Canon L - 24-70 f2.8L USM v 24-105 f4L IS USM

[ecshots]

Ok i'm looking at buying (or financing... whatever we all eat porige and ramen now days right?) ...

a 24-70 f2.8L or 24-105 f4L IS ... now my conerns with the 24-70 is it doesn't
have IS (i like taking action shots, skate boarders, aggressive inline skaters, etc, and my kit lens won't cut it, actually my kit lens sucks, and i want to replace it)

So here's my pro's and cons of what i like, the 24-70 is f2.8, which is good with lower light conditions (since i want this lens to be my new all round lens)
shooting indoors, outdoors, action, everything.
(i'm going to buy a 70-200 f2.8L IS in the next month or so)

I'd really like to hear peoples opinions and comments on it. I guess the only two upsides that the 24-105 has, is the Image Stabalization, and higher zoom capability, which seems nice, because i don't want primes, ever. I love the idea of keeping one lens on my camera through an entire shoot.
Taking it off, making people wait, it seems out dated to me, i'm a new age guy and i like technology that makes my life easier. plus, carrying two zoom lenses can pretty much cover all your shots.

I read other threads with comments about the 24-70, i don't mind the weight, i'm a strong man, i usually strap another back pack to my back filled with beers, food, clothes and whatever when i take long walks through the city to take pictures, so somebody saying "why would you carry a 2.1lb lens" to me is like saying "why would you carry around 12 beers for a 6 hour photoshoot walk?" well i think i pretty much answered my own question.

But i havn't been lucky enough to read a thread with these two lenses in comparison ,and i will be buying one within a day or two, so far i'm closer to the 24-70 because of the lower light conditions, f2.8... i know with IS i COULD technicaly drop the shutter speed a bit indoors and raise the apature number, and asuming i have pretty steady hands, the IS should work it's magic while my shutter opens and closes to get a steady shot. but i don't know how crisp that would look on these lenses (i know it looks good even on my kit lens when it's on a tripod, but i don't want to carry a tripod around everywhere.....

ok thanks for reading my 10,000 word essay on which lens should i buy!

- ec

[Carlson]

I think it comes down to 1 has f2.8 as a pro and the other has IS as a pro. You know what you need.

As far as an object being blurred the IS wont help you at all, it will only help the blur you get from your hands shaking. The 2.8 will let you shoot at a faster shutter speed in lower light.

my next purchase is going to be the 24-70L for the simple reason I would like to get learn and get more into portrait photography, and i often find myself in low light situations that it would really come in handy.

if you havent seen allready

24-70 Sample Thread

24-105 Sample Thread

[grego]

OKay, well if you are getting the 70-200 anyway,

The 70-105 isn't as vauable on the 24-105, IS. But then I guess if you don't do two bodies, with the 70-200 and 24-70, you'd probably want more reach, but for indoor action, the 24-70 would be a much better choice.

You are going to have to find the compromise that fits your shooting style most. BTW, IS only prevents handshake, not motion blur. So in low light, the 24-70 is more valuable if you want to stop motion blur caused by the subject.

BTW, get a POTN strap. They are great. They will help eliminate weight problems.
http://www.procameragear.com/potn/

[Tee Why]

IS does not freeze action if you are going to be doing a lot of action type shots of skaters.
The viewfinder with a f2.8 lens will be brighter than that with a f4. The 24-105 has more reach though and if you are using it for panning, the IS can be helpful. No wrong choice, just find what fits your specific needs the best.

[papucla10]

I woul get the 24-105 just because its versatility if you say you are gettin the 70-200 f2.8L IS in a month or so, then you don't have to worry about lighing situations as the 70-200 f2.8L IS will be just as good as the 24-70 in low light because both have f/2.8 I would then have the 24.105 as my walkournd lens.

[kram]

I'm assuming you are not too keen on 3rd party (cheaper) lens options

[Bubble]

read the review here:

24-70:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx

24-105:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx

[ed rader]

Originally Posted by ecshots

Ok i'm looking at buying (or financing... whatever we all eat porige and ramen now days right?) ...

a 24-70 f2.8L or 24-105 f4L IS ... now my conerns with the 24-70 is it doesn't
have IS (i like taking action shots, skate boarders, aggressive inline skaters, etc, and my kit lens won't cut it, actually my kit lens sucks, and i want to replace it)

So here's my pro's and cons of what i like, the 24-70 is f2.8, which is good with lower light conditions (since i want this lens to be my new all round lens)
shooting indoors, outdoors, action, everything.
(i'm going to buy a 70-200 f2.8L IS in the next month or so)

I'd really like to hear peoples opinions and comments on it. I guess the only two upsides that the 24-105 has, is the Image Stabalization, and higher zoom capability, which seems nice, because i don't want primes, ever. I love the idea of keeping one lens on my camera through an entire shoot.
Taking it off, making people wait, it seems out dated to me, i'm a new age guy and i like technology that makes my life easier. plus, carrying two zoom lenses can pretty much cover all your shots.

I read other threads with comments about the 24-70, i don't mind the weight, i'm a strong man, i usually strap another back pack to my back filled with beers, food, clothes and whatever when i take long walks through the city to take pictures, so somebody saying "why would you carry a 2.1lb lens" to me is like saying "why would you carry around 12 beers for a 6 hour photoshoot walk?" well i think i pretty much answered my own question.

But i havn't been lucky enough to read a thread with these two lenses in comparison ,and i will be buying one within a day or two, so far i'm closer to the 24-70 because of the lower light conditions, f2.8... i know with IS i COULD technicaly drop the shutter speed a bit indoors and raise the apature number, and asuming i have pretty steady hands, the IS should work it's magic while my shutter opens and closes to get a steady shot. but i don't know how crisp that would look on these lenses (i know it looks good even on my kit lens when it's on a tripod, but i don't want to carry a tripod around everywhere.....

ok thanks for reading my 10,000 word essay on which lens should i buy!

- ec

i just bought the 24-70 and sold the 24-105 after 8 months and thousands of pictures. i had also previously rented the 24-70 for a few days so i knew what i was getting.

the 24-105 is a very versatile lens with great IQ. what i didn't like about it was:

-- f4 wasn't very usable so i shot @ 4.5 as wide open. i recently bought the 17-40 and it is very good at f4. some guys say their 24-105 is great at f4 but mine wasn't and i had it recalibrated by canon. f2.8 with the 24-70 is more usable to me than f4 with the 24-105....and that sealed the deal for me.

-- bokeh was spikey with 24-105. imo, bokeh ranges from okay to terrible. bokeh is much better with the 24-70 and IQ is better. i am seeing more of a 3-D pop with the brick and that's what i wanted.

-- the 24-105 did not do portraits well. i just never got that pop with this lens when doing human and animal portraits and always felt that the last 10mms or so should be avoided for decent portraits.

i recently bought the 85 1.8 and it is great for portaits and has very good bokeh. i wanted these qualities in my primary lens.

so the 24-105 is a great walkaround lens but i felt more like i was taking snapshots rather than exercising creativity, and that caused me to buy additional lenses.

there are things about the 24-70 that i don't like as well:

-- no IS. actually this isn't that big of a deal for me as i can hold a lens pretty steady and i don't do a lot of low light shooting. i also have fast primes.

-- weight. this is the biggie. this lens is a monster. it weighs .6 lbs. more than the 24-105 and it is longer and has a bucket hood. the 24-105 is no lightweight but this is a humongous, heavy lens on my 20d with battery grip.

-- the loss of 35mm. this is also huge for me but i know from the past that i can get by with 70mm. i do a lot of close-ups of people and animals and 70mm works for me (barely). and i also was not confident with the last 10mm or so of the 24-105 when taking certain types of pictures (e.g. portraits) so the loss was actually less than it seemed.

in short, the 24-70 has better IQ and bokeh which makes for more creative shooting. the copy that i bought is also better than the copy that i rented and i am very pleased with it.

i've often said the the 24-105 and the 24-70 are the only two lenses that i would consider for a primary lens and i still believe that. each has it's strong and weak points but both are great lenses.

ed rader

[Bubble]

+1 on weight for 24-70. Don't know why they are so big and heavy.

[grego]

Originally Posted by Bubble

+1 on weight for 24-70. Don't know why they are so big and heavy.

heavy = quality 2.8 glass for a zoom.

[Bubble]

Originally Posted by grego

heavy = quality 2.8 glass for a zoom.

16-35 weight like half of it.

[grego]

Originally Posted by Bubble

16-35 weight like half of it.

Well the 24-70 covers more range for a 2.8.

[ed rader]

Originally Posted by Bubble

+1 on weight for 24-70. Don't know why they are so big and heavy.

overdesigned, imo. i'll bet the next generation will be smaller, lighter and have a normal sized hood.

ed rader

[ed rader]

Originally Posted by Bubble

16-35 weight like half of it.

now don't start confusing us with the truth .

ed rader

[malla1962]

I think I would go for the 24-70 for the extra stop.