24-105 is much slower even though you will have IS to compensate, but for fast moving objects you will need the 24-70

[sutejok]

i posted same question 2 months ago and i got the 24-70. didnt regret at all. i do a lot of event photography with this lens and it is awesome

[alan_myers]

I wrestled with the exact same question a year ago. I decided I couldn't live with f4 and didn't need IS on this focal length (although I love it on longer teles).

 

I'd been borrowing a 28-135 IS to shoot sports & events, really needed to get a lens of my own and return the loaner with many thanks. Got the 24-70 and after a year's use, would make the same decision again today. No regrets here, either.

 

I use the 24-70 along with 70-200/2.8 most of the time. For rare wider shots, I've got a 17-35/2.8, although I've considered replacing it with a Tokina 12-24/4. When I need longer reach, I've got a 1.4X for the 70-200, or my 300mm comes out to play if it's handy.

 

Now, one thing I must mention is that I use two camera bodies (30Ds), so that means few or no lens changes for me, sometimes even over a 12 hour day.

 

So, that's what works for me, but it might be different for you.

[sandy_labana]

For out door sports you really neeed 70-200 mm lens. Get f2.8 IS if it is within your budget.

You will be able to use it even for indoor sports. Because it is not long enouhg, 24-70 will

not work well for outdoor sports. For indoor event photography (weddings, receptions, etc.)

you cannot find a better lens than Canon 24-70mm f2.8. IQ is just awesome. It focuses very

fast, sharp, good contrast and color rendition, low distortation and more. Sandy

[gdanmitchell]

They are both great lenses, but there are tradeoffs between them as they have different

strengths and weaknesses.

[davebell]

I bought the 24-105 a few months back and it has really saved my bacon a couple of times using IS where the 24-70 would have failed. At the same time, I have on numerous occasions longed for F2.8 instead of F4. If you are going to be shooting low light and your subject will be moving then go for the 24-70. If you subject is stationary then go for the 24-105. The other negative (for me, before people jump on my back) of the 24-70 is the limited zoom range. I would get frustrated being limited to 70mm as opposed to 105mm during a wedding, for example. My approach now for weddings is to use the 24-105mm F4 on a 5D as the primary camera, with fast primes on my 350D (85mm F1.8 usually) and this works pretty well. There still lingers a possibility of dumping the 24-105 in future and going for the 24-70, but probably only when I can afford another 5D and the 70-200 F2.8 IS (I better chose my lottery numbers carefully....).

[phyrpowr]

For me the answer was obvious, the 24-105, because: I rarely shoot people, except in really good light, so stop motion is no big deal; I almost never want shallow DoF; I do a lot of "walkaround" photography of static subjects, so it's my out-of-breath/out-of-shape handshake that I need to counter; I like to take architectural detail shots, and so need the extra reach.

 

If this sounds like your style, go with the 24-105. One example: dusk or indoor low light, again, static subject, you're as high ISO as you can or want to go, you're wide open, -105 shows 1/30, -70, shows 1/60, you'll have a better chance of the shot with the IS.

 

Since you mentioned sports and kids, reverse this and figure that where the best you could do with the -105 might be 1/60, the -70 would give you 1/125, and that could make the shot/no shot diff

 

Both are excellent IQwise, well built, etc., and fine longterm purchases

[mendel_leisk]

Some thoughts:

 

1. 70mm on the 24-70 seems about the same as 75~80mm on the 24-105. In other words, the telephoto advantage of the 24-105 is not as great as the numbers claim. Even if they matched focal lengths, the difference from 70 to 105 is not that much.

 

2. They're about the same price, but the 24-105 has IS.

 

3. The 24-70 will focus quite a bit closer.

 

4. The opposite to usual travel of the 24-70 (longest when widest) allows a very deep hood.

 

5. One full stop advantage on the 24-70.

 

6. The 24-70 is quite a bit heavier and bulkier. OTOH, it feels more solid and smooth.

 

7. In my experience, the 24-105 acquires auto-focus a bit faster. It's not a big difference, but noticeable.

 

8. In my experience, the 24-70 has less light fall-off, and is usually sharper, in the corners. Sometimes the sharpness tables are turned, but not often.

 

9. Either of these two 24's will be a bit frustrating on 1.6 crop: you get just a hint of wide angle.

 

The 24-105 is an easier lens to use, due to it's size/weight and IS. For walk around, impromtu shots, it will tend to deliver more keepers, as long as the light is reasonable.

 

But it's max aperture and off-center image quality means mine usually is usually left at home. My 24-70 is the lens I use most, by a wide margin, particularly outdoors (indoors, and sometimes outdoors, I'll prefer the 50mm f1.4). It's IQ, speed, and the ability to shoot near macro make it indispensable to me. The lack of IS is it's main down point, but in practice it hasn't been that much of a factor, particularly at the wide end.

[William Michael]

From the little detail of your shooting requirements mentioned (i.e. outdoors, sports and kids moving quickly)

 

Get the 24 to 70F2.8L and sell the 100 to 300 and buy a 70 to 200F2.8L and (maybe) the EFx1.4MkII telecoverter, if the 200 to 300 is often used.

 

Whilst I agree that:

 

`for outdoors the [reach of] 24-105 will be great anything shorter and you will regret it for sports` (RM) [my square brackets]

 

I argue that for sports, (and kids moving quickly at play), the first limiting factor will be lens speed.

 

Certainly the one stop from F4 to F2.8 will be called upon, and frankly, for these applications the 100 to 300 (assume F4.5 ? F5.6, or slower) is way too slow.

 

WW

[jchinphotography]

I went with the 24-105L because it has IS and a longer reach.

[john_bellenis]

I WANTED to go for the 24-105L f4 for the IS and longer reach, also for the slight weight

and size savings and because I wasn't too bothered about the f4 maximum aperture for

the kind of work that I do. I really wanted to like this lens.

 

After trying the lenses side by side (different copies and at different apertures, focal

lengths and distances) at Calumet I left very happily with the 24-70L f2.8. I couldn't live

with the unacceptable vignetting wide open at 24mm of the 24-105 lens - there was also

noticably more barrel distortion, and I liked the slightly brighter viewfinder you get with

the f2.8.

 

18 months on and I haven't regretted my decision for a moment - the 24-70 is tack sharp

and a really excellent performer at all focal lengths and apertures. It'd be nice with IS but

at these focal lengths I can live without it.