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 11 Apr 2012 (Wednesday) 00:24
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

24-105 to 24-70 switchers, feedback please!

 
MrNothing
Member
Avatar
125 posts
Joined Sep 2009
Location: Canada
     
Apr 11, 2012 00:24 |  #1

Whether I sell my 24-105 and pay the difference or trade it and pay the difference (though I doubt many people do that), I'm planning to switch over to the 24-70 2.8. It's served me well and I have no problem with it, only problem is I'd rather take the faster lens which will help me in low light situations and achieving a decent shutter speed without relying on a flash.

I'd like to here from any other people who have done the switch and why and would you say its worth the switch? Thank you!



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
elicious
Member
130 posts
Joined Jan 2012
Location: San Diego, CA
     
Apr 11, 2012 00:34 |  #2

Is the one stop difference worth really the determining factor for whether you use flash?

I have the 24-70/2.8 and recommend it for the DoF, and for me that one stop determines whether I shoot at ISO 3200 or 1600 with available light...fwiw. ;)


5D3 | 24-105L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kin2son
Goldmember
4,546 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2011
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
Apr 11, 2012 00:42 |  #3
bannedPermanent ban

one stop isn't going to give you that much more light nor bokeh. 24-105 for versatility and IS, fast prime for bokeh/low light imo.


5D3 Gripped / 17-40L / Σ35 / 40 Pancake / Zeiss 50 MP / Σ85 / 100L Macro / 70-200 f2.8L II IS / 430 EX II / 580 EX II / Canon 2xIII TC / Kenko Ext. Tubes
EOS M / EF-M 18-55 / EF-M 22f2 / Ricoh GR aka Ultimate street camera :p
Flickr (external link) | My Images on Getty®‎ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bikeboynate
Goldmember
Avatar
3,127 posts
Joined Aug 2011
Location: San Francisco
     
Apr 11, 2012 01:01 |  #4

Yeah the IS feature of the 24-105 will give you better low light images than having a 2.8 aperture.


-Nate :D
5D Mark lll + BG-E11 | 60D + BG-E9 | Rebel XSi |
17-40 f/4L | 24-105 f/4L | 70-200 f/2.8L IS II | EX430II x 2 |
055XPROB | 322RC2 | Street Walker HardDrive |
Flickr (external link) | My website: NMBPhoto (external link) | Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
smythie
I wasn't even trying
3,717 posts
Gallery: 30 photos
Likes: 648
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Sydney - Australia
     
Apr 11, 2012 01:05 |  #5

only if the subject is not moving


Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Unregistered.Coward
Senior Member
Avatar
884 posts
Joined Oct 2010
Location: Looking thru the viewfinder
     
Apr 11, 2012 05:49 |  #6

Having both, I find the 24-105 a bit more versatile, all things considered. If you're shooting low light (either lens) without even carrying a flash you've already got one hand tied behind the back.


....the best camera is the one you have on you at the time.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Timsxsi
Member
159 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 75
Joined Jan 2009
     
Apr 11, 2012 08:41 |  #7

I have bolth of these lenses. I figured once I used them for a while I would be able to decide which one to keep.So far Im still undecided.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ncst_dd
Hatchling
9 posts
Joined Jul 2010
     
Apr 11, 2012 09:10 |  #8

i had both and ultimately, i found the f4 to be too slow to be my primary lens. so i sold the 24-105 and kept the 24-70.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
amfoto1
Cream of the Crop
10,251 posts
Likes: 84
Joined Aug 2007
Location: San Jose, California
     
Apr 11, 2012 11:46 |  #9

I didn't switch...

Because I often have to shoot in dusty conditions, I was looking for a better sealed lens than a 28-135 I'd been using and begged/borrowed to try both 24-105 and 24-70. I ended up buying a 24-70.

What surprised me was how close image quality was with all three of these lenses. Of course, the two L-series are a couple mm wider and better built... but the 28-135 ain't bad, it's typical "USM/gold stripe" build.

Each lens has it's nuances. The 28-135 is a little soft at 135mm, but surprisingly good at other focal lengths. Of course, it's also only f5.6 at 135mm. The 24-105 has pretty strong vignetting at 24mm... though it will mostly only show up if using the camera on full frame cameras. The IQ of the 24-70 is darned good throughout and has the best potential for strong background blurs... it's just big, heavy and expensive, with a massive lens hood (that makes sense when you see how the lens zooms).

None of them are truly "sealed", but the L's are definitely better sealed than the 28-135 and feel like they will survive longer. On the other hand, I can buy three or four 28-135s off my local Craigslist, for what a 24-105 will set me back.

All three have USM that makes for fast, accurate focusing. All three are EF lenses, full frame designs, so fully usable on either crop or full frame. Some don't like the range of these on crop, prefer a wider "walkaround" zoom... Personally I like it and don't mind complementing it with a wider zoom (I use a Tokina 12-24 as my only "crop specific" lens, but other such as the Canon 10-22 would serve just as well).

All three are pretty darned close focusing. The 24-70 is closest of the bunch, 24-105 a little less closes, and the 28-135 has the least magnification potential (without adding extension rings).

The 28-135 is prone to "zoom creep". To a lesser degree, it shows up sometimes with the 24-105. Haven't ever noticed it myself or heard others mentioin it much with the 24-70.

I don't mind having IS on a midrange zoom... but it's not a high priority for me on these shorter focal lengths, so I wasn't worried at all that the 24-70 doesn't have it. As camera ISO performance has improved, it's made IS less critical... Though I still really appreciate it on longer lenses. It's just not a very high priority feature for me on shorter focal lengths, though of course I'll take it if it's included and adds little or no cost.

The 24-70/2.8 ended up in my camera bag. I'm not going to be quick to upgrade to the Mark II (let the price settle a bit! or maybe I can win the lottery).

And I ended up buying another copy of the 28-135 to have as backup/loaner lens.

I agree that a combo of a slower zoom along with one or two or three faster primes can be a good setup too.


Alan Myers (external link) "Walk softly and carry a big lens."
5DII, 7DII(x2), 7D(x2) & other cameras. 10-22mm, Tokina 12-24/4, 20/2.8, TS 24/3.5L, 24-70/2.8L, 28/1.8, 28-135 IS (x2), TS 45/2.8, 50/1.4, Tamron 60/2.0, 70-200/4L IS, 70-200/2.8 IS, 85/1.8, Tamron 90/2.5 Macro, 100/2.8 USM, 100-400L II, 135/2L, 180/3.5L, 300/4L IS (x2), 300/2.8L IS, 500/4L IS, EF 1.4X II, EF 2X II. Flashes, studio strobes & various access. - FLICKR (external link) - ZENFOLIO (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ahendarman
Senior Member
Avatar
851 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Sep 2008
Location: SoCal
     
Apr 11, 2012 11:52 |  #10

I started with 24-105L then switched to 24-70L but switched back to 24-105L + some prime.
I found that 24-70L is too heavy and if it's too dark for f/4 most likely it'll be too dark for f/2.8 anyway. I like the versatility of the IS and more range.
Also, with high ISO capability of the 5D3, the f/4 is highly usable now.


Gear | Smugmug (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SoundNinja384
Member
196 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jan 2010
Location: NorCal
     
Apr 11, 2012 13:15 |  #11

I made the switch from a 24-105 to a 24-70. As everyone else has said, 2.8 is not going to give you a huge advantage in low light situations. IS was nice on the 24-105 but if people are your main subjects then IS in lowlight with a max f/stop of 4 is not going to do you much good without bumping the ISO really high. If you want low light without flash then primes are the way to go.

To answer your question, I find f/2.8 a lot more usable than f/4. I was willing to trade IS and lighter weight for f/2.8. Wider is better IMO, when it comes to lenses at least =)


Canon 7D ll Σ30 ll 430EX II

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

1,396 views & 0 likes for this thread
24-105 to 24-70 switchers, feedback please!
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 Wahama90
976 guests, 298 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.