24-70 2.8 or 24-105?

Once again, that's subjective. Sometimes lighter is better, sometimes smaller is better, and sometimes other factors (sharpness against the entire plane, contrast, or reach) is better.

Photography is mostly about compromises, and what's better for one person may not be better for another.

Mark

IMO the 24-105 is a better walk around because of longer reach, IS, less weight and f/4 is not a problem for me either.

I think the 24-70 is a great lens BUT it is big and heavy, and in the UK is a fair bit more expensive than the 24- 105 IS lens.

the recent poll thread on walk-about lenses showed the 24-105 well ahead as a percentage.

Bokeh on the 24-105 is pretty good. But if you're looking for a creamy---er bokeh, then the 24-70 would obviously be a better choice of the both of them.

I have now used the 24-70 for indoor events and for landscapes on my EOS 3 and 20D and it is completely useful in both situations. Can't complain about the color, sharpness or ease of use because the f2.8 gives me a lot more flexibility and I can't imagine trying to shoot a wedding without it.

i'm not offended but i just wanted to make sure we are responding to the same post .

ed rader

Wow, I just looked (amazon.com) and over here in the US they are about $8 diff.

why step forward when there is a better tool?

folks who do this for a living aren't hung up on whether a lens is f4 or f2.8 .... they want the best tool for the job.

at a wedding i'd think you'd want to be unobtrusive which is impossible if you have to shove the lens in someone's face to get a picture.

ed rader

you think it's a better choice using flash on a FF camera?

ed rader

Mark -- i've never used the 28-105 but i have used the 24-85 and the 28-135. i don't think those two lenses are capable of bokeh .

seriously, i think the bokeh of the 24-105 borders on terrible if you aren't very careful about your background but like it was said in another post bokeh isn't the reason to use this lens.

ed rader

...which sometimes means the difference between f/2.8 and f/4.

I'd crop a tiny bit, and get the same FOV. An 85 over a 24-70 isn't giving me enough of an advantage in length to have that on instead of zoom, giving up versatility. True...you'll no doubt get a touch of sharpness, but it's not always worth it.

If you mean the difference between 105mm and 70mm, I still wouldn't do it. Especially at a wedding. I'd always take 2.8 over f/4 with IS. I don't want to chance blurring the bride. The 2.8 will always freeze action better. Twice the shutter speed.

However, like I said, there's sometimes when you need a blurry shot, or nothing. Those are the times I would take the 24-105.

so you shoot weddings at F2.8 with a flash?

ed rader

I try not to use the flash if I don't have to. I don't like it, and I'm not very good at flash exposure, imo. They're always pleased, but I'm not..not always.

To directly answer your question, though...

Yeah..if I want the DoF (which I often do).

I don't use a flash if I have any chance of natural light. Much better shots. And when I do use a flash, it has to have some way to diffuse it. Direct light is the worst! I sometimes use the Omnibounce or my own white card, but with my bracket, I always try to use the Omnibounce if all else fails. And flash on a FF or cropped body doesn't make any difference if you know what you're doing. I have the 550 for my FF and the 580 for my 20D. But that's why there are all these buttons, so you can adjust. I try not to use the flash because I don't like to do a lot of PP. Shadows are usually all over the place.

There are also some individuals on this forum who use both (namly: ssim)

I just looked at a couple of buy/Sell forums and generally the 24-105 L is going for $75 to $100 more used. It's a good time to pick up a used 24-70L.