The age old dilemma: 24-105 or 24-70 (Mk 1) on FF

Dear all!

Around 8 months ago I purchased my 5D Mk II, and love it.
Back then I purchased the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS USM II with the camera,
beacuse the fact, that I planned to make Outdoor Portraits, and take some picturas at some Rally events. The 70-200 2.8 IS L II was the right choice for sure for this, its a great lens, and the 5D2 is a great camera.

Altough I had a 28-70 It sady stopped working a few weeks after I purchased the 5D2 with the 70-200.

I was really happy with the combo, but I feel I need to get something that is wider, for those "general purpose" needs.

I definately am not willing to pay for the 24-70 Mk II, as I will not use the lens so much that it justifies the price, also I do think its inferior in design (not optically) to the 24-70 Mk 1.

So I was thinking and thinking, 24-70 or 24-105, or 24-70 or 24-105, ...

Also keep in mind, I have the 70-200 2.8 for situations where I need more reach.
I looked often through the 70-100 range on that lens, and do not feel there is a really big difference.

So reach should not be the problem, I know 24-105 has IS, but is f/4, and the 24-70 does not have IS, but is "faster". I know the 24-70 is a little bit sharper, and more robust, but heavier.

What I would like to know is, if you had to choose only one for FF, wich one would it be?
I would like to use it, for wider angle Rally Photography, maybe some full body portraits indoors and outdoor, some landscape an city photograpy, and maybe some Milky-way landscapes, also as a walk around lens.

Weight does not matter.
The extra reach of the 24-105 does not seem to be really that much extra, imho,
but maybe I am wrong.

At the beginning of the next month I will have the money for one of the two.

So, please help me with your imput, do make a decision I will not regret making.

Atm I am more leaning towards the 24-70 f/2.8 L
Also note the question is regarding these two,
I know there are other options but I already sorted them out

I chose the 24-105 for my main carry lens. This was after carrying my Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 around Australia for a couple of weeks. The weight got to me. I do sometimes run out of reach at 105 , but I can reach for my 100-400 (if I have with me which is not often). I've been thinking about getting the 70-200 IS. But IS would definitely put it out of my price right now. 24-105 is a great lens, however.

Everyone's needs are different. Can you go back through your previous photos and see how often you shoot faster than f4 and how often you shoot between 70 and 105mm?

well, if you want 2.8 you have one option. That said, I was not very impressed with the 24-70 v1. I wasnt bad but I didnt feel it was exceptional, at least the copy I used. The MK2 felt overly plastic to me.

I have the 24-105, and i enjoy using it. Its not exceptional either, but its decent, and has a good range. The only thing that kinda bothers me about it are the distortion at 24mm, which can be fixed in post for the most part, and the overall softness at 105 f/4.

Neither. My Tamron 28-75 will do me just fine until such time as I can afford the 24-70 II.

You stated 'weight does not matter', fair enough, but I would still try a 24-70 Mk1 on for size if you have the opportunity. It is a solid hunk of lens, I found it a bit cumbersome for 'walking around' but I would never use a 70-200/2.8 for this reason and you already have one.

Heya,

Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VC. It's the answer to the MKII Canon version, but for half the cost.

Very best,

EOS5DC wrote in post #16669227
Neither. My Tamron 28-75 will do me just fine until such time as I can afford the 24-70 II.

This.

I voted the 24-105L only because I've shot with both the lenses in question and was completely un-impressed with the 24-70. It's a pretty good lens, but I don't think it's anything to write home about. To me it'd make more sense to just save your pennies and get the Tamron (unless you really need the USM focus or better weather sealing).

Neither for me too, so didn't vote.

Tamron 24-70 VC

Thanks guys, for all those who say TAMRON.
The Tamron 24-70 2.8 costs (for me) much more then the Canon 24-105 or 24-70.

So its not an option but atm a Canon 24-70 used, but in excellent condition costs around the same as a new 24-105. So that is why I have the dilemma, I actually would not save any money with buying the 24-105 and the Tamron is much more expensive.

About the size of the 24-70. I know how big it is, I had the 28-70, had no issues with it, I even enjoyed its size + weight. It does not feel as a toy

kfreels wrote in post #16668790
Everyone's needs are different. Can you go back through your previous photos and see how often you shoot faster than f4 and how often you shoot between 70 and 105mm?

I actually hot with the 28-70 quite often at 2.8.
Between 70-105 its hard to tell, mainly because I used my 24-105 on a crop for sports.
Now since I have the 70-200, I have that for sports.

The 24-105 I also used for portraits, at 105, mainly because of the extra background blur, but again, I have the 70-200 for that, @170mm and even 2.8

As a "walk around" lens I used the 24-105 mostly at the "wider" end.

So if I consider all this I am not sure how often I would use the 70-105 range.

I also used the 24-105 for some "macro-like" photos, oft. at 105mm, but the 24-70 @70mm has actually a larger magnification (because the closer min.focusing distance).

This is why I actually at the moment lean more towards the 24-70.

NemethR wrote in post #16670146
Thanks guys, for all those who say TAMRON.
The Tamron 24-70 2.8 costs (for me) much more then the Canon 24-105 or 24-70.

So its not an option but atm a Canon 24-70 used, but in excellent condition costs around the same as a new 24-105. So that is why I have the dilemma, I actually would not save any money with buying the 24-105 and the Tamron is much more expensive.

About the size of the 24-70. I know how big it is, I had the 28-70, had no issues with it, I even enjoyed its size + weight. It does not feel as a toy

My suggestion was for the Tamron 28-75, which can be had for around $300 and from all I've seen and read is just as good optically as the 24-70L mk1.

If weight is not an issue, take the 24-70mm...

Titi

Is there actually someone who used both, or has both?

NemethR wrote in post #16670586
Is there actually someone who used both, or has both?

plenty of folks have used both. If you dont mind the weight and size, stick with the 24-70. Nice bokeh and sharp enough. In america, the decision is much harder because the 24-105 goes for 650-700 while the older 24-70 is closer to 950-1000. Good amount of difference in price.