24-70 2.8L vs 24-105 f4L IS

[Nightscape]

What would be better for weddings and why?

[sando]

Personally? 24-70.

A 24-70 with IS would be perfect for weddings, on a FF.

You can use f/4 on the 24-70 but you cant use f/2.8 on the 24-105.

[RobKirkwood]

We would buy a Canon 24-70 f2.8L IS in a hearbeat, no question.

As this lens doesn't yet exist we've ended up buying all 3 contenders for the crown (I'm including the Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS which is a great lens if you have crop format).

If I could only have one, I'd probably choose Canon 24-70 f2.8L ...but Ann would choose Canon 24-105 f4L IS because it's much lighter.

In the past we've also owned the Sigma 24-70 f2.8, and the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 which are both excellent value for money, and can give great results, but are not in the same class as the Canon offerings - especially as they lack full-time manual focus which is important for us.

Rob

[picturecrazy]

It depends on your shooting style too.

I currently use the 24-70 and would really like it if it had IS. If you like to shoot natural light then IS sure helps. But when the light gets low and you use flash, then IS isn't quite as important.

With the 17-55 I was spoiled by shooting at shutters of 1/13. Now with the 24-70 I hardly ever set it below 1/80 except when flashing.

The 24-70 is also really heavy... ugh...

[getabetterpic]

I like the reach of the 24-105, so that's my preference. IMHO if you're shooting weddings, the 24-105 gives you an advantage over the 24-70. For example, suppose you run into a situation where the minister doesn't want you to use flash. Well then, the f/2.8 of the 24-70 is going to help, right? But that is only one stop faster than the 24-105, and the IS allows you to get up to three stops of hand-holdability.

As to the argument that IS doesn't compensate for subject movement, I don't know what wedding you guys have seen, but most of the ones I go to the people are just standing there. Not a whole lot of movement going on.

Everyone here keeps saying "If there were a 24-70 f/2.8 IS L, I'd take it." What about a 24-105 f/2.8 IS L? To me, that would be the more logical choice. Then you get the reach, IS, and the large aperture.

All of this may be just me though.

So to sum up:
24-105 f/4 IS L
Pros:
-Reach
-IS
-Weight
Cons:
-Slower

24-70 f/2.8 L
Pros:
-Fast
Cons:
-Shorter reach
-No IS
-Heavy

And that is how I see it. 24-105 has three pros to one con, while the 24-70 is the reciprocal of that.

[rodolfocorona]

24-70 2.8L. Best choise for me :mrgreen:

[sumozebra]

to an extent i agree with getabetterpic. but from what i've read and saw, then 24-105 has alot more vingetting and slightly softer than the 24-70mm. though i love IS... =( so big delima for me. i was gonna get the 24-105 but ended up holding off cuz of the vignetting issue and softness

[radiohead]

I have both, and prefer the IQ of the 24-70.

[sapearl]

I keep on hearing about this vignetting and alledged "softness" issue. Perhaps I was lucky but these are not issues with my 24-105. It's a perfect match with my 5D and pretty much gives me everything I need to do a wedding.

I've got my 24mm very wide for large groups in small rooms. There's the 28-40mm length for medium groups with adequate distancing. For walkaround candids and informals I'll use 40 - 85mm thereabouts. And for individual portraits and isolated shots I'm at 105mm.

As others have said though, shooting style is a main driver for your choice of lens. I used MF for 3+ decades, and this one lens does the job of 4 lens I used for that format. The f/4 has never been problem. Between the IS and higher ISO strength of the 5D I have no complaints. - Stu

to an extent i agree with getabetterpic. but from what i've read and saw, then 24-105 has alot more vingetting and slightly softer than the 24-70mm. though i love IS... =( so big delima for me. i was gonna get the 24-105 but ended up holding off cuz of the vignetting issue and softness

[mmahoney]

On a crop body neither one, I'd consider the 17-55 2.8.

On FF the 24-105 IS is pretty hard to beat as you can cover the whole day with the single lens.
Mike

[sapearl]

Absolutely couldn't agree with you more Mike :D ! Before I was able to afford more dSLR gear and I used MF for backup, the 24-105 was all I had. There were a number of events where that was the only lens for the entire day. - Stu

...........On FF the 24-105 IS is pretty hard to beat as you can cover the whole day with the single lens.
Mike

[Lin-z]

I am glad this was posted I am actually trying to decide between these two lenses myself. I currently shoot with a Tamron 28-75 2.8. I am trying to upgrade to all L glass, and I would love to have the range of 20-105, but I am not sure about letting go of 2.8 but then I would love to gain IS... what to do what to do

[Mike Fulton]

Coming from my inside source very high up in Canon USA he states that the 24-105L is sharper than the 24-70L however I choose to use the 24-70L due to the faster f/stop.

While IS can help with movement it does not replace faster glass and 99% of all of our images are shot at f/2.8 or f/3.2 so the slower glass of the 24-105L simply would not work for us and our style.

I know so many amazing photographers using either one of these I feel it comes down to your style and what you feel you would need. If you do not shoot wideopen I would go with the 24-105L if you do I would go with the 24-70L

Also if you shoot on a 5D the 24-105L is a better focal length but on a 30D the 24-70L is a great range also.

So many choice all with great results - I LOVE MY CANONS :)

[Nightscape]

I think I am going to go with the 24-70 because of the 2.8
Then if I get the 70-200 2.8 I can make up for the reach.

[davidfig]

I chose the 24-70L for the 2.8. I get the 105mm reach by cropping.

[liza]

Of the two, I'd choose the 24-70. I have the older 28-70L and appreciate the extra stop of light. I also have the 17-55 IS and will probably always have a crop body on hand so I can continue to use it. :)

[Atl-Fotos]

You can't go wrong with either. For me it was the 24-105, I went for the extra reach and lighter weight. That was was most important to me. I have never had a client ask me if an image was shot with a 2.8 or 4.0 f-stop. All they want is good results. I think it is us that gets caught up in the lens envy.

Learning to work your equipment well is why you are called a professional, not because you have professional equipment....

Don't blast me these are just my thoughts...

[Lin-z]

I chose the 24-70L for the 2.8. I get the 105mm reach by cropping.

I think I am going to go with the 24-70 because of the 2.8
Then if I get the 70-200 2.8 I can make up for the reach.

These are both good points. I have the 70-200 also having that L has spoiled me to the point that I don't want my tamron. I guess that L thing really is a sickness.

[Lin-z]

How heavy is the 24-70? Its not as heavy as the 70-200 2.8L non IS is it?

[TheSteveMadden]

Not quite a heavy...

EF 70-200 f/2.8 non IS: 2.80 lb
EF 24-70 f/2.8: 2.1 lb (950 g)

But, coming from a 28-105 f/3.5-4.5, it's still a beast.

I went with the f/2.8 mainly for the DOF it afforded. There's a world of difference between f/4 and f/2.8 when trying to isolate subjects. I still prefer my primes, wide open, for ultimate blur.

[Edit:] just got it at 11AM this morning. other than weight, it's flawless.

[carpenter]

24-70 and then a 70-200 on the second camera. both 2.8

[nursek]

here's another question for you guys & gals out there...

i have the rebel XTi and it fits PERFECTLY in my small hands. I am seriously considering to buy the 24-70L from all the positive reviews i've read.. The only problem is the weight and size of the lens on my camera body. I'm afraid the lens will look unbalanced, and if the picture quality will be affected because the 24-70L is best suited for the 5D.

i recently sold my 24-105L because the pictures i took with the XTi appeared somehwhat "soft". The lens is smaller than the 24-70, so the weight wasn't a huge issue on my camera. when my bro-in law used my 24-105 on his 20D as a comparison, the focus on his pictures looked sharper than what my XTi could produce. I hope this doesn't happen again if i decide to splurge on the 24-70L.

does anyone use the XTi and lens combo? What are your thoughts about the weight and size issue, as well as the overall picture quality?

[cwphoto]

Coming from my inside source very high up in Canon USA he states that the 24-105L is sharper than the 24-70L however I choose to use the 24-70L due to the faster f/stop.

In real-life though you are talking two-tenths of stuff-all difference in sharpness. The 24-70/2.8 has less vignetting, less distortion, and is more flare-resistant.

I can see valid reasons why someone would choose the 24-105/4 IS over the 24-70/2.8 - but sharpness isn't one of them.

[MrTED]

24-70 and then a 70-200 on the second camera. both 2.8

I am about to order the same. Had trouble deciding between the 24-70 and the 17-55, but decided on the 24-70. Can't wait...

Nathan

[Wedding Shooter]

You also get a half decent macro lens when you buy the 24-70.

[RobKirkwood]

You also get a half decent macro lens when you buy the 24-70.Absolutely - and I never realised this until our 24-70 arrived ...I'd been kicking myself for all the macro-capable lenses we'd sold without thinking over the past 18 months, and was contemplating buying a Canon 100mm f2.8 macro - but now I don't need to (we already have extension tubes in case we need super-close).

Rob

[Wedding Shooter]

I keep an extension tube in the bag too - it really is a great lens.

[eXc450]

how do you guys find the 24-70 as a walk around? Is it too heavy? Can you manage it all day?

[cwphoto]

how do you guys find the 24-70 as a walk around? Is it too heavy? Can you manage it all day?

Piece of cake.

[radiohead]

What he said.

[Tom Digital]

I just got done shooting a Wedding with a 24-105mm. All my pictures turned out great. I wasn't the primary shooter. The couple hired a "pro". I took photos for a slideshow DVD for the couple. My wife and I make. We just sent the DVD to the brides father. He sent me a message back yesterday telling me the photos I took were as good if not better than the "pro's" proofs!!!

[razyl]

I use the 24-70 for a lot of my general wedding shots, and then switch to specialised lenses if needed eg fixed for B&G shots. But I shoot with crop bodies and so i like to have a second camera on me with a 16-35mm....you get some great wider shots that the 24-70 cant get.

If/when I get a FF (when are they going to upgrade the 5D!?!) I'd use the 24-70 even more....and maybe have my second camera with a 70-200 - but still a 2.8.

So many times I'm pushing the ISO with low light on even a 2.8 lens that i cant imagine what it would be like to work with a full stop lower. If you can stretch the budget I cant recommend more highly 2.8 lenses.

Darryn

[MJP]

I buy in a heartbeat if canon makes either 24-70l 2.8IS or 24-105L 2.8IS...

[Scott6]

I agree, 24-70 f2.8... Leave to 100mm range to the well earned respectful 70-200s :-)

I went with the 24-70 over the 24-105 just because I saw no reason to overlap my 70-200 with slower glass.. (f2.8 IS model)

NOW! my GF who is now helping me with jobs, got the 24-105 because its lighter, has IS to make up for a not to sturdy hand, and she dose not want to worry about multiple lenses. To her its perfect! She loves it, and I love her havening it at the end of the day when im processing RAWs... The IQ isn't as good at the 24-70, but its damm good enough.

[sapearl]

Really? Interesting statement. Granted I don't have a 24-70 for comparison purposes, but I have no issue with my 24-105 throughout it's range. Perhaps that unsteady hand you speak of is a little too much for the IS? It's a great feature, but it can only do so much.

..........NOW! my GF who is now helping me with jobs, got the 24-105 because its lighter, has IS to make up for a not to sturdy hand, and she dose not want to worry about multiple lenses. To her its perfect! She loves it, and I love her havening it at the end of the day when im processing RAWs... The IQ isn't as good at the 24-70, but its damm good enough.

[Scott6]

Really? Interesting statement. Granted I don't have a 24-70 for comparison purposes, but I have no issue with my 24-105 throughout it's range. Perhaps that unsteady hand you speak of is a little too much for the IS? It's a great feature, but it can only do so much.

Hmm, sorry, I don't think you under stood me.. My GF has and uses the 24-105 over the 24-70. What I meant was the IS means more to her than to me because I have a nice steady hand and stance. I find 1/50 very usable without IS sometimes slower!... She finds 1/80th hard with no IS..

So she really prefers the 24-105 because of the IS. She can shoot in the sub 1/50 range and get good results. And the fact that it is lighter than the 24-70 only aids in helping her shaky hands stay still for a split second.

I also have not issues with hey 24-105. Its a great lens, I like using alot. On trips out wit the kids, this is the only lens that goes with us. But when the pictures are not for me, I still prefer my 24-70. Its just a tad sharper, IMO its a perfect copy. Especially since it came back form canon from some calibrating.

[MrTED]

I just purchased the 24-70, am yet to use it live, but love the output and feel (even though it is a bit heavy). One of my assistants just bought a 24-105 and he loves it, mainly for the fact that it has a bit more reach and he can do without the extra speed.

Nathan

[jamiewexler]

I've been using a 28-70L, but find I rarely use it at 2.8. So I'm trying out a 24-105 for the extra reach. So far it's just as sharp as my 28-70, and 24 is quite a bit wider than 28!

Here are a few shots I took goofing off the other evening:

24-105 @ f4 70mm
http://www.jamisonwexler.com/images/24015.jpg

28-70 @ f4 70mm
http://www.jamisonwexler.com/images/2870.jpg


For you pixel peepers, here's the crop:

24-105 @ f4 70mm
http://www.jamisonwexler.com/images/24015cr.jpg

28-70 @ f4 70mm
http://www.jamisonwexler.com/images/2870cr.jpg


And the width difference:

24-105 @ f4 24mm
http://www.jamisonwexler.com/images/24mm.jpg

28-70 @ f4 28mm
http://www.jamisonwexler.com/images/28mm.jpg

One interesting thing I noticed is that the 28-70 is about 1/3 stop brighter at f4 than the 24-105. I was all manual, including the flash, and using the same body, so the only conclusion is that the 28-70 is either 1/3 stop faster than f4 at f4, or the 24-105 isn't really an f4, but an f4.5...

[tim]

A guy who works for me uses a 24-105L on a 5D, it makes incredibly sharp images. I don't shoot at F2.8 all the time, but I do during ceremonies, I find F2.8 and IS a huge advantage. Between those two lenses i'd probably have the 24-105, but it's much more suited for a full frame body than a crop body. With a 5D or 1D3 F4 is fast enough given the high ISO performance I think.

[sapearl]

I completely agree with you Tim - you just described how I use mine ;).

A guy who works for me uses a 24-105L on a 5D, it makes incredibly sharp images. ........... Between those two lenses i'd probably have the 24-105, but it's much more suited for a full frame body than a crop body. With a 5D or 1D3 F4 is fast enough given the high ISO performance I think.

[CanontotheLeft]

Thanks Nightscape for posting this question. I've been struggling with the same dilema for a while now and after reading this thread I think I'm going to go with the 24-70 for my 20D. I was thinking of upgrading to the 5D kit that comes with the 24-105 lens so I might eventually own both :P....
BTW thanks to everyone that gave suggestions. I'm new here but I've already found this forum to be a wealth of knowledge!

[Alan W]

Heres a different angle on this debate. My old wedding set up was a Nikon D70 crop frame and a 17-55mm f2.8 lens for the whole wedding. Shots were always very sharp but the noise at high ISO's was unacceptable. My new wedding set up is a Canon 5D with 24-105 and have had to shoot in some pretty dark churches and have got away with shooting F4 at IOS 3200. This wouldn't be possible on a Canon crop frame sensor because of the noise issue but nevertheless I have been tempted to get the 24-70 - but not so much for the f2.8 but to stop be from trying to do stupid things like shooting at 1/30th second at 105mm which causes a few blurred shots as you would imagine. I have never had to think about focal length and blur before now and can't seem to help myself from shooting at the longer end in the church - maybe I should put some tape aroung the barrel to stop me from being able to extend the lens any further than 70mm! I have a 70-200 f4 non IS which is outstanding but too long for my liking when used on my second (cropped) body (400D). So if I do get the 24-70 I will use it on the 5D and use the 24-105 on to the 400D for the candids - I have had some fantastic results using the nice and light 24-105 on this lovely little body - a match made in heaven and feels beautifully balanced in the hand.

[photosbyjuan]

Piece of cake.

x2 it's worth the extra weight. I sold a 24-105 and use a 24-70 90% of the entire wedding.

[Big Mike]

Nobody has mentioned the extra focus capabilities you get at F2.8 vs F4. That's the case with the 20D (and 30D I think). With an F2.8 lens, the centre AF point is a cross sensor, not just a one direction sensor. Is it the same with the 5D? I don't know.

Personally, I use the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 and may get the 17-55 F2.8 IS. I don't think I will get either the 24-70 or the 24-105 because I find that 24mm isn't wide enough on a crop body.

I do think that Canon is holding out on us, a 24-70 or 24-105 with both F2.8 & IS & L would be a top seller. I have the 17-85 IS, and I love the extra length & IS over my Tamron...but it's just too slow for weddings. I'd buy a 17-85 F2.8 IS, in a heart beat.

[RobKirkwood]

Nobody has mentioned the extra focus capabilities you get at F2.8 vs F4. That's the case with the 20D (and 30D I think). With an F2.8 lens, the centre AF point is a cross sensor, not just a one direction sensor. Is it the same with the 5D? I don't know.I don't know either, I understand the principle, but to be honest in real life situations I've never found any great focus advantage in using f2.8 (or faster) lenses on 20D/30D. Last year I shot most the time with 24-105 IS on a 20D and never had any problem hitting focus in stupid dark situations. This year I've been mostly using 5D with 24-70 f2.8 and Ann has been shooting with 24-105 IS on her 30D - again not seeing any focus difficulties with the 24-105. From our next wedding onwards (2 weeks time) Ann will be shooting with 24-105 on our second 5D ...and our tests so far agree with others who've said this is a combination made in heaven! ...and 3200 ISO on a 5D is a beautiful thing - no need to agonise over it, just use it!

Rob