Canon 24-70mm L or 24-105mm L???

cali wrote in post #2095361
Could you please tell us why you think He should get the 24-70 2.8? I have been wrestling with the same question and haven't decided. I have a 20D and am looking for a good walkaround lens.

Sorry about that. Well, at first aperture didn't really matter to me in the beginning. After a few low light situations and a few action shots, I figured that I need the the f/2.8. If you are not going to be doing too many action shots are low light shots, then the24mm-105mm f/4 IS L would work jsut fine, but being in the situation I am in now, I would have rather gotten the 24-70 f/2.8.

24mm-70mm avantages ( to me ):

- Faster glass ( 2.8.)

I guess that's it.

24mm-70mm disadvantages ( to me ):

- Weight
- Focal length ( but does not really bother me )
- External Auto Focusing ( i can deal with it )

24mm-105mm advantages ( to me ):

- Focal length
- Weight
- Interal Auto Focus
- Image Stabilization

24mm-105mm disadvantages ( to me ):

- Lowest Aperture ( f/4 )
- Low light situations ( due to aperture ) ( not being abel to focus )
- Not being able to capture motion well

I'm not trying to knock the lens I already have. It has helped me a lot through-out the time I have had it, but I jsut need the faster glass for the type of photography I want to pursue. Hope that helps.

And by saying crop body, I mean everything that isn't a full frame camera. Canon's only "FF" cameras as of right now are the 5D and the EOS 1Ds Mark ll.

viatorum777 wrote in post #2093787
I share your dilema. I too am planning on picking up the 30D soon and I have been debating these two lens. It really does depend on what you shoot, but for those reasons I am leaning toward the 24-70. Here is my thinking (for what it is worth):

1. I have four kids and they will be my primary subject matter. Therefore a fast lens will be preferred.
2. I really like to have good bokeh and from what I have read the 24-70 is better in the bokeh department than the 24-105.
3. When I shoot the kids much of it is in darker areas so the extra stop will be helpful.
4. I am also hoping to eventually pick up the 70-200 (hopefully 2.8f) so the 24-70 will complement perfectly in regards to focal range.

Well, that is some of my thoughts so far. Looking forward to what others have to say...

Will

Spot on.

There is another way of considering this: If it is for personal use, get the 24-105L. If it is for professional work, pick the 24-70L... In some situations the extra full stop may be the difference between getting the shot or not...

We did a pole a couple of weeks ago - https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=215038

The other reason to go for a f2.8 lens or faster is that you will have better autofocus on cameras like the 30D compared to f4 or greater lenses. Especially in lower light situations, or with faster moving subjects.
That's one reason that swayed me towards the 24-70L.

You won't be sorry getting the 24-105. It's the best all around lens IMO. I wouldn't give mine up for the world.

FWIW, the 24-105 and 70-200 are used in 95% of my shooting... the 24-105 is used slightly more of the two. (if lighting conditions are favorable) Shooting in M will allow you to get more from the 24-105 than you think.

amarasme wrote in post #2095811
There is another way of considering this: If it is for personal use, get the 24-105L. If it is for professional work, pick the 24-70L... In some situations the extra full stop may be the difference between getting the shot or not...

...and in other situations the IS may be the difference between getting the shot or not!

As some have said there is no cut-and-dried answer which of these lenses is best - if there was you wouldn't see all these message threads asking which is best - it depends on you and the things you shoot.

We debated long between the 24-70 and the 24-105 IS (for professional use including weddings), and we bought the 24-105 IS - not regretted the choice for one moment ...however we did also buy the 17-55 f2.8 IS at the same time, and my wife shoots with that on the 30D, while I primarily shoot with the 24-105 on our 20D.

Rob

17-55 EF-s IS

I literally woke up nights thinking about this same issue. I was going to have a bit of money and really wanted one of these two - no, I REALLY wanted both! But could only afford one. I read thread after thread here and other places. Read reviews all over, too. What I would have liked was a marriage of the two - 105 long end (or even 135!), 2.8 with IS. Alas, that wasn't one of the choices.
After shooting at a local store with the 24-105, I made my decision for that lens. I went to a local event yesterday and shot 200+ shots and never once missed the 2.8. I do have some faster primes for low-light, plus my Tammy 28-70/2.8, so I think I made the right choice.
Who knows, maybe someday I'll get rich and get the 24-70 as well. Then again, maybe Canon will combine the two by then...one can always dream!

RobKirkwood wrote in post #2095957
...and in other situations the IS may be the difference between getting the shot or not!

As some have said there is no cut-and-dried answer which of these lenses is best - if there was you wouldn't see all these message threads asking which is best - it depends on you and the things you shoot.

We debated long between the 24-70 and the 24-105 IS (for professional use including weddings), and we bought the 24-105 IS - not regretted the choice for one moment ...however we did also buy the 17-55 f2.8 IS at the same time, and my wife shoots with that on the 30D, while I primarily shoot with the 24-105 on our 20D.

Rob

For moving subjects, a faster aperture is obviously the answer (even though you use the 24-105 f4, you are covering yourselves with the 17-55 f2.8 IS.)

For still subjects, a tripod may be more adequate than IS for professional work.

Here we are talking about choosing one of them, not having both (the 17-55 f2.8 IS is equivalent to the 24-70L in terms of aperture).

In general terms, I would pick the 24-70 f2.8L for professional use. (I would also have a faster prime in my bag, just in case.)

Of course, in photography there are no rules. I am just giving my opinion.

I'm happy with my 24-105 for weddings and such, but occasionally I wish I had a 2.8 lens. For that I'm planning to pick up a Tammy 28-75/2.8.

But if you're going to use this as a walkaround lens when travelling, I would suggest going wider. 17-40 or 16-35 perhaps? 24mm won't be wide enough for landscapes. Alternatively you could get a 10-22, 24-105 and 70-200 (that's what I now have in my kit).

I am in the same dilemma. I am leaning more towards the 24-70 however and I do have a 5D. I want better bokeh than anything because it is important to me.

linarms wrote in post #2096332
I'm happy with my 24-105 for weddings and such, but occasionally I wish I had a 2.8 lens. For that I'm planning to pick up a Tammy 28-75/2.8.

But if you're going to use this as a walkaround lens when travelling, I would suggest going wider. 17-40 or 16-35 perhaps? 24mm won't be wide enough for landscapes. Alternatively you could get a 10-22, 24-105 and 70-200 (that's what I now have in my kit).

exactly what i have as well. 10-22, 24-105, 70-200. 2.8 is nice but for me, IS has been more useful. i been able to take family pics indoors with IS with slow shutter speed and get sharp enough results, as long as they can stay still long enough lol. in either case, even with 2.8 .. i would still need to use flash indoors. so im happy with the 24-105. just need to go shooting more

Music to my eyes wrote in post #2095930
The other reason to go for a f2.8 lens or faster is that you will have better autofocus on cameras like the 30D compared to f4 or greater lenses. Especially in lower light situations, or with faster moving subjects.
That's one reason that swayed me towards the 24-70L.

having used both lenses extensively i see this as a minor issue at best. i really don't notice any difference and, imo, this should not be a factor in choosing between these two lenses.

ed rader

I find my 24-70 m uch sharper than my old 24-105 plus the bokeh is much cleaner.