Canon 24-70 mm vs. 24-105 mm

[kristin_trummer1]

<p>If you had to choose between the two (24-70 f/2.8 vs. 24-105 f/4 L IS) for mainly shooting portraiture, which one would you choose and why?</p>

<p>Also based on these shooting preferences, which one would you suggest:<br>

*Natural light photography, mainly at the "sweet" hours of light<br>

*Shooting mainly couples, babies, children, some group shots; environmental portraits as well<br>

*All on-location, usually outdoors<br>

*Possibly growing into shooting weddings in the future under lower light situations</p>

<p>Would you go for the better aperture or the option of IS? What about weight of the lens, etc. Inform me of the major pros & cons, please!</p>

<p>Thanks & if I have overlooked a previous discussion on this topic, please send me a link.</p>

<p> </p>

[samoksner]

<p>I feel like each time we have one of these: 16-35 vs 17-40, 24-70 vs 24-105, 70-200 f4 IS vs 70-200 f2.8.... it's because we have sinned. I don't mean to pick on you but it's been discussed soooo many times, and each time, the conslusion is the same: it depends on your needs! <br>

I did a search for 24-70 24-105 and every single result on the front page of that list is relevant.<br>

http://www.photo.net/search/?cx=000753226439295166877%3A0gyn0h9z85o&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=UTF-8&section=all&q=24-70+24-105&filter=0&sa.x=0&sa.y=0&sa=Search#1368</p>

[alan_bryant1]

<p>Are you using a crop-frame camera or full frame?</p>

<p>FYI discussion of this question is endless.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>Neither.</p>

<p>Personally I'd go for a 50/1.4 or an 85/1.8 if I wanted a lens for portraiture. If I wanted to alter framing, I'd move slightly closer to or further from the subject.</p>

[ed_v.]

If you have a 1.6x crop camera (and plan to stay that way) I'd opt for the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS and have the best of both worlds.

[PuppyDigs]

<p>I prefer the 24-105 L. My wisdom on the topic:</p>

<p>http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/canon_ef24-105.htm</p>

<p>And, yeah, this is among the 10 most oft asked questions on this and other Canon forums, so there are thousands of opinions to meander through if you care to use the search functions.</p>

[py-photography]

<p>I selected the 24-105L for the IS and the other reason, I found at least 60% of my shots were over 70mm.(Love lightroom for being to get data of this nature) If you use LR check to see @ what focal length you shoot at the most. <br /> I really don't think either lens is a bad choice. IMHO at least.</p>

[edrodgers]

<p>The official Obama portrait was taken with the 24-105. Psh. Kit lens. :)</p>

[john_manganiello]

<p>24-105 is on my 50D most of the time. <br>

See: <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-105mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-105mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx</a><br>

"Boasting the superb build, mechanical and optical quality found in the <a href="http://www.photo.net/Canon-Lenses/Canon-L-Lens-Series.aspx">Canon L-Series Lenses</a> and a widely used range of focal lengths, the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens is <strong>one of the best</strong> and <strong>most popular Canon general purpose lenses</strong> made. The Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens quickly became one of my favorites. <strong>If I had only one lens, this would be the one."</strong></p>

[mark_fletcher]

<p>Hi,<br>

I had the same dilemma as have many others - I opted for the 24-70mm which is an amazing lens, since owning it I have taken some of my favourite shots and it has become my favourite lens. The only negative point of this lens is the weight - it is a heavy lens to carry around all day and it can be tricky travelling with a lot of heavy lenses these days with airline carry on luggage restrictions. But I still love this lens and it is always either on my camera or in my kit bag.<br>

If you want to shoot mostly low light then maybe primes are your solution, but then if you are going to do wedding photography you will need a speedlight flash so either of the lenses will work well teamed up with something like a 580ex Mk II and a good diffuser.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>OK, I'll take the bait... and offer my standard comparison once again. :-)</p>

<p>First, both are very fine lenses, and there are fine photographers who use one or the other or even both to great advantage. That said, there are differences that may make one or the other more suitable for <em>your personal needs</em> . Each photographer has to figure this out. (It is, as someone pointed out, like choosing between 16-35 and 17-4, choosing among the 70-200mm zooms, deciding whether to get a 300mm prime and a TC or get a 100-400 zoom, etc., etc. etc...)</p>

<p>The 24-70 is an excellent lens and is used by lots of photographers. The slightly larger f/2.8 aperture may permit slightly narrower depth of field, may improve the camera's ability to AF very slightly in truly marginal situations, and gives you one more stop of shutter speed in low light - which can help a bit if your subject is moving. It is a fairly large lens by comparison to some alternatives (weight/bulk) and it covers a narrower focal length range.</p>

<p>The 24-105 is also an exellent lens and is used by lots of photographers. The inclusion of image-stabilization (IS) allows you to shoot handheld in low light by compensating for 2-3 stops by shooting at lower shutter speeds. You gain more low light performance than with the f/2.8 aperture... but only if the issue is camera motion and not if the issue is subject motion. It is not a small lens, but for what it is the bulk/weight seem less extreme. It covers a larger focal length range, particularly at the long end.</p>

<p>You need to consider these features in light of how they play into your own photography. It is also important to consider how either lens fits into your overall equipment collection. For example, if you also shoot with primes having f/2.8 may be less significant to you.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[pto189]

<p>If you have both lenses, you will use the 24-105 more often than the 24-70.</p>

[richwatson]

<p>Ive got both too and end up using the 24-70 more often on a 5D MK2. Ii all comes down to whether you need that one F-stop.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Kristin, I'm with Bob on this one. Primes make the best portrait lenses. The best lens I've ever used for portraiture is the FD 85/1.2 L. And the best autofocus lens I've used is the EF 50/1.4. The 50/1.4 produces so much better images than the 24-70/2.8 L that I'm thinking of selling the zoom.</p>

<p>As Bob says, if you want to alter the framing of a shot, simply move closer or further from your subject. Zooms have, I daresay, made photographers lazy. And they haven't improved the quality of their images, either.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>Mark, You really think the 50 1.4 is that good? I think its a great lens but the auto focus is a bit wonky compared to either 24-XXX. </p>

<p>As to the OP. I don't know why people still post this question, its been asked a million times and if you do a search you will get the usual 50/50 response with the "if you have a 1.6 crop get the 17-55 2.8".......<br>

I will say when getting responses you have to consider who is giving them. If your a pro and shooting a wedding, event, etc the 24-70 is probably for you. If your using it for travel or hobby the 24-105 is much more manageable. IMO if you really need low light performance a prime is your best bet. Personally I go with the 24-105 and primes. </p>

[tdigi]

<p>Mark, You really think the 50 1.4 is that good? I think its a great lens but the auto focus is a bit wonky compared to either 24-XXX. </p>

<p>As to the OP. I don't know why people still post this question, its been asked a million times and if you do a search you will get the usual 50/50 response with the "if you have a 1.6 crop get the 17-55 2.8".......<br>

I will say when getting responses you have to consider who is giving them. If your a pro and shooting a wedding, event, etc the 24-70 is probably for you. If your using it for travel or hobby the 24-105 is much more manageable. IMO if you really need low light performance a prime is your best bet. Personally I go with the 24-105 and primes. </p>

[summicron_sam]

<p>By and large, I'll say "ditto" to what G Dan wrote.</p>

<p>I have both. Mostly shoot my children (from birth, now 3 years). I have a 580EX, but it's collecting dust -- I shoot natural light now 99%. Bought the 24-105 first. When my first born was 27 months old I bought the 24-70 and never looked back -- haven't used the 24-105 since. The extra stop makes all the difference -- both in terms of bokeh and AF speed -- which is really important with the squirmies! </p>

<p>Then there's the other part of the story...now I have the 35 f/1.4L and 85 f/1.2L mk II and don't use my much 24-70 anymore...</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Tommy, I am astounded at how thoroughly the 50/1.4 outperforms the 24-70 at 50mm. This is not to say that the 24-70 is not a very fine lens.</p>

<p>Basically, I have tended to use my 24-105 for outdoor, walkabout use, and my 24-70 for indoor, available light use. But I have found that primes are much better than zooms for the latter. Both of these zooms are excellent, but primes are just that much better.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>I guess I am talking more about the focusing. I agree the photo quality is better but it seems to struggle a bit to focus in some situations, its not bad just not as good as the L's. I am right with you on when to use zooms and primes. If I am on vacation I am taking a 24-105 and a 50 1.4. ( on a full frame body ). Perfect combo IMO.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>I dont' see any particular problems getting a 50mm f/1.4 to AF.</p>

[carlwakefield]

<p>I shot these five shots recently 4 are with the 24-70 lens and 1 is the 50 1.4 the 3rd shot. I think the 50 1.4 its hard to tell with these shots but I would say the 50 1.4 has a better image quality. Shots were either F8 or F11 with 2x580 speedlights as lighting. 125sec.<br>

link to folder <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=887455">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=887455</a><br>

Between the two zooms I am one of the 50% that would choose the 24-70 because I preffer the 2.8 and find 70 mm long enough I would rather move in closer and groups and full half body shots you need to move out further.<br>

I think Bob offer the best advice start with the 50mm 1.4.</p>

[ujwal]

<p>I'd go for the 24-70 2.8 L.<br>

I have it...and love the results. You wont go wrong with the 24-105 either. For your requirements, both lenses are really good. Personally, I find the range of 24-70 2.8 very well suited for weddings and portraiture and it requires much less post processing than 17-40 L.<br>

I use a 20D and 24-70 2.8L for weddings and portraits and almost everything else.<br>

If I had to choose just one lens in the world to do my work, this is the lens I'd go for.</p>

<p> </p>

[ty_mickan]

<p>why would anyone be astounded by a prime lens outperforming a zoom lens by a large margin? furthermore, i just don't understand people's fascination with zoom lenses. they are medium speed at best, and are a compromise in image quality, bulk and weight. the 1.4/50mm lens is likely your best bet.</p>

[sutejok]

<p>I went thru this, and my pick was 24 70. No regrets. I used it on xti and 5dm2 both are great. The thing is, you can get the is with a tripod, but you cant get the 2.8 with tools. Its a great lens.</p>

[kristin_trummer1]

<p>Sorry, I figured this has been asked a gazillion times, but quite often people don't specify exactly what kind of shooting they'll be doing and I thought I would just cut to the chase and outline mine while asking the question. Thanks to everyone for all the links pointing me in the direction of other established discussions/reviews. And thanks to everyone who also did not care to repeat their stance yet again.<br>

Oh and by the way, I am shooting with a Canon xti right now, but I would like to get a lens that would grow with me, no matter if I am still shooting on it or a 5D Mark II in the years to come!</p>