Decision Time - 24-70 vs. 24-105

Its me again, here again with my minor problems, but as usual POTN pros are always my last say! But before i get to the subject line, 2 issues i need to hear from you guys....I think i know who's gonna be the first to respond to this!

(1)
Today I just purchased prime lens and infamous 50mm f/1.4 and a 50mm f/2.5 compact macro - did i do the right thing? i shoot alot of macro shots and so do portraits, should i just buy the macro lens and use it as a prime 50mm? or purchasing both was a good idea?

(2)
I also purchased a 100-400mm f/4.5 IS L - is this a good lens for landscape, portrait or glamour? how is this lens in low light situations (indoors, weddings and such)

(3)
Final one! My subject matter for tonight - I am about to purchase tonight either 24-70mm f/2.8 L or 24-105mm f/4 IS L
== What do you guys think is better, i would love to use this lens in weddings and portraiture as well, i know the 24-105 has a higher aperture level but it is IS and has more focal length than the 24-70

== What would be my best buy, considering my set of lenses that I already have..... Thank you so much guys! Damn, last time I talked to Dante, i tried to stay away from the L fever....didnt work i guess....

Never used one but the excellent reputation of the 24-70 L speaks volumes

However, I am the happy owner of a 24-105 f4 IS L and am able to tell you that the Image Stabiliser is amazing

Snapman wrote:
Never used one but the excellent reputation of the 24-70 L speaks volumes

However, I am the happy owner of a 24-105 f4 IS L and am able to tell you that the Image Stabiliser is amazing

Do you have sample shots of your 24-105? Thanks

The 24-70 f/2.8L would be a far superior lens for weddings, in my opinion. I don't find that I need IS when using my 24-70. IS comes in handy with longer lenses (like my 70-200), but at shorter focal lengths it isn't often necessary.

The 24-70 f/2.8L is the ONLY lens that I have ever found that has a lens/hood design that optimizes the hood for every focal length. The differences: 1) The hood mounts to the non-moving body of the lens, not to the filter threads. 2) The lens lengthens when you zoom towards wide-angle. This combination of design elements reduces the distance between the front lens element and the edges of the hood for wide angle and increases the depth into the hood for telephoto. The result is that you have the best possible rejection of stray light of any lens/hood combination. The 24-105 does not do the same thing.

Personally I think the 50mm macro does not give you enough working distance especially if you use extension tubes but as I said that is my personal opinion...

100-400 is a good 'Nature and sports' lens but I would not use it for portraits, landscapes or glamour very often... You have a 50mm f/1.4 wich on the 20D is an excellent portrait lens...

You've got a 17-40L then the 50, so personally I would go for a 70-200, then along with the 100-400 you have most things covered...

For weddings and indoors shoots the 24-70 f2.8 L is the obvious choice. Anything less than a 2.8 will always struggle indoors and you will never be happy with it.

Now, for an outdoor, bright sunlight lens, the 24-105 does look tempting, but my experince with f4 lenses leaves me hesitant.

Here's a good review if you haven't seen it from The LL: A Comparison of the new Canon 24-105 mm f4 L IS lens with the Canon 24-70 mm f2.8 L ... I have they same considerations of these two lens and with the newer one having IS that might very well work for those indoor available lighting shots > decisions.

I'd say that 50 f/1.4 and 50 f/2.5 macro would be overkill. I'd also suggest the 100 mm macro, as working distance from a longer macro lens is a real advantage in many ways. As you're considering the 24-70 or 24-105, I'd just get the 24-70 and the 100 macro instead of the 50s (may not be too late to return them). The 24-70 f/2.8 would be good for portraits, and generally fast enough.

I think you'll find the 100-400 a bit long for most of your expressed interests. It's really better for outdoor shooting - daylight sports, wildlife and the like, where as Scottes says it's a "cold dead fingers" award winner. If your 70-200 is one of the f/2.8s, that would be the better choice in the portrait/glamour range alongside the 24-70. The f/4 might be a tad on the slow side, as well as not offering as much DoF control. For landscapes, you usually want something a bit wider, which is where your 17-40 would fit well. It'd also be a nice complement to the 24-70 in glamour.

I had to make the same decission about a month ago. I went with the 24-70 and I could not be happier. It is a great lens and I love the 2.8!

I'm planning on going for the 25-105. Sure its not as good indoors but I also own a few primes. If I'm indoors then I'll take a 1.8 prime over a 2.8 zoom. If I'm outside I'll take a 4 IS over a 2.8. Of course there are arguments against that but I'm comfortable with primes so it should work for me.

wow guys, thanks so much, Skip that was really helpful, ok I am getting my 24-70 today and as for the macro Jon I will try to exchange it to the 100 then, I have the f4 70-200 after i get this lenses i purhcased yesterday and today, i will try and sell my 70-200 f4 and buy the 2.8 IS - once again this responses was really helpful, thanks so much guys!

I have a canon 300d with a ef-s 18-55 and a ef 75-300.
Should i buy the ef 24-70 or the ef 24-105?
May you help me?I already saw all the reviews about this two lenses,but i'm still confused.
Thanks,
Riskas

Depends on what you shoot. More details!

My personal choice would be the 24-70 but I can't speak for anyone else.

I'm a musicien,so i'm travelling around the world on Tour since last year.
I shoot the places,the people,the crew at work,some parts of our show,instant shots of the moments we have,well a little bit of every things. And i don't like to use flash. Only during the day,because of the shadows. My 300d can shoot at 3200 ISO.