24-105 vs 70-200 f4 is

Hi all. In the process of buying a 5d2 so obviously I need to upgrade my lenses

Firstly I need a 17-40 as I love landscaping and recently got a job freelancing as a real estate photographer

I'm starting to get into functions, parties and hopefully soon weddings. Can anyone share their experiences with these two lenses? Which one is sharper? Is 70mm to long for parties/functions? Ideally 24-105 is the perfect focal length for me on full frame but I would rather go for sharpness and move around more while taking photos

70-200 definitely sharper than 24-105. However 24-105 will be more versatile in your needs. Both are great lenses though.

I'd definitely go for the 70-200, especially since you're set on getting the 17-40, you won't miss much in the 40-70mm range.

Thanks. I think I'm set on the 70-200. I also plan on getting a 50 1.4 as a fast prime

Having both lenses, they compliment each other well. The hard part is picking one first. For me the gap of 40-70 is large range.
There is no wrong choice, just a tough decision of which to buy first.........

I'd go for the 70-200 first if you'll already have a 17-40.

I think you're covered...17-40, 50 1.4 and a 70-200 f4 is.

I have 24-105 and 70-200, and the 24-105 sits a lot more on my camera for every day and events than the 70-200.
So I would say get an every day lens like the 24-105 first.

On a full frame the 24-105L is the ideal range, however you need to stop it down to about f8 to be at it's sharpest. The 70-200 L IS is sharp at f4 but I feel it's a bit long to be the goto lens on the 5dm2.

i had a 24-105 f4 IS, it's amazingly sharp wide open in contrast to what above said.

however in your situation, i think 70-200 is better for your needs.

For event shoot , 70-200mm is a must, but for casual shoot, would u bring 70-200mm to have a shopping or gathering with ur family rather than the 24-105L which is more compact?

24-105 is my single travel lens. It is as sharp as the Zeiss prime 35 mm as a similar aperture and a FL. It costs very good money, considering the value you get.

70-200 is a superb lens too, but it is very different.

None of them is low light lens....

URLphotographer wrote in post #14582372
I think you're covered...17-40, 50 1.4 and a 70-200 f4 is.

^^^^That would be the way to fly, but definately keep the 24-105 on your want list..

Both are quite slow lenses that I'm not a fan of. I have both lenses but never bring them to weddings nor events nor anything other than outdoor hikes and travel etc. Actually even for outdoor hikes and travels I bring my primes.

For functions and parties, 70-200 is too long, other than for long range speech shots and candid grabs. If a guest near you asks you to take a photo of them, you'll be caught with your pants down with a 70-200 mounted. Having said that, 70-200 is useful for weddings though it starts to get borderline in dark churches as often you'll have to ramp it up to 3200 or 6400 @ f/4

24-105 is a really mediocre lens in that it does't really do anything special. It's range is quite handy, but that's about it. I used it once for a wedding and regretted it, I took a group shot at f/4 and all the people on the edges were soft. Whereas for some of my primes, even wide open group shots are decent.

I recommending skipping the 24-105 as you already have the 17-40 and 17-50 Siggy

Those can be your general purpose for parties and events, they will serve you well as you can rotate them across your FF and your Crop depending on if you need wide angle or general purpose, and they serve to backup each other too.

I would instead spend the money on a Flash and 85 f/1.8 or something instead.

And a telephoto is handy, but consider whether you want to save up for a f/2.8 IS version instead, though the f/4 is serviceable