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 06 Feb 2014 (Thursday) 11:31
Search threadPrev/next
POLL: "Whis one for FF as all purpose lens?"
Canon EF 24-105 f/4 IS L USM
53
58.9%
Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L USM
37
41.1%

90 voters, 90 votes given (1 choice only choices can be voted per member)). VOTING IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY.
BROWSE ALL POLLS
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

The age old dilemma: 24-105 or 24-70 (Mk 1) on FF

 
NemethR
Senior Member
Avatar
861 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 199
Joined Jun 2012
Location: Pécs, Hungary
     
Feb 06, 2014 11:31 |  #1

Dear all!

Around 8 months ago I purchased my 5D Mk II, and love it.
Back then I purchased the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS USM II with the camera,
beacuse the fact, that I planned to make Outdoor Portraits, and take some picturas at some Rally events. The 70-200 2.8 IS L II was the right choice for sure for this, its a great lens, and the 5D2 is a great camera.

Altough I had a 28-70 It sady stopped working a few weeks after I purchased the 5D2 with the 70-200.

I was really happy with the combo, but I feel I need to get something that is wider, for those "general purpose" needs.

I definately am not willing to pay for the 24-70 Mk II, as I will not use the lens so much that it justifies the price, also I do think its inferior in design (not optically) to the 24-70 Mk 1.

So I was thinking and thinking, 24-70 or 24-105, or 24-70 or 24-105, ...

Also keep in mind, I have the 70-200 2.8 for situations where I need more reach.
I looked often through the 70-100 range on that lens, and do not feel there is a really big difference.

So reach should not be the problem, I know 24-105 has IS, but is f/4, and the 24-70 does not have IS, but is "faster". I know the 24-70 is a little bit sharper, and more robust, but heavier.

What I would like to know is, if you had to choose only one for FF, wich one would it be?
I would like to use it, for wider angle Rally Photography, maybe some full body portraits indoors and outdoor, some landscape an city photograpy, and maybe some Milky-way landscapes, also as a walk around lens.

Weight does not matter.
The extra reach of the 24-105 does not seem to be really that much extra, imho,
but maybe I am wrong.

At the beginning of the next month I will have the money for one of the two.

So, please help me with your imput, do make a decision I will not regret making.

Atm I am more leaning towards the 24-70 f/2.8 L
Also note the question is regarding these two,
I know there are other options but I already sorted them out :)


Roland | Hobbyst Photographer
Nikon D850 | Nikon 70-200 f/2.8G VR II | Nikon 85mm f/1.8G | Nikon 35mm f/1.8G

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
KCMO ­ Al
Goldmember
Avatar
1,115 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Sep 2006
Location: Kansas City, MO
     
Feb 06, 2014 14:44 |  #2

I chose the 24-105 for my main carry lens. This was after carrying my Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 around Australia for a couple of weeks. The weight got to me. I do sometimes run out of reach at 105 , but I can reach for my 100-400 (if I have with me which is not often). I've been thinking about getting the 70-200 IS. But IS would definitely put it out of my price right now. 24-105 is a great lens, however.


Film: Leica M-4, Elan 7E, Rolleiflex 2.8f, Pentax 645 -- Digital: Canon Pro-1, EOS 5D Mk III
EOS Lenses: Sigma 24-70 f2.8 EX - Canon EF 17-40 f4.0L - Canon EF 24-105 f4.0L - Canon EF 35 f1.4L USM - Canon EF100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS USM - Canon EF100 f2.8 Macro - Other stuff: MR 14EX - 430EX - 580EXII - ST-E2 - TC1.4x - TC-80N3

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kfreels
Goldmember
Avatar
4,297 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Aug 2010
Location: Princeton, IN
     
Feb 06, 2014 14:55 |  #3

Everyone's needs are different. Can you go back through your previous photos and see how often you shoot faster than f4 and how often you shoot between 70 and 105mm?


I am serious....and don't call me Shirley.
Canon 7D and a bunch of other stuff

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gnome ­ chompski
Goldmember
1,252 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 136
Joined Jun 2013
Location: oakland, ca
     
Feb 06, 2014 15:20 |  #4

well, if you want 2.8 you have one option. That said, I was not very impressed with the 24-70 v1. I wasnt bad but I didnt feel it was exceptional, at least the copy I used. The MK2 felt overly plastic to me.

I have the 24-105, and i enjoy using it. Its not exceptional either, but its decent, and has a good range. The only thing that kinda bothers me about it are the distortion at 24mm, which can be fixed in post for the most part, and the overall softness at 105 f/4.


Tumblr (external link)
Flickr (external link)
Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
EOS5DC
Senior Member
791 posts
Joined Dec 2013
     
Feb 06, 2014 17:42 |  #5
bannedPermanent ban

Neither. My Tamron 28-75 will do me just fine until such time as I can afford the 24-70 II.


Bodies: 60D, 6D.
EFs: 15-85, 10-22
EF: 28-75, 35 f/2 IS, Σ70-200 OS, 100-400L
Flash: 580EX II, 430 EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
coogee
Member
172 posts
Likes: 20
Joined Sep 2013
     
Feb 06, 2014 17:47 |  #6

You stated 'weight does not matter', fair enough, but I would still try a 24-70 Mk1 on for size if you have the opportunity. It is a solid hunk of lens, I found it a bit cumbersome for 'walking around' but I would never use a 70-200/2.8 for this reason and you already have one.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
Avatar
13,096 posts
Gallery: 1549 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 9980
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
     
Feb 06, 2014 22:21 |  #7

Heya,

Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VC. It's the answer to the MKII Canon version, but for half the cost.

Very best,


My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
EverydayGetaway
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,494 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 3516
Joined Oct 2012
Location: Bowie, MD
     
Feb 06, 2014 23:27 |  #8

EOS5DC wrote in post #16669227 (external link)
Neither. My Tamron 28-75 will do me just fine until such time as I can afford the 24-70 II.

This.

I voted the 24-105L only because I've shot with both the lenses in question and was completely un-impressed with the 24-70. It's a pretty good lens, but I don't think it's anything to write home about. To me it'd make more sense to just save your pennies and get the Tamron (unless you really need the USM focus or better weather sealing).


Fuji X-Pro2 // Fuji X-T1 // Fuji X-100T // XF 18mm f2 // XF 35mm f1.4 // XF 60mm f2.4 // Rokinon 12mm f2 // Rokinon 21mm f1.4 // XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4 // XF 55-200mm f3.5-4.8 // Rokinon 85mm f1.4 // Zhonghi Lensturbo ii // Various adapted MF lenses
flickr (external link) // Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kin2son
Goldmember
4,546 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2011
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
Feb 06, 2014 23:41 |  #9
bannedPermanent ban

Neither for me too, so didn't vote.

Tamron 24-70 VC


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
NemethR
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
861 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 199
Joined Jun 2012
Location: Pécs, Hungary
     
Feb 07, 2014 02:10 |  #10

Thanks guys, for all those who say TAMRON.
The Tamron 24-70 2.8 costs (for me) much more then the Canon 24-105 or 24-70.

So its not an option but atm a Canon 24-70 used, but in excellent condition costs around the same as a new 24-105. So that is why I have the dilemma, I actually would not save any money with buying the 24-105 and the Tamron is much more expensive.

About the size of the 24-70. I know how big it is, I had the 28-70, had no issues with it, I even enjoyed its size + weight. It does not feel as a toy :)


Roland | Hobbyst Photographer
Nikon D850 | Nikon 70-200 f/2.8G VR II | Nikon 85mm f/1.8G | Nikon 35mm f/1.8G

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
NemethR
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
861 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 199
Joined Jun 2012
Location: Pécs, Hungary
     
Feb 07, 2014 02:21 |  #11

kfreels wrote in post #16668790 (external link)
Everyone's needs are different. Can you go back through your previous photos and see how often you shoot faster than f4 and how often you shoot between 70 and 105mm?

I actually hot with the 28-70 quite often at 2.8.
Between 70-105 its hard to tell, mainly because I used my 24-105 on a crop for sports.
Now since I have the 70-200, I have that for sports.

The 24-105 I also used for portraits, at 105, mainly because of the extra background blur, but again, I have the 70-200 for that, @170mm and even 2.8

As a "walk around" lens I used the 24-105 mostly at the "wider" end.

So if I consider all this I am not sure how often I would use the 70-105 range.

I also used the 24-105 for some "macro-like" photos, oft. at 105mm, but the 24-70 @70mm has actually a larger magnification (because the closer min.focusing distance).

This is why I actually at the moment lean more towards the 24-70.


Roland | Hobbyst Photographer
Nikon D850 | Nikon 70-200 f/2.8G VR II | Nikon 85mm f/1.8G | Nikon 35mm f/1.8G

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
EverydayGetaway
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,494 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 3516
Joined Oct 2012
Location: Bowie, MD
     
Feb 07, 2014 02:29 |  #12

NemethR wrote in post #16670146 (external link)
Thanks guys, for all those who say TAMRON.
The Tamron 24-70 2.8 costs (for me) much more then the Canon 24-105 or 24-70.

So its not an option but atm a Canon 24-70 used, but in excellent condition costs around the same as a new 24-105. So that is why I have the dilemma, I actually would not save any money with buying the 24-105 and the Tamron is much more expensive.

About the size of the 24-70. I know how big it is, I had the 28-70, had no issues with it, I even enjoyed its size + weight. It does not feel as a toy :)

My suggestion was for the Tamron 28-75, which can be had for around $300 and from all I've seen and read is just as good optically as the 24-70L mk1.


Fuji X-Pro2 // Fuji X-T1 // Fuji X-100T // XF 18mm f2 // XF 35mm f1.4 // XF 60mm f2.4 // Rokinon 12mm f2 // Rokinon 21mm f1.4 // XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4 // XF 55-200mm f3.5-4.8 // Rokinon 85mm f1.4 // Zhonghi Lensturbo ii // Various adapted MF lenses
flickr (external link) // Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
titi_67207
Senior Member
Avatar
496 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Strasbourg, France
     
Feb 07, 2014 02:32 |  #13

If weight is not an issue, take the 24-70mm...

Titi


Canon 5D MkII + Sony A7 + 24x36 & 6x6 B&W film cameras .
CV 15 4.5 III | TS-E 24L II | FE 28 2 | (50+85) 1.4 | 135 2 | 70-200 4.0L | a collection of old Zuikos + FD + Adaptall + AI-s + M42

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
NemethR
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
861 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 199
Joined Jun 2012
Location: Pécs, Hungary
     
Feb 07, 2014 08:41 |  #14

Is there actually someone who used both, or has both?


Roland | Hobbyst Photographer
Nikon D850 | Nikon 70-200 f/2.8G VR II | Nikon 85mm f/1.8G | Nikon 35mm f/1.8G

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
15,634 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 5694
Joined Sep 2007
     
Feb 07, 2014 10:05 |  #15

NemethR wrote in post #16670586 (external link)
Is there actually someone who used both, or has both?

plenty of folks have used both. If you dont mind the weight and size, stick with the 24-70. Nice bokeh and sharp enough. In america, the decision is much harder because the 24-105 goes for 650-700 while the older 24-70 is closer to 950-1000. Good amount of difference in price.


Sony A7riii/A9 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - CV 21/3.5 - FE 35/2.8 - SY 35/1.4 AF - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

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

4,985 views & 0 likes for this thread
The age old dilemma: 24-105 or 24-70 (Mk 1) on FF
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 Hthomas670
1038 guests, 359 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.