24-105L IS or 24 -70 L ??

Hello all - hope u have had a great christmas
Here in Norway we had the green version this year - that is without snow.
But - to the point :
Last week i thought i bought a 28-70 L ( used one ) but - it turned out too be another lucky guy that got it. The seller told me he had a fantastic response too that lense - and that he could have sold a lot of them - if they where in the market.
So - because of the "great loss" - i have desided too grab deep deep in my pocket and by a new lense in that range.
And - as u can se in the title above - its the big Q - which one of these two ?
I an just going into studio/portrait - i also like doing outside portrait - and landscape/nature - but not much city/buildings.
I also do a lot from the sea - fjords - waterfalls an things like that
So - can u please give me some advice - so that I can make my decision
Thanks for your help

Search is your friend:

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=122428

i wouldn't trust that poll as the 24-105L is a new lens. in a year i think a poll would be better indication of preference.

as to the original question i cast my vote for the 24-105L which by hook or by crook i will soon own .

ed rader

Thanx for your advice ed rader. May i ask what u are shooting the most ? Portraits - indoor outdoor- landscapes

Nilsen wrote:
Thanx for your advice ed rader. May i ask what u are shooting the most ? Portraits - indoor outdoor- landscapes

all of the above. i would say my style is photojournalism. fast moving. lots of candids and also landscapes, buildings and animal shots. no tripod or monopod.

i use a 50 1.4 for indoor animal portraits without flash.

the lenses i use outdoors are the tamron 17-35, tamron 28-75 and canon 70-200 f4 . i find i am switching back and forth way too much between my two tamrons and find myself using the 17-35 more often as a walkaround because it is more safe.

the 17-35 really restricts me on portraits and closes ups. i figure the 24-105 could replace the 28-75 (an excellent lens) which would also eliminate many lens changes to the 70-200.

i think what's great about the 24-105 besides the inimitable L IQ is the overlap into the ranges of my other lenses. i think overlap is good but redundancy is bad (for me anyway).

in short, i think if i replaced my 28-75 with the canon 24-105 i would have a true walkaround that i could use 80% of the time instead of having to constantly change lenses which makes me miss shots and gets dust on my sensor.

i hope that makes sense .

ed rader

I had the same question to decide between these 2 lenses. In the end I chose the 24-70L 2.8. My wifes family had our get together at a church this year to facilitate the large family. All of the Children and grandchildren were in the gynasium running around and playing basket ball. Even there I had a fair number of blurred shots due to fast moving children. I don't think the IS on the 24-105 would have helped me out much there. It was nice having that ability to open up to 2.8 when needed. Many of the shots were very sharp.
If your main concern is landscapes and non moving objects then most likely you'll have it on a tripod and again the IS is not much use. So for a walk around with non moving objects the IS is of great use.

Always buy the fastest lens you can afford.

24-105 Own it, Love it. 24-70 own it, love it. Two different lenses with different strengths and weaknesses. Wouldn't use the 24-70 for walk around, wouldn't use the 24-105 indoor low light no flash.

Thanx all aof u - I am very grateful for all good advices and comments.
For the moment - i think I am going too buy the 24-105.
But I see clarly it`s limitations indoor. But - as I love taking portraits - may be a combo 24-105 and 85 f/1.8 will do ?

Agree. The IS cannot fully compensate any inadequacy in aperture.

For portraits a combo of 50 1.4 and 85 1.8 is very nice. But yeah, either one is nice to pair up with either of those 24 zooms.

hm interesting
would maybe 50 1.4 be a better combo with the zoom ?
thinkin of portraitwork - low light work.
Are u using the 50 1.4 for portrait ?

I dont think you can possibly go wrong with either lens...ultimately your personal photographic needs will determine which lens is better for you. For me the 24-105 was the right lens, and BTW after using it over the Christmas holidays, I dont think that the one less stop was as much of a disadvantage as I thought it would be.

I think the 24-70 would be best for portraits considering its faster aperature which would give you better ability to isolate your subject by blurring the background. Personally I wouldn't trade my 24-70 for all the tea in China (or an f/4 w/ IS).

If I was only going to own one of them the 24-105IS would have been the lens, my 24-70L is a beast, but the intent of that lens was to pair it with the 70-200 2.8L. And I stop the lens down a bit to get FOV any how.

I also already had the other lenses in my sig for walk around general use.

After having owned the f2.8 it's a real charmer but I must admit constant aperture even at only f4 is a beautiful thing for a zoom lens.

I would base your choice on your next most likely lens. If you think a 70-200 may be in your future the 24-70L would be a faster lens and give you a very nice pairing. Plus it's more like the 28-70L you were originally going to buy.

I figured a pairing of f2.8 zooms was the classic kit IS or not, you would be hard pressed to have the wrong lens owning such a pair.