24-105 L or ???

rklepper wrote in post #2135328
Really neither is good for low light photography.

you may be right Doc but the 24-105L still has the 2-stop advantage .

ed rader

I am also debating this. Not sure if either really serves my purposes, though. I feel that the overlap in lenses with the current ones that I own would be a bit much. Some suggest otherwise. On a FF camera, the 17-40 is definately nice and wide (and I will be able to test it more, once the camera arrives later today)...as long as I don't miss the DHL delivery guy.

So, this debate to me, is still ongoing. Not sure which lens to get, to complete my double rebate...but, soon enough. I might have to rent them both, and see what happens...and which I like better. I am 'shaky' so, I tend to use a tripod much of the time, and in some instances, the IS helps, but still not enough to warrant it. In that case, the 24-70 seems like a more logical decision, but then it overlaps with the 17-40.

Argh...the confusion sucks.

The debate for me was do I need a stop extra in speed, no cos i don't take that many moving subjects....can the 3 stop IS give me more DOF - YES!!! 24mm is actually rather wide in a 5D, but I still have the 17-40 for landscapes. As a walkaround the 24-105 is the best.

BTW: Part of my reasoning for getting the 24-105 was it makes a good walkaround for full frame when I get one. This also justifies having the 17-40 also because that then becomes your ultra wide instead of the 10-22.

DC9 wrote in post #2139569
I’m sorry but if you have a larger aperture you allow in more light, if you let in more light you can have a faster shutter speed, if you have a faster shutter speed you will be able to stop action better.

The difference between f2.8 and f4.0 might be enough to freeze action in low light or it might keep you from having to use the next higher ISO.

Yea the IS on the 24/105 will keep the flower pot behind the birthday boy sharp but the birthday boy might be out of focus as he blows out the candles while the 24/70 is able to stop the action because it has a higher shutter speed with the aperture set at 2.8. Not only that but at f2.8 the flowerpot will have a nice bokeh too.

I’ve seen this argument time after time. The 24/70 is more for indoor shots of the kids with no flash and the 24/105 is for a day at Sea World with its longer reach. Each has its niche.

While that sounds good in theory, it is only 1 stop of extra motion stopping aperture. I currently own 2 24-70 f/2.8s and 1 24-105 f/4. Prior to that I owned a 17-55 f/2.8 and 35-70 f/2.8 (Nikon). I have rarely found a situation where I could get a great birthday boy shot without flash with any of these lenses, even at ISO1600. Most indoor home settings require more than f/2.8 to get a good shot... and if I go to a faster prime... like say the 50mm f/1.8... then the depth of field becomes so narrow as to lose the other kids at the party. While that is a nice artistic look, it isn't necessarily what most people want for a birthday memory. My point, as I ramble, is that f/2.8 is still too slow. The best birthday boy shot is going to be one where you use flash for fill.

I have been a big believer in f/2.8 for quite a while, but am coming to the conclusion that in many cases that IF I need a fast lens, f/2.8 isn't fast enough. The rest of the time, the f/4 + IS yields more stops... thus lower light when shooting something that isn't moving.

As long as we are on the 24-70 vs. 24-105 discussion, there are a few things I really don't like about the 24-70. This lens was designed in a rather odd manner so that the 24mm wide end is achieved when the lens is fully extended, and the 70mm end is when it is the shortest. This is a bit clever, since the lens protrudes out into the hood and therefore the hood is short for the wide end and long for the long end. This is just an odd design. I have also had my 24-70 lenses in twice for repairs in the last year, because the zoom mechanism stopped working. I think this is because it has such a long throw to move the lens out. The 24-105 (w/hood) works much more tradionally, and at the 24mm end, the lens is much shorter than the 24-70 (w/hood). Its also a bit lighter.

So, to summarize, unless you live in a grocery store or something (a house with very bright lights), f/2.8 doesn't get you in home action stopping speed. Keeping a "nifty fifty" in the bag for those occaisions is advisable, and a little flash added to the birthday boy shot will get you a nicely stopped shot, a little highlight in the eyes, and all of his party attendees in focus.

darktiger wrote in post #2139197
Until you go to a museum that does not allow flash photography. IS comes in handy.

I go to musueums quite often. I've never seen one where there isn't a light pointed at the pieces. Not only that, but many have a strict no photography rule.

But, if you go to unlit museums which allow photography but no flash, then IS will come in handy.

I've had - and dumped - the 24-70 F2.8L because it was not 'bang for the buck' as you might say on the other side of the pond. It was too big. It was too heavy. It was not as sharp as a much older Canon lens (not L series) I was using. It had a rather poor zoom range for an everyday lens. Before I ordered it it seemed like the Bees Knees - but when I tried it for a few days it seemed more like a millstone hanging around my neck. The only thing I found in its favour was the limited depth of field at F2.8 and nice bokeh.

I have had the 24-105 F4 L since it was first introduced and would not be parted from it. The only time it is off of my camera is for the Wide angle 10-22mm or one of the L series telephotos. or a macro.

Salleke wrote in post #2135975
The 24-70 2.8 will NEVER blow away the 24-105 IS 4.0.

The 27-70 is the worst peace of junk that Canon ever made.

In my opinion anyway. Good luck.

My 24-70 is the most useful lens I own - it is on my camera probably 2/3 of the time. It's the best lens for my purposes - to outright call it a piece of junk just because it doesn't meet your needs shows your ignorance.

convergent wrote in post #2140667
While that sounds good in theory, it is only 1 stop of extra motion stopping aperture. I currently own 2 24-70 f/2.8s and 1 24-105 f/4. Prior to that I owned a 17-55 f/2.8 and 35-70 f/2.8 (Nikon). I have rarely found a situation where I could get a great birthday boy shot without flash with any of these lenses, even at ISO1600. Most indoor home settings require more than f/2.8 to get a good shot... and if I go to a faster prime... like say the 50mm f/1.8... then the depth of field becomes so narrow as to lose the other kids at the party. While that is a nice artistic look, it isn't necessarily what most people want for a birthday memory. My point, as I ramble, is that f/2.8 is still too slow. The best birthday boy shot is going to be one where you use flash for fill.

I have been a big believer in f/2.8 for quite a while, but am coming to the conclusion that in many cases that IF I need a fast lens, f/2.8 isn't fast enough. The rest of the time, the f/4 + IS yields more stops... thus lower light when shooting something that isn't moving.

As long as we are on the 24-70 vs. 24-105 discussion, there are a few things I really don't like about the 24-70. This lens was designed in a rather odd manner so that the 24mm wide end is achieved when the lens is fully extended, and the 70mm end is when it is the shortest. This is a bit clever, since the lens protrudes out into the hood and therefore the hood is short for the wide end and long for the long end. This is just an odd design. I have also had my 24-70 lenses in twice for repairs in the last year, because the zoom mechanism stopped working. I think this is because it has such a long throw to move the lens out. The 24-105 (w/hood) works much more tradionally, and at the 24mm end, the lens is much shorter than the 24-70 (w/hood). Its also a bit lighter.

So, to summarize, unless you live in a grocery store or something (a house with very bright lights), f/2.8 doesn't get you in home action stopping speed. Keeping a "nifty fifty" in the bag for those occaisions is advisable, and a little flash added to the birthday boy shot will get you a nicely stopped shot, a little highlight in the eyes, and all of his party attendees in focus.

I tend to agree with you on this. I have a mixture of f4 zooms and fast primes for exactly the reason that f2.8 is just not that fast when you do need the speed.

blackshadow wrote in post #2141100
My 24-70 is the most useful lens I own - it is on my camera probably 2/3 of the time. It's the best lens for my purposes - to outright call it a piece of junk just because it doesn't meet your needs shows your ignorance.

You are absolutly right. I would be a ignorant if I would speak without having owned one.
But I did own one for 8 months and for me it was a piece of ....
I have tried everything even with the help of many members in reading every post.

But like I said in my first post it's my own opinion and I wish everyone who
own this lens and is happy with it good luck and I'm happy for them.
But for me it did not deliver for what it was bought for.

So if you like your copy enyoj it and good luck. Even ignorants can be friendly ...