24-70 2.8 or 24-105?

I'm looking to get a better walkaround lens and I've narrowed it down to two. Do you think I should get the 24-70 2.8 or the 24-105? Which one do you think is better? They cost about the same so money isn't an issue.

walk around? might have better reach with the 24-105. if you plan on doing low light walk around, then either the 24-70 and/or a good tripod

if this is just for fun and walk around lens then get 24-105.

24-105L for sure

No one could really know for sure without knowing what they like to shoot. 24-105L has better reach and IS. that's it, though. The hood design, fast aperture, bokeh, and slight sharpness edge at same apertures go to 24-70L. It was the clear winner to me; maybe it will be to them, too.

I went with the 24-70 and must say I use it at 2.8 about 50% of the time so I am really happy I did. IS doesn't do much for me, cause I am usually taking pictures of my little relatives and they move too fast for IS to do much for me

Yeah it all just depends on you... I know the 24-70 would be the better choice for me...

I'm considering the same purchase so I'm glad to see this thread. Mind if I ask a few more questions?
I already have the 70-200 2.8, would that make a difference in buying a 24-105 or 24-70? What about the 28-70 as opposed to the 24-70?

I went with the 24-70L, I wanted the speed. I also had the 70-200L so the extra reach didn't interest me that much. It depends on your use though, the 24-105 L is much lighter, and is an excellent lens in it's own right.

i've had both. used the 24-105L extensively for most of the year and recently bought the 24-70L and sold the 24-105.

both are great lenses and the only two i would consider for a walkaround (primary lens).

the 24-105 obviously has better range and IS. the 24-70 has better bokeh and is a stop faster.

my 24-70 is better at f2.8 than the 24-105 was @ f4. most people report the opposite, but that wasn't the case for me even tho i had the 24-105 recalibrated by canon.

both lenses have great IQ but the 24-70 is a better portrait lens and i feel the larger aperature gives me a creative edge.

also, the 24-70 has a monstrous hood and weighs a half pound more than the 24-105. the 24-105 is no lightweight either but i really felt that extra half pound at first but have since gotten used to it so i really don't feel like i am carrying a heavier rig.

ed rader

I love my 24-105 but I have never used the 24-70 so cannot comment.

For a 'walkaround I'd say the 24-105, you do miss out by one stop but gain a lot more range and IS will get over the one stop loss (and more) if the subect isn't moving.

I am slightly biased because I have the 24-105L myself, but it is a great lens IMO.

Had the 24-70 and sold it. Bought the 24-105 and I'm very pleased with it.
But if tomorrow the 24-105 would come out with 2.8 aperture I jump on it.

Good luck.

Agreed, but would probably have to take out a second mortgage though...

Ill have to go with the 24-105L as well.
I had a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and i loved it but it didnt have a long enough reach for me.
I dont worry too much about having wide although i do find that 24 as opposed to 28mm does make a difference but the extra 30mm on the long end for me was the main reason i got rid of the tamron.
You might also find the same. It would be nice to have f/2.8 again though