Any reason to keep the 24-105 if you get the 24-70?

Hello,

I plan to pick up a Canon 5D Mark III probably in the next couple weeks. Since my only EF lens is the 70-200, I plan on picking up the 5D kit.

However, I plan on getting the 24-70 II when it's released and I was wondering if there is any reason to keep the 24-105 or am I better off selling it to help finance the new lens?

Eh probably not... but the 24-70mk2 better be on hell of a f'in lens to beat the 24-105IS.

Do you take video? The 24-105 is great for video with it's IS.

Also do you travel? Some people find that one lens to do almost everything to be more useful. Personally though I find f2.8s much better for travel.

pxchoi wrote in post #14485947
Hello,

I plan to pick up a Canon 5D Mark III probably in the next couple weeks. Since my only EF lens is the 70-200, I plan on picking up the 5D kit.

However, I plan on getting the 24-70 II when it's released and I was wondering if there is any reason to keep the 24-105 or am I better off selling it to help finance the new lens?

Its a personal decision of course. The 24-70 is heavy at almost 28.4 ounces, is twice as expensive as a 24-105 and doesn't have IS, which mitigates some of the advantages of its being an f2.8 lens. The 24-105 has a slower fixed f4 aperture, but it has 3 stops of IS. It also has an additional 35mm of reach which is nice for a walk around lens. I'm not suggesting that the 24-70m II isn't a superior lens, but only you can be the final arbiter of whether it meets your needs, and only you can determine whether you must sell the 24-105 to finance the more expensive lens. Might I suggest you rent the 24-70, if its available, for a weekend AFTER you buy the 5D/24-105 kit. You should be able to determine quickly enough whether you really prefer the 24-70mm and whether you want to keep or sell the 24-105. You may decide the 24-105 better meets your needs and you will have saved a lot of money.

I guess I'm worried that the 24-70 won't give me enough reach at 70mm. I shoot at 55mm on crop pretty often. However, I would benefit from the extra stop in luminosity and the shallower DOF from the 24-70.

I guess it's just a matter of adjusting and getting in closer. I guess I can shoot at 70mm and see if I feel comfortable at that focal range.

pxchoi wrote in post #14486517
I guess I'm worried that the 24-70 won't give me enough reach at 70mm. I shoot at 55mm on crop pretty often. However, I would benefit from the extra stop in luminosity and the shallower DOF from the 24-70.

I guess it's just a matter of adjusting and getting in closer. I guess I can shoot at 70mm and see if I feel comfortable at that focal range.

Remember that 70mm on a FF will give you an angle of view equivalent to a 44mm focal length on a cropped sensor. Not very much reach.

I'm on the opposite side of the fence, so to speak. I bought my 24-105 and used it for a couple of months before I picked up the 24-70. Although the extra stop was nice to have on the 24-70, the added weight and lack of IS resulted in less than great results for the bulk of my low-light shooting at church. I'm at the point of selling the 24-70 in the not too distant future. Not because of any problems, but I like the 24-105 better.

Also, as you already have the 70-200, staying with the 24-105 provides a comfortable 35mm focal length 'overlap' between lenses. I prefer the overlap to avoid 'forced' lens changes right at 70. That way, if I need a little length at 70, I have it, and on the other side, if I need a little wider than 105 on my 80-200, I have that, too. All without a lens swap. On the other hand, having 2 bodies would seemingly alleviate the 'forced swap'. However, putting down one camera and picking up the other might lose 'the moment' that could have been zoomed into almost instantly.

I started with 24-105L for the reach but sold it due to f4 (I rather like faster f2.8 for portraits) and due to a lot of vignetting (correctable but really annoying). Then I went for the brick (24-70 2.8L) while I had 35L allready. Do one step behind with 35L and you have 24mm, 2 steps forward and you have 70mm. So I sold 24-70 2.8L yesterday.
35L is way more magic, part of the holy trinity, f1.4 fast, great bokeh.

mwsilver wrote in post #14486609
Remember that 70mm on a FF will give you an angle of view equivalent to a 44mm focal length on a cropped sensor. Not very much reach.

I'm aware of that and that is why I'm concerned about the reach.

I love the 17-55/2.8L on my 40D. If Canon came out with a 24-70/2.8L IS version, I'd buy it; never mind the price or the weight. Because such a lens does not exist from Canon, I need to have the 24-105 option.

IS is so useful when you shoot in less than optimal situations, like one handed.

That extra reach does come in handy. I rarely miss the extra stop, especially if I can crank up the ISO higher, like you could with a 5D3.

But, if the 24-70/2.8L II turns out to be as magically as it might be, I could see funding that lens in part by selling the 24-105. With the 24-105 being the 5D series kit lens, there's plenty of used copies out there to buy it again, should you decide to do so.

pxchoi wrote in post #14486733
I'm aware of that and that is why I'm concerned about the reach.

It's wider than the 17 on a crop, so give and take. The reach issue is a wash. It's the obvious downside of going f4 to f2.8

2.8 is not that fast. I chose to have some awesome prime in the range but keep the zoom for days when I just want to travel light.

pxchoi wrote in post #14486733
I'm aware of that and that is why I'm concerned about the reach.

I figured you did, but the decision should be easier for you. What are you trying to accomplish. How useful will an f2.8 with no IS be compared to a f4 with it. How much better will the 24-70 IQ be for the subjects you shoot and in the lighting you use most. As someone else who owns one pointed out, the 24-70 is a brick AND doesn't have IS.and at the end of the day, f2.8 is still not nearly as fast as good primes. And 70mm on a FF is even limited for portraits.

As I suggested try to rent one for a weekend if the version II is even available for rental. It won't be cheap to rent , but with retail price of $2300, I would want to try before I buy, and not just in the shop. Perhaps you should keep the 24-105 and fill in with a couple of L primes.

gintasr wrote in post #14486916
2.8 is not that fast. I chose to have some awesome prime in the range but keep the zoom for days when I just want to travel light.

It may not be fast enough sometimes, but most times, it's plenty fast even indoors. The DOF of 2.8 is great for my liking, not really looking for super thin DOF in my shots. The 24-105 is a huge notch behind the 24-70 indoors.

Other than canon making a 24-50mm F2 IS, the 24-70 is the most flexible lens of all IMO.

pxchoi wrote in post #14486517
I guess I'm worried that the 24-70 won't give me enough reach at 70mm. I shoot at 55mm on crop pretty often. However, I would benefit from the extra stop in luminosity and the shallower DOF from the 24-70.
...

Personally, I'd keep the 24-105 just for that reason alone. There are gonna be times that you will appreciate a lighter, longer alternative zoom - like for walking around.. I wonder how many hate the thought of carrying around "the brick" and need a more versatile option.