EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM or EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

[markwherry@googlemail.com]

I am using a 10D (I know; old now isn't it but I love it) and have a wide range of photographic interests but prodominatly landscapes and nature and I would want to use this as my main lens moving up from the kit lens that I've had for the last five years or so. My next purchase would be a better telephoto zoom to replace my 75-300 and then next year a new body

If anyone has used both and can offer some comparision/thoughts I would be vary much obliged

Regards

Mark

[ssim]

I have both lenses in my gear. They are both very good lenses. I think the question you have to ask yourself is how often are you going to need an f-stop of less than f/4. I added the 24-105 when I got my full frame bodies and wanted the extra reach on the long end of the lenses. I normally work with the 24-70 on one of my crop factor bodies and the 14-105 on one of the full frame ones.

My shooting habits are such that I don't work wide open very often. The times that I have both lenses have performed quite well. I have no issues with either of them except perhaps the weight of the 24-70 which is substantially more than the 24-105.

If you don't need the 2.8 version of a lens then the 24-105 would probably be the better choice, imo, as it gives you the extra reach on a lighter lens.

[A01]

lol the never ending question strikes again!

[SuzyView]

This question is asked often around here. Search in the lens forum and you will get many opinions.

I have the 24-70 because I can't live with the f4. I shoot mainly events and the 24-70 is more useful to me. I don't need the reach of the 105, This lens is very heavy and large, especially if you put the hood on it. It took me a little bit to get used to, but now it's the lens I choose most of the time.

Good luck!

[amarasme]

prodominatly landscapes and nature and I would want to use this as my main lens moving up from the kit lens

Yes, the neverending debate...

If you will use it mainly for landscapes I would suggest the 17-40L instead for your crop camera.

It will give you similar image quality and the equivalent of a 28-64 mm walk-around zoom. (Both 24-XXX zooms may not be good enough for your purposes, as in your camera they will be about 38mm at the wide end, probably not wide enough for general landscape work.)

Otherwise, the 24-105L may be more adequate for your purposes than a 24-70L.

[dontblink]

When faced with this question, I chose the 24-105. I really appreciate the IS, because I don't generally drag a tripod around with me and the IS has been a life saver. Recently, I purchased the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS, which seems to be the best of both worlds 2.8 and IS! Plus a bit wider to boot. However, as I have been putting that lens through its paces I find that I rarely shoot f/2.8, but I do appreciate the extra 7mm on the wide end. All is not peachy though, I have been changing lenses more often when I need the extra reach.

So my conclusion. They are both great lenses. Either would work fantastic on 90% of the shots that I make. For the last 10%? tough call but longer and IS won out for me, but wider and IS may be the eventual winner.

[markwherry@googlemail.com]

If you will use it mainly for landscapes I would suggest the 17-40L instead for your crop camera.



Oh no. I hadn't looked at that lens, even more to decide:D

[steve maec]

i use the 24-105l all the time.great all around lens.