Canon 24-70 or 24-105 (Please help me before I go insane)

[keoni_smith]

<p>Alright, forgive me because I am well aware of the many posts, on the various sites, addressing this same subject, and I feel as though I've read them ALL. After countless hours of reading and researching I'm still unsure. Here's my situation, I purchased a 5d Mark II for the sole purpose of capturing my children, 2 years and 7 months, and making memories that will last forever. I love the camera, and I have had a blast learning...and now my lens dilemma.<br /> <br /> I currently have: 35L, Canon 24-70, Canon 24-105, and 100 f2 (Just sold my 70-200 2.8 IS in hopes of picking up a Mark II in 5-7 years, or so, when the kids are getting into sports)<br /> <br /> I picked up the 24-70 for $900...what I saw as an unbeatable deal...and the 24-105 for $800 (again a great deal). Now I'd like to unload one of them. After an afternoon of test shots, I've discovered I got lucky and they're both sharp wide open. I plan to use the primes for indoor events, thus all I'm looking for is a walk around lens to capture family moments at the park, the beach, and wherever else the wind takes us. Yes, I love the 2.8, but I equally love the extended zoom. On the other hand, I fear missing the great bokeh of the 2.8 if I were to get rid of the 24-70.</p>

<p>If you were me, which lens would you sell? Thanks for your time!</p>

[shambrick007]

<p>I had the 28-70/2.8 L. I sold that when I was given the 5DII and 24-105/4.0 L IS as a gift. I thought that I'd miss the 2.8 zoom. I don't. the extra wide of the 24 and extra long of the 105 are worth the trade off for me. When I need the extra speed, the clean high ISO of the MkII works, or I go w/the 50/1.8. IMHO, w/the 100/2.0, and if you pick up a fast 50, you'll be fine.</p>

[sattler123]

<p>So, let me get this straight: You own both of these lenses and you ask US which lens you should sell? Seriously? I would think you are in the very best position to make that decision. Which one do you use more often?</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<blockquote>

<p>Now I'd like to unload one of them.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Resist the urge. They both have their strengths. If you were ever hand-me-downing someone a body, you could throw in a "kit" lens. Now, which one...</p>

<p>I've got both as well. I've been actually using the '105 quite a bit of late, but switched to the '70 today, for a long hike. The extra stop, the slight sharpness edge, the closer macro, all plusses for me. I do wish it had IS, though. Often sharpness suffers due to shake, in bordline shutter speeds.</p>

<p>OTOH, I appreciate the '105's IS, lighter weight, better flare resistance (to the diffuse glow of just-out-of-frame light sources).</p>

[tdigi]

<p>The answer is there is no right answer both are top quality lenses but I honestly understand how you feel, I too owned both and loved both but after a few months of use I felt I should sell 1 since they are very similar but I think how I plan to use my gear is a little different from you. I kept the 24-70 mainly because I decided I am going to ad a smaller body with an EF-S or small prime for casual shooting and keep the 24-70 for the times I need/want a more pro general zoom lens. Maybe take your time and see which you like more. I did like the photos I got with the 24-70 a bit more even though my 24-105 was probably a bit sharper but as time went on I noticed my 24-70 almost never left my 5D2.</p>

<p>For your situation I would suspect the 24-105 is the more ideal lens. On a side note I do plan to probably sell my 50 1.4 and use that with my 24-105 money to finally get a 35L. I always hear how great it is on a 5d2 but I just can't bring myself to spend $1400 on a prime. Good luck its a hard choice to make.</p>

[keoni_smith]

<p>Thanks for the input guys! I should definitely rephrase... I HAVE to sell one because financially I just cannot keep both. Mendel, if you were forced to chose one, due to finances, which would you prefer?</p>

[ilya_e]

<p>You said that you've read all articles and forum posts about this issue and still can't decide. Well, in that case just flip a coin. That will make you feel better :)</p>

[john tonai]

<p>Since you have the 100 (and plan on eventually getting the 70-200), do you need the extra length of the 24-105?</p>

[joe_moss1]

<p>I wish I had your problem. I am trying to decide which of those two I want to add to my gear. I am almost completely settled on the 105. I like the bokeh of the 2.8 on the 70, but for what I am usually shooting (sports and theatre), I really want the IS. I already have the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. I am finding that when I need the extra speed of the 2.8, the IS can give me the extra stop and then two more on top of that.</p>

[marc_felber1]

<p>I go with the faster lens, the 24-70 you might need it to shot in a dark forest. </p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>IS buys you extra stops only with static subjects. It reduces the effect of camera shake, but does nothing for subject motion. Therefore, it's not very useful for sports, where shutter speeds are generally fast enough to offset the effects of camera shake.</p>

<p>And you'd certainly need an aperture larger than f/2.8, or at least a tripod to allow slow shutter speeds, to shoot in a "dark forest"!</p>

[g dan mitchell]

Since you have primes for when you need the larger aperture for smoother background blur, low light, etc., my

hunch is that you might find the 24-105 more useful.

[alex_dannenbaum]

<p>I had a similar dillema. I think it all comes down to how you will use it. Like others, I thought the IQ was pretty similar. What I wanted was a true walk around lens. I may be crazy, but I alway thought that the 24-70 was not only more heavy, but more fragile as well. (Just my opinion). Consequently, I was always more careful handling this lens. My camera equipment was getting heavier with each upgrade. In the end, I gave up the extra stop and weight and sold off the 24-70 I may miss some shots, but overall, I beilieve I enjoy the experience of carrying the 24-105 on my camera for a day's outing much more. </p>

[charles_m1]

<p>Do you have a flash? If so, I would say 24-105L. I have a 5D2 w/ Sigma 50/1.4, 24-105L, and 70-200 f4L IS. I also have a 580ex2. Anytime I can use flash, I use my zooms. When I can't use flash, I use my 50/1.4. <br>

I also have 2 kids: a 2.5 year old and a 3 month old. The 24-105 works great on them! I think the 24-70 is too heavy to lug around, so that was the main reason that I went for the 24-105. I don't think I really need the IS or the extra reach of the 24-105, but I wanted something lighter. <br>

Anyways, that was my reasoning. Sometimes, I must admit, I do wish I had the 24-70, but I am sure that if I did have the 24-70, I'd wish for the 24-105! </p>

[dan_south]

<p>Does IS matter to you? It does to me.</p>

[matthijs]

<blockquote>

<p>If you were me, which lens would you sell?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You are you.</p>

<p>You have the 35L and the 100/2.<br>

So shallow DoF you already have.</p>

<p>Ditch the 24-70/2.8.</p>

<p>Maybe get a nice fast prime in between the 35 and the 100 if you feel you're missing something.</p>

<p>Or go wild, ditch the 35 too and get a 24L and a 50/1.4...</p>

<p>Anyway, as I already said: you are you.</p>

<p>Also remember that this decision is not for life, lenses like that can pretty easily be bought and sold second hand without great financial losses.</p>

[joshuat syd, aus]

<p>Coming from a slightly different situation and POV with my APS-C and 2 lenses that translate to similar FF lengths.</p>

<p>I had the 17-85 f4-5.6 IS and was very happy with it. I decided I really wanted the extra speed, however, I was worried that I'd miss the extra length. When I picked up the 17-55 f2.8 IS I found I loved the extra DoF and don't need the extra length (feet zoom just as well as glass 95% of the time).</p>

<p>I recently upgraded to the 5D mkII and for me the 24-70 is my next lens purchase. With IS it will be my perfect all-purpose purchase.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>One of the advantages of the 24-70 is that there is less need to take a fast lens around with you, because the zoom is already faster than the f4, so taking an f1.4 or f2 lens in addition really is overkill, if you want to travel light. So one could argue that this makes the weights of your kit in practice similar (or less if you have the 35/50 (Sigma)/1.4). Personally, for small kids, I would go for the 24-70. The wider aperture will allow better subject isolation at these focal length and the IS would not help you with rapid and unpredicatable subject movements anyway.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Only you can answer your question. Here's my suggestion: Spend an afternoon going through the photographs you took while owning both lenses. Count how many photos you take with each. For every photo, ask whether the shot could have been achieved with the other lens. For instance a shot at 105mm could only be achieved with the 24-105, and a shot at f/2.8 could only be achieved with the 24-70 (or perhaps the 100/2.0). Under two separate categories, tabulate how many shots could only be captured with the lens you used.</p>

<p>Comparing the number of shots you have with each lens would tell you which one you prefer using. Comparing the number of shots that could only be captured with a given lens would tell you which one you uniquely "need."</p>

<p>FAIW, I struggled with the same decision. I picked the 24-105 for the IS and greater reach, and I filled in with the 100/2.0 for large aperture portraiture. I'm happy with my decision.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Keoni, I have both lenses, and use them for different purposes (albeit mainly for my three children, aged sixteen, three and a half, and six months). </p>

<p>I use the 24-105, along with my 70-200/4 L IS and, occassionally, my 17-40, as my walkabout lenses. I use my 24-70 indoors, because of its greater speed and better bokeh. But I use my fast primes (35/1.4, 50/1.4, 85/1.2, 100/2, 135/2) indoors much more, and sometimes wonder whether I even "need" the 24-70.</p>

<p>So if I were in your situation, <em>and</em> I primarily used a standard zoom outdoors rather than indoors, I would keep the 24-105 and unload the 24-70.</p>

[bonyari]

<p>I'd go with the suggestion to unload the 24-70. If I were you, I would use the money from that sale to buy a flash and a 50mm f/1.4 (or even a f/1.8 version). Then you have a really robust lens line up. </p>

<p>But I would go through the exercise that Sarah Fox suggested above to find out which one you use more.</p>

[KenPapai]

<p>Fastest glass <strong>always trumps</strong> the slower glass. Only advantage the 24-105 offers is I.S. I am not a fan of hyperzooms. Too many compromises. So many things the 2.8 lens does BETTER than the F4.</p>

<p>5D2 is rather clean up to ISO 1600. That should help you decide.</p>

[keoni_smith]

<p>Thank you all VERY much for your assistance. In response to some of the questions, yes I do have a flash and when I take shots consisting of 2 or more people I am at f/4+, often using the flash indoors regardless of what lens I'm using.<br>

I'm sure I should have thought of this, but Sarah your advice tremendously helped. I haven't owned these two lenses long enough to use them much, but I looked through the exif data from the hundreds of shots I have taken with my 70-200 2.8 IS. The majority of the shots were clearly 70-110 or at 200, and I don't feel as though I missed much not having something wider than 70. I also realized that some of my favorite portraits of the kids were shot at f/4 because outdoors the background is often at a great distance, allowing for natural blur. <br>

FWIW, it looks like I'm leaning toward the reach of the 24-105. (Unless someone in their photography knowledge and wisdom can sway me with an undeniably convincing argument.)</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<blockquote>

<p>Mendel, if you were forced to chose one, due to finances, which would you prefer?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Very tough decision, and again: I can't buy that you <em>have</em> to sell...</p>

<p>Now that's a strange statement.</p>

<p>Anyway, ok: I would sell the 24-105, because I'm more emotionally attached to the '70. FWIW, you could probably get more for the '70, and maybe that is a hint as to which is the more valuable, to keep.</p>

<p>BTW, that shot that keeps coming up when I post (duotone cityscape, probably <em>my</em> apex) was with the 24-70. I could just as likely have taken it with the 24-105 I guess, but...</p>

[gregcoad]

<p>Tough call. I only own the 24-70 but have used the 24-105 quite a bit as by brother has loaned me his on a number of occasions.</p>

<p>I personally don't feel that the extra reach makes a huge difference. Especially when it comes to pictures of people. In these cases a step or two forward makes all the difference.</p>

<p>For other subjects, more distant, the extra reach will certainly make a bit of a difference but then again, thats what the 70-200 in your bag is for.</p>

<p>The extra stop of the 2.8 is invaluable in low light. No image stabilizer out there will slow down your 3 year old.</p>

<p>One of the things that I really like about the 24-70 over the 24-105, and this may seem like a very minor thing, is the hood on the 24-70. It really does a good job of protecting the front lens element. Not only from bumps and scrapes, but also from light rain. I do a lot of backpacking/hiking and I don't carry my camera in a case of any kind. The hood on the 24-70 therefore goes a long way from keeping tree branches and other things that could damage the front of the lens/filter from getting anywhere near it.</p>

<p>The only real downside that I myself see with the 24-70 is the weight. It is something I can overlook though given its other strengths.</p>

<p> </p>