trade 24-70 for 24 105 IS?

Jaetie wrote in post #2043985
wow, even sharper than the 135L?

"One of the sharpest" not "THE sharpest"

Bit of a difference.

cdi-ink.com wrote in post #2044011
"One of the sharpest" not "THE sharpest"

Bit of a difference.

no, i'm not claming that the 135L is the sharpest lens.
but the fact that he has both the 135L and the 24-70L and he says that the 24-70L is the sharpest he owns makes me raise an eyebrow.

Jaetie wrote in post #2044050
no, i'm not claming that the 135L is the sharpest lens.
but the fact that he has both the 135L and the 24-70L and he says that the 24-70L is the sharpest he owns makes me raise an eyebrow.

He did NOT claim his 24-70 is his sharpest lens. Like I already emphasized, he said it is ONE of his sharpest. That means his 135 is his sharpest and perhaps the 24-70 comes in 2nd. NOT the same as you're misunderstanding.

I have the older 28-70 f2.8L (very sharp and one of my favorite lenses), as well as the 24-105 f4L IS. I love them both, but I use them for different things. The fast lens is what I used for inside glamour, portrait, and studio shots where I need a fast mid-range zoom. The 24-105 is the lens I use when shooting fairs, festivals, and outdoor events. Due to it's light weight and extended range, it's also my choice for a walk-around or hiking lens, especially when paired with the 5D. So, for me the two lenses have very different purposed and I would not have traded my faster lens for the 24-105.

You situation may be different, though, and you should consider what you use or would use each lens for and how much, if any, overlap there is.

Mark

I would ge the 24-105mm I currently have 24-85mm which I am very happy with but sometimes in bright ligh using low S.P it will just not foucus correclty but this is expected specially caputuring children. the 24-105mm is my next purchase hopefully I will get it before Xmas.

Just to clarify the confusion yep the 135 is my sharpest the 24-70 is 2nd cdink is right thats why i put one of the sharpest

Col_M wrote in post #2042252
would you trade your 24-70 that you are happy with for a 24-105 on the basis that it could suit your usage better?

If you are happy with the 24-70L (as I am) it is about time to start experimenting with the features (f2.8, etc.) that you did not fully exploit yet. You may discover new things...

I think I will only consider trading it for a 24-70 f2.8 IS, but that will depend on its cost, size and weight if finally made (assuming same quality). In any case I will probably not do it anyway as I use this focal range to shoot mainly people, and IS will not give me any significant advantage for this purpose (the reason why I picked the 24-70L over the 24-105L).

Talking about size and weight, the 24-105L is not precisely a little toy. For walk-around or travel I prefer the 17-40L.

I would keep the 24-70L, the 24-105L with its extra range and IS isn,t enough IMO, and does not equate to a significant improvement.
What about a good prime the 85mm or 135mm to supplement the good quality lenses you have already.

Im currently having the same dilema, except i have the sigma 24-70 f2.8 EX DG MACRO, and not the canon. Been thinking about getting the 24-105 for a while as i would prefer it as a travel lens. Considering i have the Sigma, would you guys upgrade to the 24-105????

I just got the 24-105L a week ago, (I use it on my 30d) and love the size, feel construction etc...

I recall reading somewhere that some of the early produced versions had a problem that Canon would fix or replace, but now can't find where I read that.

In my first batch of photos, I found some with dark corners when I shot at 24mm and f/22. Vignetting I believe.

Does anyone recall if this was the problem Canon would fix,or if this is normal?

thanks!

After much debate I went with the 24-105L , and I love it. However, I would not trade a lens I was very happy with for another lens, especially given the IQ and low light capability of the 24-70. Given your sig I would next turn my thoughts to a 400 F4L or a 100-400L , or an 85 1.2L

Hermeto wrote in post #2042326
I would not trade my 24-70 for ANY other zoom in that focal range, or about.

I gotta agree with Hermeto on this. I do not understand why anyone would really do this for any reason except maybe weight. I find IS to be overrated on a lens less then at least 200mm and I can not imagine how it makes any difference except in the photographers mind. That's me however, you can do whatever you want and if I had a 24-105 IS, I would trade it to you in a second for the 24-70 L.

BlueWire wrote in post #2168768
I just got the 24-105L a week ago, (I use it on my 30d) and love the size, feel construction etc...

I recall reading somewhere that some of the early produced versions had a problem that Canon would fix or replace, but now can't find where I read that.

In my first batch of photos, I found some with dark corners when I shot at 24mm and f/22. Vignetting I believe.

Does anyone recall if this was the problem Canon would fix,or if this is normal?

thanks!

The problem was lens flare, in the first edition of the lens. It's since been taken care of. I had both and prefered the lighter 24-105 to the 24-70. I found I didn't use the 2.8 much either (usually at f8 here) and the IS suited me much better...plus the extra range. So, I thought I'd offer you an alternate opinion.

I've got them both. The 24-105 sees 10x as much time on my camera. The 24-70 is used for portraits and low light situations where a faster lens is needed. The 24-105 gets everything else. I find the IS extremely useful. It lets me cheat and leave my tripod behind occasionally. Try blurring a waterfall handheld without IS. The times I use the 24-70 could easily be replaced by primes so I'll probably sell it.

ed2day wrote in post #2169470
I've got them both. The 24-105 sees 10x as much time on my camera. The 24-70 is used for portraits and low light situations where a faster lens is needed. The 24-105 gets everything else. I find the IS extremely useful. It lets me cheat and leave my tripod behind occasionally. Try blurring a waterfall handheld without IS. The times I use the 24-70 could easily be replaced by primes so I'll probably sell it.

Yeah, but not that easily for the same price!
3 or 4 L primes in that focal range will be much more expensive than 24-70L..