24-70 or 24-105?

I'm in need of a new lens and have looked strongly at the 24-70 and the 24-105. Since they're about the same money, I can't use that to help in my decision. I have reviewed many photos taken with both and they look great.

If you were going to buy one of these, which one would you get and why?

Or, is there some other lens I should consider?

Thanks,

John

I brought the 24-105 yesterday. Why extra lenght and weight. Used for landscapes and studio work therefore dont need F2.8. IS is a nice feature

This is, like, one of the most asked questions in the world.

I just changed from the 24-105 to the 24-70. Here's why:

* I had recently added a 70-200 for extra reach and plan to get a second body to save changing lenses. Without both of these I would NOT have sacrificed the reach of the 24-105 for the speed of the 24-70.

* I shoot mostly people, so IS doesn't always help me at these focal lengths (because people move).

* AF speed is important to me, and 2.8 delivers noticeable improvements over 4 in this area.

* Bokeh of 24-70 is a little nicer than 24-105 (mostly because of the 2.8, not so much because of the creaminess of the 24-70).

There have been aesthetic improvements too, like the hood of the 24-70 doesn't move when zooming, which is nice but hardly a deal breaker.

In the end it depends on what you shoot and how you shoot it. And there really are lots of threads on this question already with all of the arguments from both sides of the fence.

Good luck!!

The 24-105 would pair up nicely with your 100-400. I'm sure you've read all the threads on these two lenses, but from a personal point of view the 24-105 has been great (longer reach, lighter weight & IS)....however if I did a lot of portrait work the 24-70 would have been the better choice

The search is your friend. There is a thread on this very topic posted at least once a week.

Another reason why I went 24-105 is I had a Sigma 24-70. Nice sharp glass. So Ive owned that range. I can if not happy with the 24-105 upgrade for a small price to the 24-70. This is my first IS lens so I wanted to find out about IS and the best way is to use it.

Im having the same problem.

I was going to post another 24-70 vs 24-105 thread today.

Ive used the search function, ive read nearly all of the threads.

I already know about the tecnical aspects of each lens, but here are a few questions that I would like to know, maybe the original poster can benefit from this as well. Id like feedback from someone whos had experience with both.

First of all, im lazy, I hate swapping lenses. Another thing, I have more than I need right now. Im in the process of getting rid of all of my lenses except for my Canon 70-200 F/4. At the moment I have a Sigma 24-70mm and a Tamron 28-75mm. I like both lenses, but I like the extra 4mm on the wide side better. Both lenses produce great pictures. Why do I want to upgrade to the Canon L versions at this range? Both of these lenses hunt in low light, the Tamron is the worst of the two.

I am still learning flash photography, but ive shot a few birthday parties, and formal parties using my Canon 17-40L and Canon 550ex speedlight. I dont remember thinking that I needed a faster lens, and I was quite satisfied with the results, and so were my clients.

With that being said, I just want to have 1 general all purpose lens. The extra reach and the IS would be very nice, my only concern is lowlight. I will be shooting at a few nightclubs pretty soon, and I will always have a flash. Again, im pretty new to flash photography, would f/4 be ok if im using my flash as a light source? When I used my 17-40L to shoot previous parties, it wasnt THAT dark, like not nightclub dark, but it was dark.

Also, I occasionally do product photography. Both should be able to do the trick, but ive read that the 24-70L is a bit sharper, and has better bokeh. Im not really a pixel peeper, and all of the shots will be post processed anyway.

The only lens I MAY keep is the Canon 50 f1.4.

So, given that info, which lens would you go for?

This has to be one of the most asked questions on here. I went through the same debate for over a month, I finally made my decision after seeing both at a local camera store and went with the 24-105 IS to complement my 70-200 f2.8l IS. I took my CF card to the shop and used it to take some pics, and I really thought that the 24-105 lens gave me sharper pics (this can be debated depending on what copy you get, I know).

I was really debating which one to get especially since I wanted the 2.8, but the IS and the extra range, plus smaller/lighter package will be more pleasant to carry around and gives just as good sharpness and image quality from what I've seen. The 24-70 is HEAVY, try to find one locally and fit it on your camera so you can get an idea of this (if you haven't already) to make sure it won't be bothersome. If I need to take portraits, I can quicky change to my 70-200 2.8 and use the 70-110 range, and the Bokeh on the 70-200 is just as good if not better than the 24-70 (I think it's better ). Plus if I want to lug a heavy lens around, the 70-200 takes care of that!

I see you already have an IS lens, how much do you like/need it in that range and do you wish you had the 2.8 instead sometimes? That's what I'd be asking myself.... With the IS you know you can set the shutter speed slower, but if you're shooting moving people this may not be what you want. How often will you need the lens for this?

Good luck with your decision!! I'm taking my new 24-105L to Sedona next week to run it through its paces and will report back.

https://photography-on-the.net …arch.php?search​id=1674134

About a gazillion topics there

I went with the 24-105L, not an easy choice except you can't lose with either. After that I think you need another body. You can cover a very wide range and not have to change lenses.

24-70 Pros: f/2.8 Cons: Weight, less reach, price

24-105 Pros: longer reach, IS, lighter, cheaper Cons: 1 stop less light

So, if f/2.8 is more important than reach and weight, and you can afford the extra cost, go for it, otherwise, maybe the 24-105 is for you.

Sounds like you want the 24-105 (dont like changing lenses & need IS). The difference between the two lenses is best noted in low light situations, and even then I think the difference isnt as big as most people portray it to be....and the point becomes mute when you get the flash out They are both great lenses, for me the 24-105 was the best choice.

sugarzebra wrote in post #2189780
Sounds like you want the 24-105 (dont like changing lenses & need IS). The difference between the two lenses is best noted in low light situations, and even then I think the difference isnt as big as most people portray it to be....and the point becomes mute when you get the flash out They are both great lenses, for me the 24-105 was the best choice.

I agree

Stan43 wrote in post #2189696
You can cover a very wide range and not have to change lenses.

That's interesting. I love to change lenses and to experiment with them. What's the point of a DSLR if you will not? The possibility to pick the best lens for the task is the main advantage of a DSLR. (Otherwise a point & shoot camera or rangefinder will do it.)

My vote goes for the 24-70 f2.8L:

- F2.8 is not only about light, is also about DOF control, bokeh, etc.

- The 24-70 f2.8L has significantly less barrel distortion and vignetting.

- In this focal range IS is only relevant if people are not included in the frame (good only if you shoot landscapes or still subjects).

- I prefer other lenses if I want more reach.


In my view, the 24-105 f4L is a Swiss Army knife. I would have it if it was my only lens, but as said I prefer to pick the proper lens for the task.

Zooms lenses are already a compromise. I prefer not to compromise even further (unless I know I will be using it mainly for landscapes, as I do with my 17-40 f4L).

Okay, due to all of your suggestions I went with the 24-105. The reach and IS made up my mind for me and all the recommendations too.

Thanks a lot!