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

Elisha wrote in post #9543735
True but will you be able to take a 1/10th handheld shot of something stationary in an extremely dim situation at 70mm like you could with the 24-105L?

Both have their merits but I still stand by better IS than no IS. How often are you gonna shoot action in low light situations?

Low light shots at slow shutter speed begs for a tripod -- IS or no IS. I can always control control camera movement with a tripod/monopod if needed. How are you going to stop motion with IS? I often shoot moving objects in low-light/indoors. Even though you ask people to hold still they still move a bit, and that goes double for kids.

Give me a fast lens over IS all day, every day. Not to mention the better subject isolation with the narrower DOF and better bokeh.

I never said IS can stop motion now did I? Plus 1 stop in dim lit situation hardly matters when you SS is as low as 1/20th anyway. In that case the 24-105L would fair better handheld.
I have many 1/10 - 1/20 handheld shots on an IS lens that are handheld in my gallery and I would never be able to do such a thing with a non IS lens.

Anyway regardless the OP has to decide which is more important.

Ishootpeoplewithmycano​n wrote in post #9541985
I want an L series lens

Why do you want an l series lens? I've Owned all of the 3 general zooms that canon makes and the 17-55 is the BEST general zoom of the 3. It has is, and a more favorable focal length for a 40d. It's also lightweight and the size is Perfect as a walk around. I wouldn't call the 24-70l a walkaround. There's a reason why people call it a brick.

If you pass up on the 17-55 JUST because it's not an l lens, you will definitely regret it! And if your reason is to say, that you will upgrade to the 5d mark ii, I personally don't see that in your future because you are still thinking about dumping 1300 on a lens, and the 5d mark ii is about twice that price.

I have both- and only use the 24-105 as a general walk-around lens, in ideal light. As soon as the light levels drop, I reach for the 24-70, as it locks on focus MUCH faster, and way more reliably.

If you want to save some cash, take a look at the Sigma 24-70 EX DG HSM, and get some red automotive pinstriping for the end of it.

I sold my 24-105 to go back to the 24-70. So far I'm loving it.

If you are going to consider the 24-70, consider the 28-75 and the 17-50. Though they aren't anything like those l lenses, they produce high iq for 1/3rd of the price. Keep that in mind.

I'll never reown the 24-70 unless it was upgraded which is what a lot of people are waiting for.

Elisha wrote in post #9547164
I never said IS can stop motion now did I? Plus 1 stop in dim lit situation hardly matters when you SS is as low as 1/20th anyway. In that case the 24-105L would fair better handheld.
I have many 1/10 - 1/20 handheld shots on an IS lens that are handheld in my gallery and I would never be able to do such a thing with a non IS lens.

Anyway regardless the OP has to decide which is more important.

If you are just shooting static objects or always have great lighting then fine -- stick with your IS.

Not all my subjects are static and have good lighting. In my real world, most move around in low light. Faster lens (with faster shutter) is better in these cases.

Marloon wrote in post #9547365
Why do you want an l series lens? I've Owned all of the 3 general zooms that canon makes and the 17-55 is the BEST general zoom of the 3. It has is, and a more favorable focal length for a 40d. It's also lightweight and the size is Perfect as a walk around. I wouldn't call the 24-70l a walkaround. There's a reason why people call it a brick.

If you pass up on the 17-55 JUST because it's not an l lens, you will definitely regret it! And if your reason is to say, that you will upgrade to the 5d mark ii, I personally don't see that in your future because you are still thinking about dumping 1300 on a lens, and the 5d mark ii is about twice that price.

+1. Unless you are planning on upgrading to FF in the VERY near future, like within a years time, I would strongly suggest the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS for all the reasons Marloon stated above.

Rey wrote in post #9548842
+1. Unless you are planning on upgrading to FF in the VERY near future, like within a years time, I would strongly suggest the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS for all the reasons Marloon stated above.

I have a huge doubt that she'll upgrade to the 5D mark II in the near future. If she's having a hard enough time to bring cash together for a 24-70, think of how hard it'd be to bring EVEN MORE cash for the 5D mark II. I'm not saying that she's poor or anything like that, but in reality, people have bills to pay and mouths to feed, and a 5D mark II is not justifiable in price.

Which is why... I am schooling to earn enough cash to feed my financially destructive photographic needs of cameras, lenses, lights, and accessories...

On the other hand, i just got my 7D today... I'll open it with my girlfriend a little later today. i am so stocked!

Oh and if you are wondering, i AM going to rebuy the 17-55 and the 11-16. Those are the GOLD standard to any APS-C camera. Most would say that the 10-22 would be better but personally, i believe that the 11-16 has it beat because of it's lack of vignetting (which the 10-22 has LOTS of), build quality, sharpness, and f2.8 aperture. Most would say that you don't need the f2.8 aperture, but i definitely disagree. The wider the aperture, the more flexibility you have out in the field when you are ACTUALLY shooting. And again, it's really how deep your pockets go (or how stupid you are like me).

The 24-105mm L is a great walk around lens for my 5D and on my 40d I use a EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS
Both are outsanding lens.

Rey wrote in post #9548817
If you are just shooting static objects or always have great lighting then fine -- stick with your IS.

Not all my subjects are static and have good lighting. In my real world, most move around in low light. Faster lens (with faster shutter) is better in these cases.

You're missing the point, with IS, you don't need good light for static objects.
1/10 is 1/10 on both 24-70 and 24-105.
Difference is that you can handhold one lens for that shutter speed and not the other.

just today, I was fortunate to purchase a used 24-105, for use on a 7D. I plan to use it for the strengths mentioned repeatedly here and other forums, namely, the IS and the range, as a General use, walk around and travel lens.

I don't have the 24-70, but I have had the EF-s 17-55 for several years, which many here have also recommended. I plan to keep and use it for its strengths, 2.8, its wide end, "primarily" as a Portrait lens. I've seen many weddings with more 17-55's or 24-70's than 24-105's.

Of course, there is overlap in uses between all of these lenses. As such, to the OP, my guess is that eventually you'll end up with both L's (since you want L), as many others have. So, pick one now and start saving for the other. There is no wrong choice.

Marloon wrote in post #9548993
I have a huge doubt that she'll upgrade to the 5D mark II in the near future. If she's having a hard enough time to bring cash together for a 24-70, think of how hard it'd be to bring EVEN MORE cash for the 5D mark II. I'm not saying that she's poor or anything like that, but in reality, people have bills to pay and mouths to feed, and a 5D mark II is not justifiable in price.

Which is why... I am schooling to earn enough cash to feed my financially destructive photographic needs of cameras, lenses, lights, and accessories...

On the other hand, i just got my 7D today... I'll open it with my girlfriend a little later today. i am so stocked!

Oh and if you are wondering, i AM going to rebuy the 17-55 and the 11-16. Those are the GOLD standard to any APS-C camera. Most would say that the 10-22 would be better but personally, i believe that the 11-16 has it beat because of it's lack of vignetting (which the 10-22 has LOTS of), build quality, sharpness, and f2.8 aperture. Most would say that you don't need the f2.8 aperture, but i definitely disagree. The wider the aperture, the more flexibility you have out in the field when you are ACTUALLY shooting. And again, it's really how deep your pockets go (or how stupid you are like me).

I wholeheartedly agree. The faster the lens the greater the flexibility. At the very least you are not wasting your money because you understand your needs as a photographer and the limitations of the gear you use. You're not buying a lens just because it is an L.

Elisha wrote in post #9549095
You're missing the point, with IS, you don't need good light for static objects.
1/10 is 1/10 on both 24-70 and 24-105.
Difference is that you can handhold one lens for that shutter speed and not the other.

I get the point of shooting static objects. Are all your subjects static? Mine move. Sometimes they move a lot. If I need to shoot 1/10 or slower I can use a tripod with 2.8. There is an option. With 4.0, there is NOTHING you can use to stop motion. IS will NOT stop motion of subject, whereas a tripod will stop motion of the photographer (old school IS). Your ONLY option is to bump the ISO up (or use flash), which in turn will introduce more noise. You also don't have an option as far as subject isolation and more pleasing bokeh. The 24-105 does not render pleasing bokeh, IMHO.

I'm not saying the 24-105 is not a good lens. In fact, that is the first lens I recommend to people just starting out because of its convenience. Most people starting out don't know why they would want a wider aperture (faster) lens. I usually let them learn that on their own. Most people will outgrow the 24-105 though and move on to the 24-70 because they realize the flexibility a faster lens offers.

Anyway, that is all. The merits of the two lenses have been discussed at length in other threads. If you don't understand the greater flexibility a faster lens affords then I'm sure in time you will.

If you want to carry a tripod around then good for you.

The lenses are only 1 stop in the difference. Subject isolation is not going to be that substantial on a crop sensor for f/2.8 vs f/4.

And I don't know why you keep going on about IS not stopping motion. Nobody argued that to begin with!

The 24-70 f/2.8 will be a much better lens if it had IS.

And I'm sure the tune will change when that lens comes with IS in the near future and make the current version worth 1/2 of what it is for used prices now!