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

I dumped an old 28-70L and 24-70L -- just not exciting. Just got a new Contax Zeiss 24-85 3.5-4.5 back from CONURUS a couple days ago -- man, its special. Nice overlap with my 16-25 and 70-200 and it'll be my daily walk-about lens without a doubt.

Hey .... listen. I dont think its any of your place to say when I am getting a 5D mark II or not.
I want an L lens because I want the best. If any of you give the argument that L lenses arent the best then I just have to laugh. They are the best build quality out there.
I didnt say I was struggling to buy the lens. I have the money$$$$
I just am not trying to go buy 5,000$ worth of equipment in one month.
I dont have kids so believe me, my husband and I have money to do what we like. I dont really give a crap if you dont "think" I can afford it. Like I said before I am building my equipment up. My husband is Navy and works his a** OFF to be able to provide me with my hobby. I am not going to be inconsiderate and rack his card in just one month. Anyways thats is freakin irritating that you all think you can judge how much money I have and what I am able to do.
I dont really care about your opinions.
It was a simple question: Which do you recomend... the 24-70 or the 24-105. Is it so hard to answer that?
Hey good for you for taking the time out of your day to read into it and try to psycho-analyze my situation

Marloon wrote in post #9547365
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 never said I was struggling to come up with the money.... I said my dilema was deciding what to do with my money... I have the money. I just wanted to get people's opinions on the 2 lenses.

Believe me I dont struggle with money. I am just being responsible in purchasing things so I dont have to put anything on credit, like most people do. I am not bound by mountains of debt. we work very hard to pay Cash of everything.

I've never tried the 24-70, but the 24-105 on a crop has a very nice range that I can't replace.

can i see pics of the money? JK. 24-70 hands down IMO.

Ishootpeoplewithmycano​n, I had the same dilemma in either choosing the 24-70mm or 24-105mm. I ended up getting the 24-70mm and even with the 2lbs consideration..of course this is before i bought it. Once I started to use it, I love the pictures it produced but beware....it is one heavy lense, so much that my back started to feel it. I can't imagine what my back would go through if I had to use the 24-70mm handheld for an entire shoot. Granted I have never had any history of back issues. BUT if I had to redo this all over again I still would choose the 24-70mm, but then again...I bought it new at an amazing price (thank you ebay bucks and bing cash!!). I don't need the range of 105mm (105 x 1.6 = 168mm) on a crop camera.

For crop camera owners like you and myself, I think it is fair to say that we love to have an L-Series lense but what we really need is either the canon 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM or 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM lenses. These lenses were engineered for our crop cameras. I own the canon 15-85mm lense and it is so practical and produces great images based on my style of photography. If this helps, I bought the 15-85mm first before reaching for the 24-70mm.

Rey wrote in post #9550854
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.

I understand the flexibility a faster lens offers, but I also understand the flexibility a lighter weight, smaller format lens with 105 at the long end instead of 70mm offers. I ended up "outgrowing" my 24-70 and moving to a 24-105 (well, not entirely as I did keep the 24-70, but to me it is more of a specialty lens than the all-around of the 24-105).

Elisha wrote in post #9551098
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!

LOL. L lenses keep their value pretty well. AND if an IS version of the 24-70 did come out I'd expect it to be priced substantially higher than the non-IS version, keeping the non-IS version's value stable on the used market.

24-70 would be better if it had IS. At that FL though it is not a make or break situation. No one is arguing that. What is being discussed is the merit between IS and a wider aperture. All things being equal the faster lens has the most flexibility.

Rey wrote in post #9550854
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.

Jeez, will you two stop repeating the same arguments over and over. Elisha gets your point and understands where the advantages lie with a faster lens. You are repeatedly pointing out the same things despite Elisha NOT arguing with them.

You are both making good points that suit your individual requirements. Not everybody is the same and trying to tell them that your choice is more flexible is arrogant in the extreme - it doesn't mean that it fits for everybody.

Yes, faster offers more flexibility in some circumstances. As Elisha points out though, one stop isn't a huge difference and it will only help out when the light level is at just that level. Any more light and both lenses will get the shot, then you have that narrow one stop band of light level where the f/2.8 will get the shot but the f/4 won't, then the light level becomes too low for either lens to get the shot. If you are regularly shooting in just that amount of light then the f/2.8 is great.

You seem to ignore the versatility that 3-4 stop IS gives and dismiss it entirely. I fully accept your point about faster lenses and stopping motion, I have a selection of fast primes for that purpose, which give me significantly more of an advantage in that area than the 24-70L. However, the IS does give a huge versatility to the 24-105L over the 24-70L.

Banging on about not needing IS "because you can use a tripod" may be fine for you, but I (and quite possibly Elisha) shoot static subjects in areas where tripods are either not allowed at all, or at best are extremely impractical due to space considerations and the mass of people moving around a confined area. Tripods are great in some circumstances, but not everybody sticks to those shots.

When I shoot in low light, I generally have two bodies in use, one mounted with the 24-105L and the other with a fast prime. This means that I can cope with static OR moving subjects as required. In many cases however, I cannot get sufficient shutter speed with a f/1.8 lens to shoot handheld, but can comfortably do so with the 24-105L at the same (or even longer) focal lengths. If the f/1.8 won't let in enough light, the 24-70L certainly isn't going to. In such cases, quite common for me, the 24-105L is the only lens that I can get the shot with, due to the versatility afforded by IS.

PLEASE, try and understand the points that Elisha has been making. Nobody is arguing that IS works for moving subjects as well as a faster lens does, the point is that there are times IS is the only way to get the job done - please try and accept that. It may not be the case for you and what you shoot, but it certainly is for others.

For myself, and many others, the 24-70L just isn't fast enough to be bought because of its speed. If I need a lens to shoot wide open in low light, then f/2.8 isn't much faster than f/4, it gives very little advantage and loses the IS for other times. It is a compromise, without IS it is poor for handholding purposes and if you need a fast aperture for moving subjects, then fast primes are the way to go.

I could as easily criticise your choice of 24-70L (over a fast prime) the same way you criticise Elisha for getting the 24-105L - by saying "If you don't understand the greater flexibility a faster lens affords then I'm sure in time you will".

The fact is, I am sure you, and Elisha, have bought exactly the right lens for the purposes it will be put to. So please, stop bickering.

Ishootpeoplewithmycano​n wrote in post #9551288
Hey .... listen. I dont think its any of your place to say when I am getting a 5D mark II or not.
I want an L lens because I want the best. If any of you give the argument that L lenses arent the best then I just have to laugh. They are the best build quality out there.
I didnt say I was struggling to buy the lens. I have the money$$$$
I just am not trying to go buy 5,000$ worth of equipment in one month.
I dont have kids so believe me, my husband and I have money to do what we like. I dont really give a crap if you dont "think" I can afford it. Like I said before I am building my equipment up. My husband is Navy and works his a** OFF to be able to provide me with my hobby. I am not going to be inconsiderate and rack his card in just one month. Anyways thats is freakin irritating that you all think you can judge how much money I have and what I am able to do.
I dont really care about your opinions.
It was a simple question: Which do you recomend... the 24-70 or the 24-105. Is it so hard to answer that?
Hey good for you for taking the time out of your day to read into it and try to psycho-analyze my situation

Calm down. You are posting on a public internet forum. You ask for opinions and people will give them to you. Yes, they will even make assumptions. The assumptions not only are a reflection of yourself but also the people replying. Don't take anything too personal. Ultimately you are going to need to decide what is best for the kind of shooting you do (or plan to do).

Each lens has their strengths and weaknesses. The 24-105 has a longer focal length and IS. The 24-70 is faster but heavier. If you are taking mostly vacation photos in good light and want an all around walk-around lens that is convenient then go for the 24-105. If you want to take photos such as portraits, possibly in low light, and want better subject isolation and flexibility then think about the 24-70. IMHO, the 24-70 offers more flexibility when you want to get creative with your shots. IS is nice to have but it is NOT a replacement for a fast lens. It's no mistake it is a favorite of wedding and portrait photographers. Also, if you are seriously considering a 5D mark II it may be of value to note that an aperture of f2.8 or larger will enable high-precision AF points on this camera.

Lol you summarized it well. I do not own the 24-105L. I will once I'm done with my ideal prime setup.
My support of IS is solely based on my past experience owning a Sony system where every lens was stabilized.
My most used lens was the Minolta 28-135mm f/4-4.5. Only 1/3 stop slower than the 24-105L.

Even with a fast prime on the Canon, you still want to maintain at least 1/over focal length SS to avoid blur because most short fast primes do not have IS. If you have a kung fu grip, maybe you can handhold a 50 f/1.4 at 1/30 and get a tack sharp shot.

But lets say the 50mm had IS, you would be able to do 1/10 and get tack sharp shots.

I currently own the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and Sigma 50mm f/1.5 and most times shoot indoors and theses lenses would be so much better overall if IS was present. Whether be it in-body or in-lens.

IS is important to me, speed could be important to you so you have to decide if 1 stop really makes or breaks the deal vs IS.

Rey wrote in post #9554147
It's no mistake it is a favorite of wedding and portrait photographers.

Not really. That was because the 24-70mm and 28-70mm was the most common zoom range for a very long time with acceptable image quality compared to fast primes. So it was a good compromise for pro use.

Anything more than a 3x zoom was always frowned upon for IQ.

sandpiper wrote in post #9554092
Jeez, will you two stop repeating the same arguments over and over. Elisha gets your point and understands where the advantages lie with a faster lens. You are repeatedly pointing out the same things despite Elisha NOT arguing with them.

You are both making good points that suit your individual requirements. Not everybody is the same and trying to tell them that your choice is more flexible is arrogant in the extreme - it doesn't mean that it fits for everybody.

Yes, faster offers more flexibility in some circumstances. As Elisha points out though, one stop isn't a huge difference and it will only help out when the light level is at just that level. Any more light and both lenses will get the shot, then you have that narrow one stop band of light level where the f/2.8 will get the shot but the f/4 won't, then the light level becomes too low for either lens to get the shot. If you are regularly shooting in just that amount of light then the f/2.8 is great.

You seem to ignore the versatility that 3-4 stop IS gives and dismiss it entirely. I fully accept your point about faster lenses and stopping motion, I have a selection of fast primes for that purpose, which give me significantly more of an advantage in that area than the 24-70L. However, the IS does give a huge versatility to the 24-105L over the 24-70L.

Banging on about not needing IS "because you can use a tripod" may be fine for you, but I (and quite possibly Elisha) shoot static subjects in areas where tripods are either not allowed at all, or at best are extremely impractical due to space considerations and the mass of people moving around a confined area. Tripods are great in some circumstances, but not everybody sticks to those shots.

When I shoot in low light, I generally have two bodies in use, one mounted with the 24-105L and the other with a fast prime. This means that I can cope with static OR moving subjects as required. In many cases however, I cannot get sufficient shutter speed with a f/1.8 lens to shoot handheld, but can comfortably do so with the 24-105L at the same (or even longer) focal lengths. If the f/1.8 won't let in enough light, the 24-70L certainly isn't going to. In such cases, quite common for me, the 24-105L is the only lens that I can get the shot with, due to the versatility afforded by IS.

PLEASE, try and understand the points that Elisha has been making. Nobody is arguing that IS works for moving subjects as well as a faster lens does, the point is that there are times IS is the only way to get the job done - please try and accept that. It may not be the case for you and what you shoot, but it certainly is for others.

For myself, and many others, the 24-70L just isn't fast enough to be bought because of its speed. If I need a lens to shoot wide open in low light, then f/2.8 isn't much faster than f/4, it gives very little advantage and loses the IS for other times. It is a compromise, without IS it is poor for handholding purposes and if you need a fast aperture for moving subjects, then fast primes are the way to go.

I could as easily criticise your choice of 24-70L (over a fast prime) the same way you criticise Elisha for getting the 24-105L - by saying "If you don't understand the greater flexibility a faster lens affords then I'm sure in time you will".

The fact is, I am sure you, and Elisha, have bought exactly the right lens for the purposes it will be put to. So please, stop bickering.

The OP wants to know about the merits of both lenses. Elisha went on about if the OP would rather have 1-stop of light or 3-stops of IS. You CANNOT simplify it like this. I am simply going over what I feel the advantages of the faster lens are. Some believe the be all end all is IS. It's not. What we are discussing is relevant to the topic.

You state:
I could as easily criticise your choice of 24-70L (over a fast prime) the same way you criticise Elisha for getting the 24-105L - by saying "If you don't understand the greater flexibility a faster lens affords then I'm sure in time you will".

This is NOT relevant. The OP did not ask about primes. But to answer your insinuation, ALL things being equal I would choose a FAST prime over the 24-70 as well for low light. Speed, IMHO, offers the greater flexibility if one wants to be creative. I could go also go on about the horrible bokeh the 24-105 renders but that is something most people need to find out for themselves.

Ok lets put that all aside.

Sharpness wise, isn't the 24-105L sharper than the 24-70L?
Even with both on f/4, the 24-105L is still sharper.

Could be due to a newer design. But the Canon 24-70L is not the best in class class 24-70mm compared to the Nikkor and the Sony's CZ.

I believe to me it's speed does not outweigh it's flaws and the cost associated with it's flaws compared to the 24-105L.

Elisha wrote in post #9554280
Ok lets put that all aside.

Sharpness wise, isn't the 24-105L sharper than the 24-70L?
Even with both on f/4, the 24-105L is still sharper.

Could be due to a newer design. But the Canon 24-70L is not the best in class class 24-70mm compared to the Nikkor and the Sony's CZ.

I believe to me it's speed does not outweigh it's flaws and the cost associated with it's flaws compared to the 24-105L.

Two of them are almost the same from f/4 on. So my copy of 24-70L was sharper than my 24-105L but not far off. 24-105L has pretty amazing performance wide open at f/4. 24-70L at f/2.8 was a little softer.