24-70mm 2.8L or 24-105mm 4L ??

[Rumrunner]

Hi all maybe I could get some helpful input here... I cannot decide between the 24-70mm 2.8L or the 24-105mm 4L.

I like the range of the 24-105, but I would really like to have the extra stop in the 24-70. I like to shoot in all kinds of atmospheres, indoor and outdoor, and I can't decide if it would be better to have the range or the stop.

Which one do you think is the better all purpose lens for shooting in random locations? I would appreciate it if anyone could share some personnal experience with either of these lenses indoor or outdoors...

Thanks,

Rob

[akhater]

Rob, I've read about every thread on this subject on the net and tried to summarize everything into a set of questions that will help you decide which is better for you.
If you want check it out here (http://www.adidap.com/2006/11/09/canon-ef-24-70-f28-l-vs-canon-ef-24-105-l-f4-is-l/)

I personally own the 24-70 2.8 and LOVE it, IF one day i have enough money I might add the 24-105 to my kit for it is lighter and smaller than the 24-70, but I won't give in 2.8 but that's just me

good luck

[ed rader]

Hi all maybe I could get some helpful input here... I cannot decide between the 24-70mm 2.8L or the 24-105mm 4L.

I like the range of the 24-105, but I would really like to have the extra stop in the 24-70. I like to shoot in all kinds of atmospheres, indoor and outdoor, and I can't decide if it would be better to have the range or the stop.

Which one do you think is the better all purpose lens for shooting in random locations? I would appreciate it if anyone could share some personnal experience with either of these lenses indoor or outdoors...

Thanks,

Rob

in truth, i think most people who ask this question would be better served by the 24-105L as it is a more versatile lens.

i think the folks who need f2.8 already know it and will gladly -- well, maybe grudgingly -- give up the extra reach, 3-stop IS and lighter weight for the extra stop.

i first bought the 24-105L but sold it and now own the 24-70L. tho i had rented the 24-70L prior to buying it.

ed rader

[350D_Noob]

Get the 24mm-70mm 2.8... this coming from a 24mm-105mm owner. Why? If you're looking for fast aperture then it's well worth it. If you're looking for a lens with IS and a longer focal length, then go with the 24mm-105mm. The 24mm-105mm is a wonderful lens! I have not had any problems with it... BESIDES... the f/4! I really want faster glass, but f/4 really isn't doing it.

I'd go with the 24mm-70mm, but as soon as you get it, make sure that it's a sharp copy... From what i've heard, some of them tend to be a little soft.

Just my .02 cents.

[incendy]

I don't think I could ever own an f4 lens in that range, but I know many people that are happy with it. My vote is for 24-70 for sure

[MegaTron]

I asked myself the same question a hundred times, and ended up buying both. Big mistake, now I want to keep both of them.

Im going to spend a month with them, both can do things that the other cant, so im going to see how they fit in my shooting style.

Right now, im actually leaning more towards the 24-105L.

[amarasme]

I like the range of the 24-105, but I would really like to have the extra stop in the 24-70. I like to shoot in all kinds of atmospheres, indoor and outdoor.

I would say that you have already answered your own question. (Unless you can have or justify both.)

[buckwheat]

I asked myself the same question a hundred times, and ended up buying both. Big mistake, now I want to keep both of them.

Im going to spend a month with them, both can do things that the other cant, so im going to see how they fit in my shooting style.

Right now, im actually leaning more towards the 24-105L.

I had my 24-70L all packed up and ready to sell! I bought the 24-105L and then used my 24-70L for a dull day shoot. I have to keep em both now. I need help BAD!

[Nappi]

I just share my thoughts for the same problem.

I has been reading again and again various forums for the comparison of 24-70 vs. 24-105 for past two months and finally I ended to order the 24-70L. Hope it will be sharp copy.

I ask my self what kind of photos I really enjoy to take and how those 2 lenses make the difference to my shooting.

First I like the shallow depth of view and bokeh very much. Also I like to take photos with the existing light even the twilight it is Cleary for the 24-70 usage. In the other hand I like to have sharp and crispy portraits.

I don’t need that extra 35mm reach of the long end since I have 70-200 2.8 IS which covers that.
The 24-70 size and weight is not bothering me because I’m used to carry 70-200 2.8 IS for a whole day.

I have the 17-40L which I like a lot but once in a while I find that I need 2.8 maybe I will replace it with 16-35L in future

Happy shooting!

[AmpedPhoto]

Well I have the 24-105 f4L IS USM and I am gonna take it back most likly, the lens is nice and the IS is really nice but it's not a fast and sharp as I want. I have the 70-200 so I am now not needing the 70-105 part of the lens.

I will report back to see which lens I decided on....

[Rumrunner]

Everyone, thank you so much for this comprehensive advice! I take your experience as my own.

From everything I have heard, I strongly believe that I will benefit most from the 24-70mm 2.8L. When I really think about it, I often find myself indoors rushing for the high ISO (much to my chagrin), and wishing I had a faster lens. In dramatic terms, I would rather crop a little, than run a noise filter.

I think I can deal with the loss of focal range because my lens "roadmap :D " calls for a 85mm 1.8 which will be used for portraits, but can "technically" help fill in the gap to my 100-400mm L. Then, hopefully, a 16-35mm and a 70-200 2.8L will follow soon enough.

Again, thanks for taking the time to share your experiences with me.

Regards,

Rob

[Lani Kai]

So... If I made a detailed description of the pros and cons of each, will someone make it a sticky for me?
This question gets asked about once every 48 hours... :rolleyes:

[akhater]

So... If I made a detailed description of the pros and cons of each, will someone make it a sticky for me?
This question gets asked about once every 48 hours... :rolleyes:
Agree this is what i tried to do myself here (http://www.adidap.com/2006/11/09/canon-ef-24-70-f28-l-vs-canon-ef-24-105-l-f4-is-l/) since this is one of the FAQ in most photography forums i am member in.

[weka2000]

Ive asked it :lol:

[Glenn NK]

Just went through the links and ended up here:

http://www.adidap.com/2006/11/09/top-7-reasons-why-buy-the-canon-ef-24-70-f28-over-the-24-105-f4-is/

On Point 6.b - Reach Consideration: I'm confused - does he have this right? Wouldn't the crop factor affect both lenses equally? How would the "crop factor compensate for the extra reach of the 24-105" over the 24-70?

With the 1.6 crop factor, the effective ranges are:

24/70: 38.4 to 112

24/105: 38.4 to 168

Where is the gain for the 24-70?

[nburwell]

I have the 24-105 and I really love it! I rented the 24-70 for a wedding I shot a few weeks ago, and I was really impressed with that lens as well. However, I primarily photography lanscapes, so I really won't have much use for the 2.8, and the added reach of the 24-105, plus the IS really stood out for me. Don't get me wrong, the 24-70 is a great lens, but for my style of photography, the 24-105 won out.

[akhater]

Just went through the links and ended up here:

http://www.adidap.com/2006/11/09/top-7-reasons-why-buy-the-canon-ef-24-70-f28-over-the-24-105-f4-is/

On Point 6.b - Reach Consideration: I'm confused - does he have this right? Wouldn't the crop factor affect both lenses equally? How would the "crop factor compensate for the extra reach of the 24-105" over the 24-70?

With the 1.6 crop factor, the effective ranges are:

24/70: 38.4 to 112

24/105: 38.4 to 168

Where is the gain for the 24-70?
it means that if you have a 1.6 crop factor than 70 mm is 112mm effective so it as if you had a 24-105 on a full frame reach wise because many think (and it is true) that 70mm is short for a walk around lens. just pointing out that if you have a croped sensor it is no more 70mm

[Hockeyphoto]

The question of 24-70mm 2.8L vs 24-105mm 4.0L has been debated to no end, and I had the same dilema before I bought my 24-105 several weeks ago... What I did was search the forums hear, search other photography forums, and Google the lens Vs. each other- there is a lot of good info out there, and they are both good lenses with thier own positives. Bottom line is only you can decide which one fits your needs the best.

I just got back from Sedona and am very happy with my results with my 24-105, wasn't to heavy to carry around and hike with and gave me outstanding results.....

[grego]

Apples or oranges? The chicken or the egg? 24-70 or 24-105?

[Darryl Baptista]

How does the Canon 24-70 f/ 2.8L compare with the Sigma 24-70 f/ 2.8 ???
The Sigma cost being much lower than the Canon, is the Sigma lens value for money.
Darryl Baptista

[grego]

How does the Canon 24-70 f/ 2.8L compare with the Sigma 24-70 f/ 2.8 ???
The Sigma cost being much lower than the Canon, is the Sigma lens value for money.
Darryl Baptista

IQ wise, the differences aren't big(and are due more to lens to lens variation). However, the Sigma does not have its HSM in this lens(their version of Canon's USM). Which is there better AF system. So if you don't do low light stuff or do high action stuff, it will deliever just fine.

[weka2000]

How does the Canon 24-70 f/ 2.8L compare with the Sigma 24-70 f/ 2.8 ???
The Sigma cost being much lower than the Canon, is the Sigma lens value for money.
Darryl Baptista


The sigma 24-70 is a sharp lens used to own one untill I got hooked on "L" glass

[kram]

I asked myself the same question a hundred times, and ended up buying both. Big mistake, now I want to keep both of them.



Now, that's an innovative solution :)

What you lose is 1 stop when you are shooting motion and may want the 2.8 - but you are gaining 3 stops in all other shots. I would bet the 24-105 is a safer bet for a great walkaround.

[wakko]

I've got a similar predicament...

I've got the option to buy one or the other too.

I've decided with the 24-70 because of the f/2.8 and almost that soley.

I've got the entry level 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS and get frustrated with the f/4 when I do indoor shots. I mean sure... IS will help if the subject is stationary, but more often than not, it's moving.

I can live with the 300-400g of extra weight compared to the 24-105 to have the f/2.8 of the 24-70.

[MikeMcL]

get the 24-70L now, and save to get the 70-200L 2.8 IS later. That is a great combo, imo.

I got the 28-70L f2.8 (few years old) and i absolutely love it, although for a walkaround, i usually prefer about 100+mm zoom range. (i shoot details more than wide shots)

I carry the 28-70 2.8L and the 70-200f4L when im out shooting, leave the rest of the kit at home.