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

Thanks Firebird

I have the 24-105L on my XSI and its been on my camera ever since I bought it. I love that lens and its very sharp. All the reviews regarding the 24-105 on cropped says its a very sharp lens and I concur. I've even read a review stating the 24-105 being sharper than the 24-70 but then again, you have to be staring at your computer screen at 300% magnification to tell.
24-105 isn't as wide as 17-55 but you get the reach of 105mm. In addition, its metal body and feels solid,especially if you're going to couple it with the 40D. Its f/4 though but its got IS.
If its a general purpose, walk around lens, I'd go with the 24-105L.

I don't know about other folks, but I bought the 24-70 for sports. I will be shooting high school wrestling tomorrow and Saturday, then state basketball tournaments the next three weekends. Sitting under the basket along the baseline provides some pretty good opportunities and the 24-70 gives me a good range to operate...most likely in the 30-50mm range. For most others shots, I use the 70-200 f/2.8L IS.

Based on your gear list already includingv the UWA lens then I would go with the 24-105L. The IS function will allow you to shoot low light as well as 2.8 will and I prefer the longer focal length. People always suggest the 17-55 on a crop but I actually sold mine and replaced it with the 24-105. I find the colors far more pleasing and it is every bit as sharp as the 17-55. Build quality of the L lense is way superior and they include a lens hood that the 17-55 costs a fortune for after.

Ishootpeoplewithmycano​n wrote in post #9541959
Well I have shot with my friends 24-70 on my camera and it is fine. I am not sure what you need me to clarify. Ok well if people are just goin to be rude and treat me like a a dumb A then forget this place I will ask people who are not so rude

First of all, I was not rude to you and neither were the other posters. In your #1 post you put 28-70 and 28-105, both older lenses, while the title says 24-70L and 24-105L. These are 4 different lenses, that is why I asked for clarification.

To answer your question, L quality lenses are much better than regular consumer grade lenses, but for the cropped cameras, the 17-55 is as close to an L quality you can get. I bought my 24-70 before going FF, but I had the EOS 3, which is a FF film camera, so I was used to FF and really like the combo (5D2 with 24-70). The f2.8 makes a huge difference for me because I shoot more often without flash and the low light capabilities of the 5D series is excellent. If you have the money and you want the f2.8, then that's your answer. I found the 70mm too short for most candids at events so I did get the 70-200 2.8 IS. The 24-70 and 70-200 are extensions of each other. Eventually, you may find the 70mm too short for you on FF.

I have the 5d2 and the 24-105L and a 100-400L.
I think this is a great combination.
My next purchase will be a 100 macro.

Having said that, i would really love the 24-70L 2.8 and the 70-200L 2.8.

Damn it canon, why cant you bring out a 14-500L, f/1.8, IS, 1:1, macro for £200? You would sell loads.

Where do we stop this obsession

24-105 with my 7D is just, incredible. One of the sharpest lenses I have seen/used honestly. 24mm is not that limiting, at all.

Invertalon wrote in post #9542412
24-105 with my 7D is just, incredible. One of the sharpest lenses I have seen/used honestly. 24mm is not that limiting, at all.

Agree. I just bought a Tokina 12-24 to experiment with but I am finding that I simply don't want to use that lens at all. Kind of strange. FL is really a personal preference thing.

I had the 24-70 and loved it. Found it too short on a full frame so I got the 24-105 and love it. Because in some cases I miss the 2.8 I will just get the 24-70 again and then no more worries which one to get

I had the 24-105 and now have the 24-70 with a 40D. I don't find the FOV to be an issue. I also have an UWA lens for wider shots, but that is a whole other thing.

If you are looking for a good general purpose lens and you are debating between the two, personally I would go with the 24-105, the weight is less, it's smaller, it has a greater reach and has IS which is a plus.

But this topic has been beaten to death and I don't think there ever will be a clear winner between the two.

Good luck with your decision.

I went through this exact same evaluation myself not too long ago and I decided on the 24-70. It feels much more substantial than the 24-105, but the reason I went with 24-70 is the f2.8. I have decided that I will strive to get the most able low light lenses that my pocket will allow me and I am very happy with the 24-70.

And don't let the 'brick' monikers scare you. I don't find the lens to be heavy at all. It's big and heavier than most (not than the 100-400), but it will cover the portait range quitte well. It's a good walk around range too.

Don't get caught up with not wide enough on crop stories!
If you've been shooting for a while you would know how wide you really need.
If you really want the 24-105L or the 24-70L then just go for it rather than getting the EF-S 17-55 which even though has f/2.8, it is still way too short!

I have a 40D and my everyday walk around lens is the 24-105 L. . .and I've got to tell you that I love it. . .but then I don't groups of people either in a small room either.

I find it to be a great all around lens.

Steve

Both are great lenses and will do a great job.

The biggest difference, apart from the reach at the 'long end', is when you are in low light. The 24-105L can shoot handheld in a good two stops lower light than the 24-70, provided that the subject is moving very little (or not at all). The 24-70 is better for moving subjects in low light, so is the one to go for shooting kids indoors etc.

This is because the 24-70 can give you one more stop faster shutter speed, due to opening to f/2.8 so helping to freeze motion. However, the 24-105L has IS which means that you can handhold it at 3-4 stops slower shutter speed than the 24-70, giving it a 2-3 stop (handheld) low light advantage. Of course, IS won't affect motion blur so moving subjects will still be a problem.

If you always use a tripod, then the low light title goes back to the 24-70 regardless of subject as that cancels out any IS advantage.

I have the 24-105L as I shoot a lot of indoor car shows etc., with generally stationary objects and no room to use a tripod, so it is clearly my better option. For those occasions when I might need a faster aperture, I have a couple of fast f/1.8 primes in that range. For me the 24-70 is a poor compromise, it doesn't give me sufficient shutter speed in low light, due to the lack of IS. It also isn't as fast as the primes for moving subjects in low light. It gets beat on both counts for me.

Other advantages of the 24-70 over the 24-105 though, are that you can get shallower DoF, of course, and also that f/2.8 or faster lenses can take advantage of the high precision AF for extra AF accuracy.

In the end, many will swear that the 24-70 is the must have lens, and many will swear that you should get the 24-105. They are all correct, for their needs.

Decide what you need from the lens, and which is better for what you will be using it for, and purchase accordingly.

SuzyView wrote in post #9542174
First of all, I was not rude to you and neither were the other posters. In your #1 post you put 28-70 and 28-105, both older lenses, while the title says 24-70L and 24-105L. These are 4 different lenses, that is why I asked for clarification.

I wasnt refering to you when I was talking about being rude, I was talking about the guy who attacked me for asking a question.
I appreciate all feedback. BUT he way he said it was condescending like I should have known that. I have never posted on this board and havent been on potn for a while. So I felt he was very rude.

I didnt realize that I mis-typed the lenses I was talking about.
I meant the 24-70 and 24-105