24-70mm 2.8 or 24-105mm 4.0?

If you were building your "arsenal", and you already had a big gun in the 70-200mm 2.8.....would you go with the 24-70mm 2.8 or the 24-105mm 4.0 (with IS)??? It seems as though there are lots of opinions on each...with both lenses getting very good reviews.

I guess I'm just wondering which lens goes best with the 70-200mm 2.8. I really like the walk around capability of the 24-105, but its hard to turn down a 2.8.

I'm only an enthusiast....not a pro....but looking to act like a pro!

If you wanna act like a pro, then you should appear with pro gear

I replaced 24-105 with 24-70. In my experience:

I gained better subject separation with f/2.8 (+4 - in scale of -5 to +5)
I gained slightly better IQ (+1)
I lost IS (-2)
I lost a lighter lens (-1)
I lost a bit of focal length (0)
I had to pay extra (-1)

So overall, I gained by my trading. I'm a thin DOF junky and gaining deeper OOF was worth a lot.

You gotta consider your 'own' criteria and test. Hopefully, you'll make the right choice.

If you already have a 70-200 2.8, I'd get the 16-35II. Add a 50 1.4 some day, and done. 70-105 isn't a huge range but the 24-70 overlap is.

Try shooting your 70-200mm 2.8 at 70mm without the IS.
If you can live without the IS, then the 24-70 would be great for you!
I find myself not using the 24-105mm much cause of the f/4 limitation.

What's more important to you, IS and a bit of extra reach that overlaps your 70-200, or a maximum aperture of f/2.8.

That's the criteria I used and ended up with the 24-70.

I have the 24-105, wish i had the 24-70 for that extra stop. Besides if you stop the 2,8 at f4 you get better results.

I prefer the 24-105 for the reach and IS. Either of those lenses is going to make a great pairing for the 70-200...it just depends on what you need the lens to do.

16-35 and Sigma 50.

Thanks for the input guys.

FWIW, I can pick up a used copy of the 24-105 for $750....and a 24-70 2.8 for right over $1000. Does this affect anything????

sosaysmorvant wrote in post #13806480
Thanks for the input guys.

FWIW, I can pick up a used copy of the 24-105 for $750....and a 24-70 2.8 for right over $1000. Does this affect anything????

totally depends on your priorities. If you NEED a 2.8 lens, then the price of the f/4 lens doesn't really matter.

actprivate wrote in post #13802070
If you wanna act like a pro, then you should appear with pro gear

I replaced 24-105 with 24-70. In my experience:

I gained better subject separation with f/2.8 (+4 - in scale of -5 to +5)
I gained slightly better IQ (+1)
I lost IS (-2)
I lost a lighter lens (-1)
I lost a bit of focal length (0)
I had to pay extra (-1)

So overall, I gained by my trading. I'm a thin DOF junky and gaining deeper OOF was worth a lot.

You gotta consider your 'own' criteria and test. Hopefully, you'll make the right choice.

I never had a 24-105 but you're right about IS and weight. Reach, that doesn't matter to me since my 24-70 is paired with my 70-200 so I have good range of focal coverage.

I was in a similar dilemma a while ago and picked the 24-105. I'll try to list some reasons / thoughts as to why I got to that conclusion:

- I already owned the 28 1.8, 50 1.8 and 85 1.8 which work great for low light and shallow DoF, but I wanted a zoom for easy access to different focal lengths and faster shooting.
- Since I had no plans of ditching my primes (love them), the added range of the 24-105 was nice.
- IS really helps me when I'm shooting at smaller apertures (in really low light I normally get the 28 or 85mm primes)
- The 24-105 was much cheaper as there's a ton of nearly new used ones on the market. I bought mine for 625 euros which is easily 300 euros below new price, but it was as good as new and only used twice.
- The 24-105 is lighter and more compact, fitting better with my style of shooting (location + quite a bit of strobist).

If forced (for example - financially), I could probably consolidate the 28 1.8, 50 1.8, 85 1.8 and 24-105 into one 24-70, but I'd miss the short MFD of the 28mm, the great low light and portrait capabilities of the 85 1.8 as well as the IS on the 24-105. Another thing that's quite important to me is being able to travel compact and light, so with just the 24-105 when I want, or maybe with the 28 and 85 1.8 if I plan to encounter low light situations.
All of my lenses have their place in the line up and for me, the 24-105 fit best.

In short, I feel that the 24-105 couples really nicely with a fast 50 or 85mm prime, if I didn't have any primes, I may have chosen the 24-70 for the extra stop and better bokeh. In my situation though, the 85 1.8 takes on that role, when the situation comes up.

TweakMDS wrote in post #13811588
I was in a similar dilemma a while ago and picked the 24-105. I'll try to list some reasons / thoughts as to why I got to that conclusion:

- I already owned the 28 1.8, 50 1.8 and 85 1.8 which work great for low light and shallow DoF, but I wanted a zoom for easy access to different focal lengths and faster shooting.
- Since I had no plans of ditching my primes (love them), the added range of the 24-105 was nice.
- IS really helps me when I'm shooting at smaller apertures (in really low light I normally get the 28 or 85mm primes)
- The 24-105 was much cheaper as there's a ton of nearly new used ones on the market. I bought mine for 625 euros which is easily 300 euros below new price, but it was as good as new and only used twice.
- The 24-105 is lighter and more compact, fitting better with my style of shooting (location + quite a bit of strobist).

If forced (for example - financially), I could probably consolidate the 28 1.8, 50 1.8, 85 1.8 and 24-105 into one 24-70, but I'd miss the short MFD of the 28mm, the great low light and portrait capabilities of the 85 1.8 as well as the IS on the 24-105. Another thing that's quite important to me is being able to travel compact and light, so with just the 24-105 when I want, or maybe with the 28 and 85 1.8 if I plan to encounter low light situations.
All of my lenses have their place in the line up and for me, the 24-105 fit best.

In short, I feel that the 24-105 couples really nicely with a fast 50 or 85mm prime, if I didn't have any primes, I may have chosen the 24-70 for the extra stop and better bokeh. In my situation though, the 85 1.8 takes on that role, when the situation comes up.

Ditto - I have the same primes as Michael and cannot imagine giving them up. Although I just got my 24-105mm with my 5d Mii, I was using the 15-85mm on my 500d. Love the range, the IS and versatility of both of these lens. Would not want to give that up.

24-105 + 35L (or non-L prime) or 24-70L.

I prefer the IS so I'd say 24-105. but then again since you already own a 70-200 2.8, i'd say thats quite a bit of overlap so go for the 24-70 in this case since they complement each other