24-70 2.8 vs. 24-105 f4is

I have been battling this decision for a while. I am planning on buying a 5D very soon and I am looking at both of these lenses. I like the fact that both end up at 24mm because I shoot wide very often, but this is my question. Will the f4is be better in low light or would the 2.8 non IS give me more benefit. Does anybody have both of these lenses and would you be able to doa test for me? I want to see both shoot at like 1/40 and then full crop, and I would like to see bokeh on both wide open. Hope someone can help me. Thanks in advance.

Ok, I've been thinking that perhaps I expect too much for somebody to own the 24-105 and 24-70 so I thought I would split it up. I am really interested in seeing shots from the 24-105 f4is in low light. I was a little concerned about losing some depth of field at f4 for wedding shots, but it seems to me that I forgot that I have a 50mm1.4 that could easily fill that depth of field need. The 24-105 would be a nice compliment to my 50mm1.4 and the 70-200 2.8 is I am getting with the 5D. Seems I've answered my own question here.....I'd still like to see the 24-105 shots though. Thanks for letting me think out loud.

retro wrote in post #2058287
Ok, I've been thinking that perhaps I expect too much for somebody to own the 24-105 and 24-70 so I thought I would split it up. I am really interested in seeing shots from the 24-105 f4is in low light. I was a little concerned about losing some depth of field at f4 for wedding shots, but it seems to me that I forgot that I have a 50mm1.4 that could easily fill that depth of field need. The 24-105 would be a nice compliment to my 50mm1.4 and the 70-200 2.8 is I am getting with the 5D. Seems I've answered my own question here.....I'd still like to see the 24-105 shots though. Thanks for letting me think out loud.

what do you mean by this?

i've owned both lenses and now i own the 24-70L. i have the 20d. if i owned the 5d i would use he 24-105L.

i believe f4 on the 5d in terms of DOF is comparable to f2.8 on the 20d.

ed rader

I've been using the 24 - 105L with my 5D for my wedding work since I got both back in March. Coming from MF film I've been very pleased with the results. I use it in combo with the 580ex, both indoors and out.

The IS has saved a number of shots for me in dark churches, dim halls and other venues. Sure the 2.8 gives you one more stop, but that's a heavier longer lens if I'm not mistaken?

Nice thing I like about the 24 - 105 is that it basically took the place of 3 of my MF lenses, in a manner of speaking.

The normal I used in MF was a 60mm, which equates to about 35 in the 35mm full frame world. If I needed to go wider, I had 24mm to fall back on the bottom (similar to my MF 50mm). For portrait work I used a 150mm, which has a similar match to the lens when zoomed to 105.

All in all the 24 - 105L has lightened the load considerably - although I do miss my old Zeiss glass. - Stu

No offense, but is it really necessary to have so many threads comparing these two lenses? Why can't we just add to existing ones?

Lani Kai wrote in post #2060323
No offense, but is it really necessary to have so many threads comparing these two lenses? Why can't we just add to existing ones?

I was gonna say that if you hadn't. There are a zillion of these threads. Pretty much the exact same title too. What's even worse is people continue to debate them as if they've never been debated before...

I guess some folks don't realize they can find the info they need faster, by searching old posts as opposed to starting new threads. All it takes is a little patience and effort.... the search tools aren't that bad.

I have both lenses and love them both. I find the 24-105 slightly sharper. However, I have never done a side-by-side test. If you use a full frame camera like I do and can only have one of the two, I would take the 24-105 for the following reasons: more reach, IS, and lighter. The biggest feature that you would be missing is one f-stop. For weddings, you are always in a rush to capture critical moments, you do not want to keep changing lenses. Therefore, more reach and range on a lens is important. Good luck.

Samm wrote in post #2061096
I have both lenses and love them both. I find the 24-105 slightly sharper. However, I have never done a side-by-side test. If you use a full frame camera like I do and can only have one of the two, I would take the 24-105 for the following reasons: more reach, IS, and lighter. The biggest feature that you would be missing is one f-stop. For weddings, you are always in a rush to capture critical moments, you do not want to keep changing lenses. Therefore, more reach and range on a lens is important. Good luck.

Thanks for the info. It has helped to make up my mind to get the 24-105.