Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 24 Feb 2011 (Thursday) 20:12
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

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

 
cccc
Goldmember
Avatar
2,017 posts
Gallery: 18 photos
Likes: 172
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Sacramento, CA
     
Feb 25, 2011 15:48 |  #16

crazyformints wrote in post #11908725 (external link)
I have a Rebel body with this equipment:
  • Nifty 50
  • 28mm, f/1.8
  • 16-35mm 2.8L
  • a slow 70-200mm that doesn't really work...

I'm considering getting a lens that I can take to go traveling with, sort of a one-size fits all. I appreciate the low f-stop because my body doesn't have very high ISO.

Any thoughts on which one I should get?

Thanks!

You should get a new body (5d). It'll bring out the best of your current lenses.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
KVN ­ Photo
Goldmember
Avatar
1,940 posts
Joined Jun 2010
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
     
Feb 25, 2011 17:52 |  #17

I don't shoot professionally, I use 24-70 and very happy with it. But sometimes it's too heavy for walkaround. Have use it on 500D before and also very happy. Except if you need wider.


X-Pro1 + 18-55 f/2.8-4 OIS + 55-200 f/3.8-4.5 OIS
TS-E 24 f/3.5L II + XF 35 f/1.4 + XF 56 f/1.2
Sony RX100 II + G12
Travel the world!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rkho
Member
87 posts
Joined Dec 2010
     
Feb 25, 2011 23:00 |  #18

I'm going to grab a 24-70mm before the end of March, so my vote's in that pool. I played with my buddy's 24-70mm the other day and I loved it, though it IS pretty heavy haha.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
scubthebub
Senior Member
Avatar
894 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jul 2009
Location: Aliso Viejo, CA
     
Feb 25, 2011 23:12 |  #19

to be 100% honest nothing is better then trying them out yourself. I learned this myself and holding and shooting both is the only way for YOU to decide. I ended up with the 24-105L because it fit my shooting better. The 24-70 was equally amazing but I like the range and weight of the 24-105 better.

Try both and it will be easy to see which you like more


You can also call me Matt
|| 5Dc+Grip | 20D || 24-105
L | 50 f/1.8 II | Tamron 28-300 f/3.5-6.3 <-Crap on FF |
| 550EX | Yongnuo RF 602 triggers | Aperture 3 | Lowepro Pro Trekker 300 AW |

Flickr (external link) | Redbubble (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
arentol
Goldmember
1,305 posts
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Seattle WA
     
Feb 25, 2011 23:13 |  #20

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=937900
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=116717
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=978958
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=992985
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=975400
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=966934
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=957458
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=938344
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=936264
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=930205

https://photography-on-the.net …rch.php?searchi​d=25211431

etc....

I could go on all day.


5D3 | Rokinon 14 f/2.8 | 16-35L II | TS-E 24L | Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 | Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 | Voigtlander 40 f/2.0 | Σ 50 f/1.4 | MP-E 65 | 70-200 2.8L IS II | Σ 85 f/1.4 | Zeiss 100 f/2 | Σ 120-300 f/2.8 OS | 580 EX II | 430 EX II | Fuji X10 | OM-D E-M5 | http://www.mikehjphoto​.com/ (external link)
*****Lenses For Sale (external link)*****

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tommydigi
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,657 posts
Gallery: 55 photos
Likes: 570
Joined May 2010
Location: Chicago
     
Feb 25, 2011 23:16 |  #21

scubthebub wrote in post #11916135 (external link)
to be 100% honest nothing is better then trying them out yourself. I learned this myself and holding and shooting both is the only way for YOU to decide. I ended up with the 24-105L because it fit my shooting better. The 24-70 was equally amazing but I like the range and weight of the 24-105 better.

Try both and it will be easy to see which you like more



Good advice but I owned both and I still had a hard time picking one. Both are really good I could have flipped a coin.


Website (external link) | Flickr (external link) | Instagram (external link)
Canon EOS R • 5DII • 7DII • G7XII • 35 1.8 RF • 24LII • 50L • 100L • 135L • 40 STM • 16-35L F4 IS • 100-400L II • 600EX II • 270 EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
scubthebub
Senior Member
Avatar
894 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jul 2009
Location: Aliso Viejo, CA
     
Feb 25, 2011 23:16 |  #22

lol, that's why I said try them out, it answers all questions ;)


You can also call me Matt
|| 5Dc+Grip | 20D || 24-105
L | 50 f/1.8 II | Tamron 28-300 f/3.5-6.3 <-Crap on FF |
| 550EX | Yongnuo RF 602 triggers | Aperture 3 | Lowepro Pro Trekker 300 AW |

Flickr (external link) | Redbubble (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hollowsparks
Member
31 posts
Joined Sep 2009
Location: Denver/Shanghai
     
Feb 25, 2011 23:18 |  #23

I'd go with the 24-70.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
NeoTokyo
Goldmember
Avatar
2,005 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Mar 2008
Location: Sacramento Ca, Springfield Mo.
     
Feb 26, 2011 02:50 |  #24

I have both the 24-70 and 24-105mm and love them both but for the sake of my shooting style (Nature, roaming, transportation) I prefer the 24-105mm for the length and IS thus why my 24-70mm is up for sale.

This first shot is an example of how the extra stop from the 24-70mm helped me capture this moment last New Years eve. It was bitter cold and my hands shaking but I still got the shot.

The second shot is an example of how I use my 24-105mm was a more general walk around.

1D Mark III was the body used.

IMAGE: http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5125/5315683254_025deb28a2_b.jpg

IMAGE: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2673/4091476587_1635fb53fe_b.jpg

Another one for my fav walk around lens. 24-105mm

IMAGE: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3479/4082602164_2ab81aef02_b.jpg

Check out my flickr! http://www.flickr.com/​photos/crainracing/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JuliusUpNorth
Senior Member
522 posts
Joined Jun 2007
Location: Whitehorse, Yukon Territory, Canada
     
Feb 26, 2011 16:05 |  #25

Faced with the same dilemma, I chose the 24-105, mainly because of shooting style and weight (I travel a lot, and sometimes a smaller camera and relatively light lens come in handy).

Julius




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mansalim
Goldmember
1,105 posts
Joined Aug 2010
Location: 16801
     
Feb 26, 2011 16:12 |  #26

owned 24-105L AND old sigma 24-70 f2.8 macro for the same price as one 24-70L..
best compromise


:)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Giccin
Member
Avatar
41 posts
Joined Feb 2011
Location: Orange County, California
     
Mar 14, 2011 20:54 |  #27

I'm not sure if this was cleared or not but..

Does the IS on the 24-105 have a significant impact on the photographer if he or she is not using a tripod?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Buylongterm
Goldmember
Avatar
2,080 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 55
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Chi-town
     
Mar 14, 2011 21:14 as a reply to  @ Giccin's post |  #28

Went through this same delima and I chose the 24-70mm for the same reason I exchanged the 70-200 f/4 for the 70-200 IS 2.8 II. Found out when shooting indoors the f/4 just didn't cut it.

I was a little nervous that I'd miss the IS but I am finding out real fast that I don't need it.

Either way,you can't go wrong. Both are extrodinary lenses. All depends on what your needs are


Christian
flickr (external link)
@WerthLiving (Follow me on Instagram)
Canon EOS 5D MK III Gripped | 35mm f/1.4L | 70-200mm f/2.8L IS MK II |100mm f/2.8L Macro | 24mm-105mm f/4.0L |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
scubthebub
Senior Member
Avatar
894 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jul 2009
Location: Aliso Viejo, CA
     
Mar 14, 2011 21:22 |  #29

Giccin wrote in post #12021172 (external link)
I'm not sure if this was cleared or not but..

Does the IS on the 24-105 have a significant impact on the photographer if he or she is not using a tripod?

Can you clarify what you mean? If you are using a tripod the IS doesn't help at all on this lens. The nice thing about IS is you might not need a tripod which can help in places like museums where tripods and flash photography is prohibited. Did that answer your question?


You can also call me Matt
|| 5Dc+Grip | 20D || 24-105
L | 50 f/1.8 II | Tamron 28-300 f/3.5-6.3 <-Crap on FF |
| 550EX | Yongnuo RF 602 triggers | Aperture 3 | Lowepro Pro Trekker 300 AW |

Flickr (external link) | Redbubble (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bendel
Senior Member
Avatar
323 posts
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Wisconsin
     
Mar 14, 2011 21:27 |  #30

Giccin wrote in post #12021172 (external link)
I'm not sure if this was cleared or not but..

Does the IS on the 24-105 have a significant impact on the photographer if he or she is not using a tripod?

When you take a picture, the general consensus is that your shutter speed for a sharp photo should be 1/(focal length). So, if you're shooting at 200mm, your shutter speed should be 1/200 to have a sharp picture. So, when you're shooting at 24mm on the 24-70 or 24-105, you should be using 1/24th of a second. The IS on the 24-105 is a 3-stop IS system. That means, instead of using 1/24th of a second (or 1/30th because it's the closest normal shutter speed), you could use 3 stops slower of a shutter speed to get an equivalently sharp image. So instead of 1/30th of a second, 1/4 of a second could be handheld. Of course this is theoretical, and doesn't necessary translate to real world results. I have played with my 24-105 though and shut the IS off and on and there is a VERY clear difference when you start to get to those borderline handheld shutter speeds. The difference in sharpness is obvious and, I think, worthwhile.

Edit: And based on the other response you got, I may have way over explained this. I apologize if that's the case.


Brandon
Canon 5D, 24-105 F4L, 70-200 F4L, 85 F1.8, 430EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

4,014 views & 0 likes for this thread
24-105mm 4L or 24-70mm 2.8L??
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Guashumerda
853 guests, 193 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.