24-105L f/4 vs 24-70L f/2.8 II as a walk-about lens

I've been using the 24-105 as my standard walk about lens and thinking about the 24-70 instead because of its low light capability. To shoot in a pub for example without flash, I've been using a 35mm f/1.4 lens and my 70-200 2.8 for isolating shots. To have the wider zoom under those conditions would give me more versatility. In daytime, though, I wonder what I'm giving up with the 24-70 by having no IS and no ability to go to 105mm.

I would normally carry the 24-105 alone on walk-about, but it looks like I'd have to carry both the 24-70 II and the 70-200 to have the same daytime versatility, and no IS on the former.

Any suggestions?

My tuppence worth, if you plan (I realise you used it as an example) to use the 24-70 in places with poor lighting, especially with people involved, you may end up with poorer quality shots due to lack of fill-in flash (ie around the eyes). In my view, using flash negates the pupose of needing F2.8. I would just stick with the 24-105.

There is no perfect answer. The additional weight of the 24-70 2.8, its nicknamed the brick for a reason, makes is less interesting as a walkaround lens for me. As mentionrd above while it is faster, Iits still only 2.8, and if I am without a flash thats often not enough. But it is faster if you want shallower depth of field fro your walkaround.

I have both, I do a lot of event photography where the 2.8 comes in really handy, however when I travel I leave the 24-70 at home. I like the longer range of the 25-105 for a walk around and it is lighter, smaller filters etc.

I have both (admittedly the v1), and end up using the 24-105 quite a lot; the IS does help in some cases when lighting is mediocre. The extra reach saves a lot of shots where I can't physically get closer, and with the 7D2, the AF is amazing even at f/4. But I need the f/2.8 sometimes too, like you. If you will have enough light and aren't rabid about narrow DoF, there's little to choose between the two.

28 1.8, 35 2, 50 1.4, 85 1.8. All significantly faster than f/4. Any two are lighter than either of the lenses you list.

What camera do you have

wallstreetoneil wrote in post #17558574
What camera do you have

OP's signature lists 5D2, 5D3, 7D that will take the referenced lenses.

I have both and they get about equal use. When carrying only one lens, it is usually the 24-105. More often than not I have several lenses with me and then carry the 24-70.
I had planned to sell the 24-105 when I bought the 24-70, but it is so versatile I have not been able to part with it

This is a very difficult yet at the same time easy answer. Since you have a Fast 35 1.4 prime I would absolutely keep the 24-105 F4 and don't even think about the 24-70 2.8 II

The 24-70 2.8 II is for wedding pro's - besides that I would never recommend anyone get it. Not fast enough a la 1.4 for great bokeh and separation, doesn't have IS, isn't exactly light, doesn't have enough reach when you want it, costs a small fortune and most often can't create stunning pictures like a 35 1.4, 50 1.2, 85 1.2, 135 F2 or 200 F2. What it does do is serve one purpose very, very, very well; it allows a wedding photographer to take 1000 pictures in 6 hours and create very sharp images, with great color and contrast, mostly taken at 24mm & 70mm - and on a 1Dx or 5D3, it never, ever misses focus.

The 24-105 at F4 with IS is a great all around lens and you can pick them up and sell them all day long for approx $600 - not the $2k for one extra stop , less range and no IS.

The 24-70 F2.8 II for 'most' wedding pros is a must have - for everyone else, you can spend the $2000 on a:
- $600 used but basically new 24-105 F4 (great everyday, great for video, can easily handhold at 1/15th)
- $500 for a new 35 F2 IS (1 stop faster and has IS than the 24-70)
- $900 for a new 135 F2 (produces portraits the 24-70 can't come close to)

These are all very good comments. Thank you for the insights.

I have owned the 24-105 for 7 years and have rented the 24-70 2.8 (both mk1 and mk2) a few times. The big reason I want the 24-70 is for the low-light focusing. That extra stop not only helps ME see better in low light, but the 5k3 dual cross type sensors can use it.

I've used them both extensively and the only way i'll ever own the 24-105 again is when it comes bundled with a camera and then only briefly until it's dumped. the 24-70L II has an extraordinary hit rate on the 5d3 that just amazed me. I use auto ISO and set minimum shutter speed to 1/60s and the effect is similar to IS.

the brick is version I. you are the only person I've ever heard call the II "the brick".

ed rader wrote in post #17559196
I've used them both extensively and the only way i'll ever own the 24-105 again is when it comes bundled with a camera and then only briefly until it's dumped. the 24-70L II has an extraordinary hit rate on the 5d3 that just amazed me. I use auto ISO and set minimum shutter speed to 1/60s and the effect is similar to IS.

You use it as a walk-about lens? You don't miss the extra reach of the 24-105?