Walk Around Lens

[Packhorse-4]

I have a few things on my wish list (don't we all) http://forums.canonphotogroup.com/images/smilies/wink.gif and I am having some trouble deciding on a zoom lens that will be a solid general purpose lens. I was looking through my pictures and the vast majority of my photos are indoor and handheld (choir, plays, school activities, etc.). On vacation, most of the pics are outdoor, but again, handheld. So on to the two candidates...

I was looking at the 24-70 f/2.8L and the 24-105 f/4L IS

The reviews seem to lean toward the 24-70 as one of the best options, but the 24-105 is a strong contender. I might appreciate the f/2.8 when I'm indoors, but indoor or outdoor, I tend to hold the camera in my hands, so I could really benefit from the IS of the 24-105.

I guess my question is this; are these two choices so close in quality that I'm just nit-picking, or is there a significant advantage in having either the additional f/stop or the IS, depending on the lens.

[krusnof]

Do a search on the lenses in the forum - a lot of threads about the differences between these two. Could save you some time ;-)

[Ronald S. Jr.]

Depends on how dim the light is, and which body you have (for higher-ISO performance).

[jj1987]

24-70. The extra stop of light freezes motion from your subject, the IS doesnt. Plus the 24-70 seems to be sharper, and I dont know of many that have been dissapointed in it.

The Tamron 28-75 might be worth looking at.

[Packhorse-4]

Thanks, I was just reading an active post about the 24-105 f/4L IS. It sounds like the owners of this lens are completely satisfied with it.

I'm still climbing the learning curve of SLR's and I guess I really don't have a full understanding of the advantage of one additional f/stop (f/4 to f/2.8 ). Then throw in my lack of knowledge on the advangates of IS enabling the user to gain up to 3 stops when handheld.

I don't know what I don't know and that's not a good place to make an expensive decision. I think I understand that I don't get any additional light from the IS (that's only achieved with a wider aperture), what I'm gaining is the ability to hold the camera at a slower shutter speed without significantly impacting image quality.

But this is where I start to spin around in circles. The 24-70 f/2.8L allows me to shoot at a faster shutter speed and minimize the effects of camera movement. But I don't always shoot wide open and the 24-105 f/4 IS may give me the ability to shoot with smaller apertures (or bigger f/stops) than the 24-70... I'm chasing my tail here.

[Mark_Cohran]

Ask yourself whether you need the shallower depth of field offered by the 2.8, or whether the increased range (and less weight) of the 24-105 is more important. I have the 24-105 and the older 28-70 f2.8, and I much prefer the 24-105 as a walk around lens. Its lighter, has more reach, and I can always bump my ISO up one stop (but I don't need to do so, because the IS lets me handhold at pretty low shutter speeds).

Mark

[crn3371]

Of those 2, I'd go for the 24-105 for the reach and the IS. Those 2 things would outweigh the 1 stop advantage of the 24-70. My only question would be what are you shooting with now? Will 24mm be wide enough for you? For me, no. That's why I opted for the 17-85 IS.

[dontblink]

If you are using a crop body, then I think 17-55 f/2.8 IS would make the best walkaround lens.

[ssim]

24-70. The extra stop of light freezes motion from your subject, the IS doesnt. Plus the 24-70 seems to be sharper, and I dont know of many that have been dissapointed in it.

I have both and they are both very sharp. The extra stop of light can freeze your subject assuming that you are at the peak where that one extra stop will attain that.

It was said above, they both have their advantages. The 24-105 has that extra litte reach and IS. The 24-70 has the extra stop. If there is a downside to the 24-70 its the weight.

Either lens would serve you well. In the end its only you that can decide which of the pros and cons will play in your decision making.

[Ocean Blue]

There are some long threads on this - try the "great debate" thread. There are others.

[Packhorse-4]

I updated my profile to include my camera and my current lens. I just upgraded from my 300D to the wonderful 30D a few days ago. I purchased the 28-105 f/3.5 - 4.5 to replace the kit lens about a year ago. It's a nice lens and I enjoy the range, but when I'm trying to zoom up on stage, snap some pics at gymnastics, or take photos at a swim meet, I am not quite satisfied with most of the pictures.

Outdoor, this lens has worked just fine and I usually get good picture quality. On sunny days I can get some great action shots and I have several landscape photos I am happy with.

So, back to the discussion... I think I would miss the range between 70 - 105 but I could live with that if the picture quality is that much better with the 24-70 lens. If the pictures are sharper, brighter, etc, I could make up some of the distance by croping the picture to get closer.

[rssfhs]

I just ordered the 24-105 f/4L IS to go with my new 30D, because the light weight, extra reach and IS are more important to me than the extra stop. Hope I won't be disappointed.

[350D_Noob]

I just ordered the 24-105 f/4L IS to go with my new 30D, because the light weight, extra reach and IS are more important to me than the extra stop. Hope I won't be disappointed.

You won't. The 24-105 is a great lens and I appreciate all it's done for me.

As for which one to choose, it really all depends on what you want and what you're going to be shooting. Just read around. Both lenses are wonderful and you shouldn't be dissatisfied with either.

[MDJAK]

I just ordered the 24-105 f/4L IS to go with my new 30D, because the light weight, extra reach and IS are more important to me than the extra stop. Hope I won't be disappointed.

You will be. (j/k) You'll love it.

For me, and this is only me, the best walkaround lens is the 70-300. It has great reach, gives great results, and is lightweight.

mark

[psy4fun]

I own a 24-70/2.8L and I'm very happy. I prefer the extra stop because they really help me shooting in low light conditions without push ISO up. But, to be honest, 24-70/2.8L isn't a true and efficient walk-around lens. Not for me. There are a lot of situations when 24 isn't enough and a lot of anothers when 70 is too short! Something like a imaginary 17-135/2.8L wold be perfect :)

Talking about the 24-105, is really very sharp in wide opens and some problems will only be noticeable in FF bodies, not in your 30D. In the past, some people reported too much lens flare. Today, I think the problem is complete erradicated by Canon (in doubt, ask service). If you are buying an used lens, be aware of this problem. IS help you achieve more depth-of-field, not more light: there's no way to go below f/4! In low light condition the 24-70L extra stop make the difference. You talked about action shots? Be aware: IS doesn't stop action!

So, for a walk-around lens, and thinking mostly in your past experience with the 28-105/3.5-4.5, I believe 24-105/4L will be better to you. But ask yourself the benefits of IS. Finally, if the range beween 70 and 105 isn't important to you, go for 24-70L.

[yonni]

Walk around to me means sight seeing, and I have to have at least a 17mm on a crop camera for that. I now usually carry two. 10-22 and 17-85.

[rklepper]

Not sure why eveyone is so insistant on comparing these 2 lenses to decide which is best (24-70 vs 24-105) They are very different lenses that have very different uses and would be good for different purposes. Why not just focus on the benefits of each lens, rather than this constant one is better than the other.

[condyk]

Walkaround ... you like taking around a big, heavy lens with massive McDonalds Coke cup hood then go with the 24-70mm L. You like a totally reliable lens that you can walkaround all day with? Go the 24-105mm IS L. You want a totally reliable lens that is also smaller with a range perfect for most city style street shooting, go the 17-40mm L.

Bokah on the 24-105mm is perfectly fine. Difference between f4.0 and 2.8 is not huge but you get to use the best AF capabilities on a 30D with the 2.8.

Do bear in mind that over all the time I have been here we have had several long threads where people argue about either loving or hating the 24-70mm L. I feel myself that it fails to offer much added value or performance in IQ terms over cheaper rivals, particularly because of handling and reliability of performance. The 24-105mm IS L does offer value and other than the flare problem at first release (now cured) I haven't seen a criticism of this lenses performance. We see many 24-70mm's offered SH; rare to see a 24-105mm IS L.

[steved110]

The guy on the Digital POicture review site says if he had to choose between the 24-70 f/2.8 and the 24-105 f/4 - he'd go for the f/4!
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-105mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

[The Big Cheese]

I'm currently struggling with the same decision, I will be using it for weddings so I want the best I can get.

I've read every post related to the 24-70 vs 24-105 on the forum, I've played with both lenses for about an hour and I still can't decide.
I can get both lenses via kerso (an eBay seller who frequents this forum) for about the same price, so that isn't a consideration for me.

I have virtually decided to go with the 24-70 though because:

It's F2.8 - if I am shooting a wedding in low light and I want to get a fast shutter speed (for confetti throwing for example) I would stand a better chance of catching it with a 2.8 lens...IS is no good for fast movements.

The weight doesn't seem to make that much of a difference to me when used with a 5D - it's not a drastically noticeable difference.

When I hold the 24-105 and zoom the lens my left and right hands tend to touch slightly as I move the zoom, which can be rather distracting. The 24-70 zoom seems to be placed in a slightly better position.

By many reports the 24-105 doesn't seem to work as well in the corners on full frame as the 24-70 and there is more barrel distortion.

It may have just been the lens I was testing but the focus ring on the 24-70 was smoother than on the 24-105, not by a great deal but it was noticeable.


Having said that...

The 24-105 does have IS and has a longer reach...it's a more attractive option for an everyday not-doing-anything-important-I-just-want-good-pictures lens. I'm not the sort of photographer who uses a camera for a job and takes a compact digital out at weekends - I would take it everytime I go out with a mind for a photo.

I hope my musings have been of some interest...at the end of the day I suppose you have to assess your needs and if you are willing to sacrifice any picture quality (if using full frame) for convenance.

[evandavies]

I'd recommend the Sigma 17-70 as a good all-rounder and very good quality wise, especially for the price.

Examples: mainly closeups tho
http://www.pbase.com/evandavies/sigma_17_70

[John_T]

...if you aren't shy about pushing the ISO up to get the shot, you may have more range with the 24-105L, meaning freezing the wiggle on your end, while getting a higher shutter speed to freeze the subject end. Higher ISO images from the 30D can be quite acceptable, even at ISO3200.

While the f/2.8 of the 24-70 will get you more light, the thinner DOF when shooting wide open can give you unexpected results when shooting action. You will need to use the center AF point and AI Focus to make sure you get the intended subject, though the the paralell subject you might also want to get, might be fuzzy.

For the stated walk around objectives, I would see getting the shot to be the first priority, and IQ the second. A really good shot often doesn't need much IQ at all.

[Packhorse-4]

Not sure why eveyone is so insistant on comparing these 2 lenses to decide which is best (24-70 vs 24-105) They are very different lenses that have very different uses and would be good for different purposes. Why not just focus on the benefits of each lens, rather than this constant one is better than the other.


I think the main reason this topic continues to come up is that most of the people deliberating over this issue are only going to buy one or the other. I can see the strengths afforded by each lens and, due to my lack of experience, I would like to gather as much information about the pros/cons of each lens before making my decision.

One recommendation in another thread mentioned getting the 24-105 f/4 IS and supplementing it with the 85 f/1.8 for indoor situations where only a really fast lens would do. This "solution" may be the right mix for me, and I am seriously considering getting the 85 f/1.8 sooner rather than later in order to capture more indoor pictures of the kids (gymnastics, swimming, plays, etc.). I will need to get used to the fixed length, but the advantages of f/1.8 when I can't use the flash will really help me out.

[superdiver]

OK, here is what I have garnered from reading all these different threads on these two lenes...

buy the one you THINK you want and THEN if you are not COMPLETELY satisfied, but the other one too!

Thats what I plan on doing....starting with the 24-105 L IS....