24-70 2.8 or 24-105?

I chose the 24-105 over the 24-70. I love being able to handhold at 1/2s and the hood, while shallower than that of the 24-70, allows easier use of a CPL.

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

And weigh closer to 2 KILOS....not 2 pounds

For an affordable combo that you can still hold, try the 30D + 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM. That is effectively 27-88mm on full frame with f/2.8 and stabilization.

My priority was image stabilization, so I chose the 24-105. Those who keep **** that IS is useless at short focal lengths has obviously never found themselves in the black holes in which I so often end up shooting in out of necessity. Last one was 1/6 seconds, f/4, 32mm, ISO 1600, fully stabilized. That shot needed AT LEAST a f/1.8 lens to make possible without a stabilizer.. I should know, I have a 28 f/1.8 just for those situations.

24-105, reach is more usable and IS rules.

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

You can sell your 28-105 and the 24-105 ...
But isn't that a nice problem ...

I have both and really never use the 24-105 as I need the added speed that the f/2.8 gives me. The IS does nothing for the speed of the lens and I need to be able to stop action. I cannot do that with the 24-105. My wife uses the 24-105 all the time. Many die hard advocates of the 24-105 are now finding that they need the added speed and selling it to get the 24-70. If I could only afford one it would be the 24-70, hands-down.

Seems like they're selling the other way around, Doc. You see the half dozen or more 24-70L's for sale here? Sheesh.

he might have been speaking about me...but i am one, not many .

also, he might have missed the recent poll that showed by far the 24-105 is the most used lens.

if you'll recall a previous poll had shown the 24-105 and 24-70 to be almost neck an neck. in fact i think the 24-70 had the edge.

so you are right when you say the 24-70 is being sold in favor of the 24-105.

i got a great deal on my 24-70 due to the softness in price .

ed rader

Well, I'd put my 24-105 f4L IS up against any zoom lens. I think it's incredibly sharp. The f2.8 doesn't mean too much if you shoot mostly at f4 and above, and I'm not sure that the hood design is all that relevant.

Honestly,Ronald's got it right. It's pretty subjective depending on what your style of shooting is as to which lens will be best. For Ronald, the 24-70 is better for a walk around lens. For me, it's the 24-105L.

Mark

Mark -- how do you rate the bokeh of the 24-105 against some of those great L lenses that you own like the 28-70?

thanx,

ed rader

I owned both and sold the 24-70L (one of the recent F/S here)
I liked the range of the 24-105 better and found their image quality to be about the same. So I don't miss the speed at all. (probably because I usually shoot in mid-range f's anyway) Both are great lenses so it would just be a matter of whether you need to capture speed, like Doc or whether you want the range & the IS.

edit: and I'm not mark but I think the 24-105 has a very good bokeh compared to my other L lenses...very dreamy (if that makes sense)...

Very choppy bokeh and kinda..idk..yucky, when compared to my 24-70L. I just never seemed to get that nice creaminess like I did with the 24-70.

I have 24-70 and i am so happy with it
I like to shoot mostly in Low Light, and i took few photos at night with 2.8, wow, they are great, so i don't think that 24-105 can help me in that case even with IS.

how does the 24-105 fare as far as portrait goes? im sure the 24-70L is better at it, but wondering if the 24-105 is useable for portrait as well.

i have the tamron 28-75mm and im thinking about selling it along with my 70-200L f/4 and get the 24-105L as my walkaround lens.. i also have the 10-22mm to cover the ultra wides. as for zoom, i love the 70-200L but havnet used it much and my broinlaw has the sigma 70-200f2.8 which i could always borrow. so im trying to decide whether i should do it or not ..

one reason i sold the 24-105 was because my copy was just okay at portraits and bokeh was average at best and terrible at worst.

one reason i prefer a walkaround with reach is because i do lots of head shots and animal portraits.

i've also owned the tamron 28-75 and still own the 70-200f4. both are better portraits lenses than the 24-105, and both produce smoother bokeh.

the 24-70L is a great portrait lens too.

don't get me wrong, the 24-105 is a very good lens but i had little confidence in it as a portrait lens or at f4.

ed rader

what if you are mating the lens to a 5D? 24-70 or 24-105? doing mostly weddings with flashes.