24-105/f4 L IS USM vs. 70-200/f4 L IS USM for pets

I've gone through all my images and most of them are at around 35-55mm (kitlens). I'm in search for a better lens to use when out with my dog. I like to do portraits and action shots (see http://500px.com/LostM​ySelf) and images where I just snap away (some always turn out good).

I've looked at the 24-105 and 70-200 and I'm not sure which one is best suited for this type of photography. Do you guys have any input? I use a 60D so crop factor should be considered.

I'd say 70-200. Dogs get far away fast.

The features of 24-105 are largely wasted on a crop body so not that. The 70-200 is a great lens, focuses fast and gives you some room to work. If you decide to go wider look at the ef-s lenses instead. I like 17-55 2.8IS.

I have both these lenses and use them primarily for dog photography, on my 7D. Either would do a good job for you. Both have IS, fast focusing and excellent colour/contrast. It depends how much working space you have. If you're always out in wide-open spaces, the 70-200 would probably be a better pick. However, the 24-105 is a more versatile range, lets you get in a bit closer. I get nice results with both. If forced to choose one, it'd probably be the 70-200, but I use the 24-105 more, just because of its range.

In the shots below, the black dog was taken with the 70-200 and the golden retriever with the 24-105.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

gonzogolf wrote in post #16009452
The features of 24-105 are largely wasted on a crop body so not that. The 70-200 is a great lens, focuses fast and gives you some room to work. If you decide to go wider look at the ef-s lenses instead. I like 17-55 2.8IS.

FWIW, I like my 24-105 about twice as much on my T2i as I liked my 17-55 f/2.8 IS. 17-55 just didn't fit most of my shooting. Sold 17-55 and used money to buy a used 24-105, only lost $0.65 on the sales.

I like the 70-200 for dogs. I prefer to be a little further away so they aren't as tempted to get distracted be me moving around, and keep running or playing. As soon as I kneel down, if they notice, my dogs want to tackle me lol

This would be a nobrainer for me if I would carry two lenses with me, then it would be the kitlens and 70-200 but now I can't decide between the 24-105 and 70-200. As you guys said, the dogs get away fast and as I said most my images are at the max FL (55) so a 70-200 would probably be the best for me anyway.

I had the 70-200/f4 non-is before but sold it due to economy issues but now I'm in for a permanent buy. I just don't know if I could get the non-is again, I liked the lens alot and I would never bring out my camera in bad weather so getting a good shutter speed would not be an issue. The only thing I hated with the lens was the shaky viewfinder but it was not so bad..

I actually use my 24-105 and my primes the most to shoot my dogs and that's on a FF. That's mainly because I do more shots of them in the house, back patio, or out in general public areas so either space is limited or want to kept them close. If I take them out to play fetch on the front lawn since it's so big I find the 70-200 a bit short.

Since you have the kit lens and assuming you're happy with it I'd the 70-200 before getting something that covers a lot of the same range.

Having both lenses, I, like many would go for the 70-200 f/4 L IS.

These are just my personal thoughts. Not trying to be influential, but maybe something to think about.... While shooting my dogs, I prefer a longer focal length because as mentioned earlier, I want to capture them being 'them.' Running, playing, being themselves, whatever. I don't want to influence them too much. So I prefer the longer focal lengths. If I am too close, as soon as I kneel down, they want to run to me, say 'hey,' tackle me, or whatever, and those close shots aren't as flattering.

As for the IS vs. non-IS. I had the 70-200 f/4 IS. When I looked to move to the 2.8 version, I considered the non-IS version. But in the end, I didn't want to find the situation where I was looking back wishing I had spent a little extra on the IS version, and wishing I could sell and upgrade yet again. Also I didn't want to be in that situation where I wish I had it. Its one thing to want a different lens, but to what another version of the same lens is difficult, because it makes it harder to justify upgrade. You would already have most of what you want, but would just be missing that last little bit. So, my advice, if you can swing it, save the little extra and get the IS version. You can always turn it off, but it certainly doesn't hurt anything. I don't shoot in low light often, and mostly shoot sports/action with it at high shutter speeds. And though you say you are a nice weather shooter, you never know when you might be out in the evening, or it may not be 'bad' weather, but maybe cloudy, and you want that little piece of mind.

arctic98z
"Its one thing to want a different lens, but to want another version of the same lens is difficult, because it makes it harder to justify upgrade." SO TRUE!!
--------
I'd say at least get the IS. If you're doing action shots. 24-105mm isnt so bad, I love it! When indoors and low lighting, I usually opt out to my prime to get down on F2 or bigger. Unless I get better lighting indoors or with flash.

Ok Johan, that was a sneaky way to get us to look at your great photos. I'd say either lens will do just fine in capable hands. If the choice is only one, guess I'd go with the 70-200 (you didn't mention which 70-200 though).