Canon 24-70 or 24-105

[scott_langille]

<p>Im sure this debate has been talked about on here already but I can't find anything on it. Which is better 24-70 f/2.8 or 24-105 f/4. Other than the extra reach on the 105 and the wider apeture on the 70 which lens is better, in your opinion, as far as image quality? I like to shoot news stories, sports, landscapes, and portraiture. I currently own a 300 mm is, 70-200mm is, and the 16-35mm and I am shooting with a 7D and 40D as back up.</p>

[randallfarhy]

<p>Scott, IQ is comparable between the two. The decision as to which one to go with depends on your intended use. Would you make more use of the faster 2.8, or the longer 105 with IS (IS only controls camera shake, not subject movement which can be a concern when using slower shutter speeds in low light).</p>

<p>Looking at your Cache of lenses, I see little practical benefit to the purchase of either as you're only lacking in the "36-69" range, not something I'd consider overly critical. Perhaps a fast 50mm 1.4 or 1.2 would better suit your needs. Also, keep in mind that too many lenses to choose from can become real a burden when shooting.</p>

[wayne_campbell]

<p>Randall,<br>

My thoughts exactly. On a recent trip I carried too many lenses and ended up leaving a superzoom on the camera the whole time to avoid having to constantly change lenses. Truth be told, when I got home and looked at the pictures , they all looked good.</p>

[scott_langille]

<p>Guys thanks for your input. It helped me look at it a different way. I will look into a fast 50 mm. </p>

 

[mike_hitchen]

<p>This is one of the most hotly debated comaprisons on the forum (have you used the search function at the top of the page?). From these numerous debates I gather that the 24-70 has the slightly better image quality and those who favour it also like the f2.8 for the depth of field in portraits. But it is significantly heavier than the 24-105.<br>

My choice would be for the 24-105 because for me the IS would offset the seemingly minimal difference in image quality.</p>

[dan_south]

Yes, it's discussed about once a week here. Search again. Plenty of stuff to read and consider.

[g dan mitchell]

<p>As is often the case when making comparisons like this, looking to "image quality" as the deciding factor may be a mistake. In the end, both lenses can produce excellent image quality, though neither is perfect. (No lens is perfect.) The more significant differences between the two lenses are functional ones that relate you what and how you shoot and to how either lens might better fit into the rest of your kit.</p>

<p>The <strong>24-70</strong> provides one additional stop, which can give a small advantage in situations where subject motion is an issue in low light. It may provide somewhat smoother bokeh due to the slightly larger maximum aperture and due to other lens characteristics. It covers a focal length range from decently wide to slightly longer than normal (in terms of use on full frame). In other words, it doesn't go quite as long as what we might regard as "portrait length," though it does go as long as the short end of your 70-200mm lens. You might think of it as a sort of "extended normal" lens. In is not a small lens in terms of weight or size - in fact, it is somewhat large/bulky by comparison to other lenses.</p>

<p>The <strong>24-105</strong> adds image stabilization, which in some low light situations more than compensates for having the smaller f/4 maximum aperture. While this lens is at a one-stop disadvantage in terms of dealing with subject motion in low light, it has a several stop advantage in low light when the issue is camera stability while shooting hand held - six of one, half dozen of the other, as they say. It has, obviously, the same wide angle coverage, but the 105mm telephoto end provides significantly longer coverage than the 70mm maximum of the other lens, making it more versatile in certain situations. (In your case, you would have to switch lenses less frequently, and sometimes might get by without carrying the 70-200.) Considering its focal length coverage, it is of a bit more reasonable size/bulk. </p>

<p><strong>Other considerations</strong>:</p>

<p>Some of us - I'm in this camp - prefer to combine slightly smaller maximum zooms (like the f/4 24-105) with larger aperture primes. We get smaller weight/bulk with the versatility of the zoom, and even larger maximum apertures from the primes when we need narrower DOF and smoother bokeh than the f/2.8 zooms can provide.</p>

<p>If you shoot a cropped sensor camera - I don't believe you said what you use in your post - and are looking for a "normal range" zoom, I'd look very carefully at the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<blockquote>

<p>Some of us - I'm in this camp - prefer to combine slightly smaller maximum zooms (like the f/4 24-105) with larger aperture primes. We get smaller weight/bulk with the versatility of the zoom, and even larger maximum apertures from the primes when we need narrower DOF and smoother bokeh than the f/2.8 zooms can provide.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm also in this camp. I had both the 24-70 and 24-105, and sold the former precisely for the reasons G Dan has outlined. Faster primes are simply better for the applications for which I was using the 24-70; namely, lower light portraiture where I need larger apertures and smoother bokeh.</p>

<p>If the fabled 24-70 <strong><em>IS </em></strong>ever appears, I might consider acquiring a copy (though I'm afraid it'll be even more unwieldy than the current version). For now, I'm more than happy with just two zooms (24-105 and 70-200/4 IS), and a set of very fine primes.</p>

<p> </p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I have the EF 24-105mm IS f/4 lens and it is simply my most commonly used lens. I have gone for long periods with never putting another lens on the body. It's relatively portable and light, the IS is a feature I do not like to live without anymore, and the IQ is very nice for what it is.<br>

That being said, if I were buying from scratch for APS-C bodies like yours, I'd opt for the EF-S 15-85mm IS these days (I have the older 17-85 for my own APS-C body cameras). The 16-35 can serve some of the same function, so as long as you already have it, I'd stick with it unless you find it too cumbersome.<br>

If I were you, I'd buy the EF 50mm f/1.4 or even the much cheaper EF 50mm f/1.8 lens. They are fine lenses, would give you more low light capability, fill the 'gap" (about which I would not worry too much), and would serve as a nice "portrait" (aka short telephoto) lens addition to your kit with easier bokeh than the zooms.</p>

 

[colin carron]

<p>I used to have the 28-70 f2.8 (predecessor to the 24-70). It had excellent IQ but was heavy and limited in range. I did not use it much. I changed it for the 24-105. It is a bit lighter, longer range and has slightly lower IQ. But the IQ is perfectly satisfactory for most purposes. I use it a lot.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>They're both great, particularly after geometric errors, vignetting, CA and other errors are automatically removed in RAW conversion with ACR, LR, DxO and others.</p>

<p>Choose based on size preference and likely personal usage. I love my 24-105mm, particularly paired with a body with super high-ISO performance so I can do night street photograph with no tripod.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>I actually went the other way to Mark and sold the 24-105 for the 24-70. Both are good lenses but I found that the 24-70 had better IQ. The main difference is on full frame at wider apertures where the 24-70 edges are softer. I suspect that on a APS-C body there would be almost no real world difference. I do not mind the size and weight of the 24-70 nor do I miss IS. I find that the 24-70 is a useful single lens solution on full frame (I rarely use it on my 1DIIN or 7D where the 16-35 II is a better range). Compared to my 16-35 II the 24-70 has better IQ in the 24-35mm range (I find the 16-35 is optimized for the wider angles). I also have several primes in the same range - the 35 F2, 50 F1.4 and 85 F1.8. I find that the 35 and 50 are not really much better than the zoom - my 50 is pretty soft and needs to be shot at F2 for good results. The 85 F1.8 is clearly better in real world use than the two zooms.<br>

If I were you then I would not buy either zoom as the range is not that useful on your APS-C bodies. If you are looking for a portrait lens then consider the 50 f1.4 and 85 F1.8. I find that I rarely use my 24-70 on my 7D and if I need to shoot portraits with the 7D prefer the 85mm lens (even though I use 85mm or the 100 F2.8 LIS for portraits on full frame). You may also want to consider a good wide angle lens like the 35 F1.4 or the 24 F1.4. I would suggest that the "gap you have is not a big issue for most purposes.</p>

[esfishdoc]

<p>Pick one and be happy!<br>

I chose the 24-70 and love it. Don't miss IS.... really like the 2.8. I like the size and weight.</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>I chose the 24-70/2.8 after owning the 24-105/4. I found that the work I do finds much better results from the f2.8 than it ever did from the 24-105/4. But then I get paid to take pictures of people, and do so almost exclusively. Were my subject buildings, or landscape, or birds, I probably wouldn't favor this lens so much, certainly for a 'flexible zoom' the 24-105/4 is probably a far better choice. But then I shoot FF, on the crop, neither would be my first choice -- Since you've got the wide end covered, go w/ the 50 and be happy!</p>

 

[jaydesi]

<p>I got rid of my 24-70 in favor of the 24-105 for my 7D. It lives on my camera. I much prefer IS and the extra reach over one extra stop of speed.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>The two posts above mine, alone with the general thrust of any discussion of this topic, clearly reinforces the idea that the "bitterness" of one or the other of these lenses is entirely a matter of its relative bitterness for your photography, not its absolute quality.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>I have both, but have been using my 24-105 more of late, for <em>it's</em> strengths. But it's not ahead of the 24-70 in all ways, just happens to win most, for me.</p>

<p>Where the 24-105 is ahead:<br />1. Dimensions, weight.<br />2. IS (too many blurred pics with the 24-70, at borderline shutter speeds)<br />3. Zoom range (even at 24, which is slightly wider than the 24-70's 24)<br />4. Flare resistance (I find the 24-70 more subject to diffuse flare "blooms", with just out of frame light sources)<br />5. Color (very neutral, the 24-70 can be ruddy in comparison, depending on the light)</p>

<p>Where the 24-70 is ahead:<br />1. Macro (it does get you closer)<br />2. Ultimate sharpness, particularly off-center (but this can be cancelled out by the lack of IS, in a lot of situations)<br />3. The extra stop</p>

[gregf]

<p>I have both lenses, I think the 24-70 blows away the 24-105. In fact, wide open, the 24-105 sucks (<a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=1009615">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=1009615</a>), that is too much vignetting for me (yes, these were whot at f/4, at f/11 it's not near as bad.</p>

<p>However, I do prefer the 24-105 when I want a light walk-around lens sans a tripod. If I am going to carry a tripod with me, I will always take the 24-70.</p>

<p>I'll reiterate what others have said. Reach and IS on the the 24-105. Speed and sharpness on the 24-70.</p>

<p>I only find myself using the IS in cases where I don't have my tripod, so it certainly does cut back on weight.</p>

[david_huff1]

<p>I own both. On a hike I take the 24-105. For just about everything else, I reach for the 24-70, and universally so as Gregory says above, when I am shooting with my tripod. Both are great, however, so no right or wrong choice here really; unless, you need the speed ... and for some reason, I always do.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>funny... I wrote "bitterness" when I meant "betterness." </p>

[paulie_smith1]

<p>Solved this one by buying a Panasonic LX5. Pocketable, 24-90 zoom with f/2.0 wide aperture. A good complement to the MarkII's in the field and the image quality is very good. Even have a number of images printed in some of our area newspapers from it.<br>

Saves me from changing lenses more often in crappy environments like the major dust from all the cleanup efforts in Minot, ND where I have been shooting recovery photos the past week.</p>

[h_._jm]

<p>It is funny (or annoying slightly!) the choices we have to make; I never had the 24-70 but have the 24-105 and the 35L and just hate having to switch to get bokeh when I want it.<br>

However, I'm pretty sure if I had only 24-70 I would be wanting to have what I currently have.<br>

If your local shops are cheap just like online stores; maybe you can test and see what 'you' like more. If you're not the hesitant type of person and go with what you like, it's probably a good idea.<br>

I'm in the same dilemma; I took the 24-105 tonight to test at night in a dark park with flash; and I was surprised and happy that I had MANY sharp keeper portraits at 1/8 of a second exposure; ISO 1000-1250 at F4. Infact I had a few sharp portraits at 1/4 second exposure (just had to tell the subject to freeze).<br>

But then yesterday I took it to billiard/pool with my friends and found both the 24-105 hard to shoot in natural lighting, not as much bokeh as I liked; and the 35L being restricted in focal length (wanted wider to cover the table). That's when I wished for the 24-70; however pool table in a dark place is <1% of my shooting anyway :)</p>

[h_._jm]

<p><1% in the sense of like <1% of my shooting situations are 'that dark'.</p>