24-70L or 24-105mm

[MJP]

soon im going to have a budget for 1600 for camera lens....seems that i dont trust the current sigma 24-70mm i have...i think i have a back focus or sometimes out of focus...when i borrowed my friend's 24-70L, all pictures were in focus and very sharp....but im thorn between 24-70 and 24-105mm....

[calicokat]

Well, the main difference is going to be F/2.8 with no IS versus F/4 with IS. Plus the 35mm of extra length the 24-105L provides. I use my 24-105L alot more than my 24-70L. The 24-105L is the lens I would choose if I could only have one.

[dengli]

I had a 24-70 - great lens but I tradedit for the 24-105. Longer reach and IS won over the extra stop for the work that I do. The 24-105 is every bit as sharp as the 24-70 and a useful bit lighter as well.

[Ronald S. Jr.]

Everyone has a use for the lenses they choose. There's conditions for each of those two. The way I saw it, for what I have to do, it was either handhold slower speeds in order to properly expose(24-105), or get faster speeds in lower light to stop action(24-70). Naturally for me, the 24-70 won. I'd rather have an extra stop anyday.

[Tsmith]

I don't own either _ yet _ but the design of the 24-70L is very awkward to me.

[hemuni]

Another vote for the 24-105, Canons best all purpose zoom, great for lowlight.

As much as i like my 28-70/2.8, i hardly ever use it.

[Ronald S. Jr.]

I don't own either _ yet _ but the design of the 24-70L is very awkward to me.

As in hard to use? What part don't you like?

[ScottE]

As in hard to use? What part don't you like?
The big shiny part on the end gets finger prints on it.
;-)

[SkipD]

The Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L lens is unique in one respect. The lens and its hood are designed in a way that I have never seen in any other lens/hood combination. First, the hood mounts directly to the lens body. That part is not unique in the Canon line, of course. What is unique is that the 24-70 lens extends when you zoom towards 24mm and retracts when you zoom towards 70mm. The lens hood is a rather deep petal type hood which looks like it would never work at wide angle zoom settings - UNTIL you see that the lens is very near the front of the hood at 24mm.

This is the ONLY zoom lens/hood combination that I have ever seen that optimizes the hood coverage at all focal lengths.

[Double Negative]

LOL Scott. :D

It's a tough call on these lenses - but calicokat nailed it. It's a choice between the brighter lens or the darker one with IS and a little more reach. You can't go wrong with either, they're fantastic lenses.

I went with the 24-70mm because I like the brighter aperture. IS is nice, but it won't stop subject motion, for example. It also doesn't have quite as shallow a DoF.

[Tsmith]

As in hard to use? What part don't you like?

I like Skips approach to the Lens but as for my opinion its the backward zoom setup that I don't care for. Maybe if I actually had or tried one out it'd be different but just looking at it I prefer the older 28-70L instead.

[Ronald S. Jr.]

Yeah, but less contrast, not as sharp, and not as good at the edges. It's just not worth the $2-300 savings to me. After I saw the fred miranda test between the two, I just couldn't look at a 28-70L again. It's a lovely lens, but just doesn't compare, in my mind. The "backwards" zoom just isn't a problem for me. I couldn't care less that the lens is sticking out at 24mm. It'll stick out at some point!

You know...if it weren't for the pure logic of the hood design, I'd love to see the 24-70L be an internal zooming lens. That'd be awesome.

[Benandbobbi]

I have the 24-70mm and wouldn't be caught without it.

[hemuni]

The older 28-70/2.8 have the same design with a reversed zoom and large hood.

IS won't stop motionblur, but it allows you to use it creatively without a tripod - no fast lense will do that.

Now if only Canon would end this discusion and put out a 24-70/2.8 IS. I would deffinatly be the first to buy.

[Tsmith]

I'd love to see the 24-70L be an internal zooming lens. That'd be awesome.

Now that would be interesting indeed ... ;)

[Ronald S. Jr.]

Yeah...probably have flare problems, though.

[Tsmith]

The older 28-70/2.8 have the same design with a reversed zoom and large hood. ... I didn't realize that till just now ... :confused:

[SeanH]

I love my 24-70. I actually sold a couple primes because this lens is so good, and being a 2.8 makes it not as hard to miss the primes. I have never shot with a 24-105, I hear it a great lens however some have said it drops a bit in sharpness after 70mm. Yes the 24-105 is lighter, but it's a f4 so it would be. I don't think you could go wrong with either, however I would buy the 105 if I was going to just have it for a standard.......and maybe your only lens. But IMO if your building a "kit" I would go for the 24-70, then add a 70-200 2.8.

[tdaugharty]

Yeah...probably have flare problems, though.

This issue has been resolved ... I have a "UUxxx" mfg code and the lens in every respect is an L. Just look at the code and make sure it's not an early 2005 release. Most all of the outstanding stock has been recalled according to B&H and Wolf Camera.

The legacy of "flare issues" should be considered mute.

[Double Negative]

Now if only Canon would end this discusion and put out a 24-70/2.8 IS. I would deffinatly be the first to buy.
Go for the gold... 24-135mm f/2.8L IS. :D

[Ronald S. Jr.]

This issue has been resolved ... I have a "UUxxx" mfg code and the lens in every respect is an L. Just look at the code and make sure it's not an early 2005 release. Most all of the outstanding stock has been recalled according to B&H and Wolf Camera.

The legacy of "flare issues" should be considered mute.

However, I wasn't talking about the 24-105L IS. :-D I was talking about if they made a 24-70L that was internal zooming (It's what bluedog and I had been talking about in the previous few posts). It would have a fixed hood, not optimized at each focal length, and would probably have flare issues.

Pay attention, silly! :p

[cactusclay]

This issue has been resolved ... I have a "UUxxx" mfg code and the lens in every respect is an L. Just look at the code and make sure it's not an early 2005 release. Most all of the outstanding stock has been recalled according to B&H and Wolf Camera.

The legacy of "flare issues" should be considered mute. I have the 24-105 and I really think it is an excellent len, but the flare issue is far from mute, in my opinion. Try to see how close you can get the edge of the frame to the sun, before flare occurs. I think with a crop camera, at least a longer lens hood might help with this problem, but I think on full frame it's just something to live with. I sent mine in for calibration and mentioned there was a flare problem, but I guess there was nothing that could be done about the flare, because it's the same as it was when I sent it in. All in all, the lens is pretty sharp and the contrast and color are very good. With the IS, lighter weight and longer reach, I think it's the perfect wedding lens, with a flash, peroid.:)

[Jon]

I like Skips approach to the Lens but as for my opinion its the backward zoom setup that I don't care for. Maybe if I actually had or tried one out it'd be different but just looking at it I prefer the older 28-70L instead.
With the lens hood on, you'll never know which way it's zooming, in or out. I'm afraid I don't quite see why it matters whether 24 mm or 70 mm is closer to the front of the hood. If it were a "normal" zoom, going to 24 at its most compact, the hood would have to be designed for that anyhow, thus just as shallow as the existing one is at 24, only at all focal lengths (which Canon could counteract with a zooming hood. Now there's a chance for a pricey option - electrically geared lens hood that actually zooms to match the lens' focal length!).

[Ronald S. Jr.]

With the lens hood on, you'll never know which way it's zooming, in or out. I'm afraid I don't quite see why it matters whether 24 mm or 70 mm is closer to the front of the hood.

THANK you. :D

People...:rolleyes: :lol:

[Tsmith]

Well I guess since I've never actually seen one (24-70L) in action and probably best I didn't _ I'll just retract my comments then as: Don't know what the he** I'm talking about. ... :-|

[Double Negative]

Yeah, we recently had this discussion about the 24-70mm and the hood... :D

IMHO, it's a fantastic design.

[ed rader]

Everyone has a use for the lenses they choose. There's conditions for each of those two. The way I saw it, for what I have to do, it was either handhold slower speeds in order to properly expose(24-105), or get faster speeds in lower light to stop action(24-70). Naturally for me, the 24-70 won. I'd rather have an extra stop anyday.

ronald -- have you tried both?

i actually rented the 24-70L this weekend and used it all day yesterday at http://www.filoli.org/

nice lens. sharper @ f2.8 than i imagined.

ed rader

[Master-9]

I love my 24-70L....

[mbze430]

I love my 24-70L....
eh...it's ok... wide open and at 24 is hard to love.

[Ronald S. Jr.]

ronald -- have you tried both?

i actually rented the 24-70L this weekend and used it all day yesterday at http://www.filoli.org/

nice lens. sharper @ f2.8 than i imagined.

ed rader

Yup, I used a 24-105 for about 8 minutes straight a bit ago. :-D

I wasn't impressed in the least. Not to mention unless you're *very* close, f/4 doesn't give me the DoF control that I'd like. You know, sometimes I WANT paper-thin DoF! ;-)

[ed rader]

Yup, I used a 24-105 for about 8 minutes straight a bit ago. :-D

I wasn't impressed in the least. Not to mention unless you're *very* close, f/4 doesn't give me the DoF control that I'd like. You know, sometimes I WANT paper-thin DoF! ;-)

you want paper-thin you should look at some of the longer, fast primes.

ed rader

[mbze430]

PLUS the 24-105 have EXCESSIVE vignetting at 24...so much so over the 24-70. Its a real bummer.

But the 24-70, 24 @ f/2.8 have some pretty serious vignetting too. Sigh...

[WildWolf]

Yup, I used a 24-105 for about 8 minutes straight a bit ago. :-D

I wasn't impressed in the least. Not to mention unless you're *very* close, f/4 doesn't give me the DoF control that I'd like. You know, sometimes I WANT paper-thin DoF! ;-)

I thought the 24-105 @ 105 f4 has less DoF than the 24-70 @70 f2.8. Is that not correct?

[Ronald S. Jr.]

Would it not depend on focusing distance as well? I don't know, wildwolf..figure it out if you like.

[WildWolf]

Still waiting patiently for my lens..........as soon as I get it, I will post some portraits wide open.

[Raj]

I was in the same dilemma (although i had sigma 24-70, not the canon). While my 24-70 2.8 was really steller copy, I sold it to get 24-105. Reasons ? I didnt found myself using 2.8 so much + 70mm is kinda short. Plus new canon has IS too.
Nothing new in my logic I am sure, just wanted to mention my vote :p

btw, I am still waiting for my 24-105 to be delivered :-(