24-70mm 2.8L or 24-105mm 4L ??

I have the 24-105 and I really love it! I rented the 24-70 for a wedding I shot a few weeks ago, and I was really impressed with that lens as well. However, I primarily photography lanscapes, so I really won't have much use for the 2.8, and the added reach of the 24-105, plus the IS really stood out for me. Don't get me wrong, the 24-70 is a great lens, but for my style of photography, the 24-105 won out.

Glenn NK wrote in post #2285766
Just went through the links and ended up here:

http://www.adidap.com …28-over-the-24-105-f4-is/

On Point 6.b - Reach Consideration: I'm confused - does he have this right? Wouldn't the crop factor affect both lenses equally? How would the "crop factor compensate for the extra reach of the 24-105" over the 24-70?

With the 1.6 crop factor, the effective ranges are:

24/70: 38.4 to 112

24/105: 38.4 to 168

Where is the gain for the 24-70?

it means that if you have a 1.6 crop factor than 70 mm is 112mm effective so it as if you had a 24-105 on a full frame reach wise because many think (and it is true) that 70mm is short for a walk around lens. just pointing out that if you have a croped sensor it is no more 70mm

The question of 24-70mm 2.8L vs 24-105mm 4.0L has been debated to no end, and I had the same dilema before I bought my 24-105 several weeks ago... What I did was search the forums hear, search other photography forums, and Google the lens Vs. each other- there is a lot of good info out there, and they are both good lenses with thier own positives. Bottom line is only you can decide which one fits your needs the best.

I just got back from Sedona and am very happy with my results with my 24-105, wasn't to heavy to carry around and hike with and gave me outstanding results.....

Apples or oranges? The chicken or the egg? 24-70 or 24-105?

How does the Canon 24-70 f/ 2.8L compare with the Sigma 24-70 f/ 2.8
The Sigma cost being much lower than the Canon, is the Sigma lens value for money.
Darryl Baptista

Darryl Baptista wrote in post #2287837
How does the Canon 24-70 f/ 2.8L compare with the Sigma 24-70 f/ 2.8
The Sigma cost being much lower than the Canon, is the Sigma lens value for money.
Darryl Baptista

IQ wise, the differences aren't big(and are due more to lens to lens variation). However, the Sigma does not have its HSM in this lens(their version of Canon's USM). Which is there better AF system. So if you don't do low light stuff or do high action stuff, it will deliever just fine.

Darryl Baptista wrote in post #2287837
How does the Canon 24-70 f/ 2.8L compare with the Sigma 24-70 f/ 2.8
The Sigma cost being much lower than the Canon, is the Sigma lens value for money.
Darryl Baptista

The sigma 24-70 is a sharp lens used to own one untill I got hooked on "L" glass

MegaTron wrote in post #2240867
I asked myself the same question a hundred times, and ended up buying both. Big mistake, now I want to keep both of them.

Now, that's an innovative solution

What you lose is 1 stop when you are shooting motion and may want the 2.8 - but you are gaining 3 stops in all other shots. I would bet the 24-105 is a safer bet for a great walkaround.

I've got a similar predicament...

I've got the option to buy one or the other too.

I've decided with the 24-70 because of the f/2.8 and almost that soley.

I've got the entry level 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS and get frustrated with the f/4 when I do indoor shots. I mean sure... IS will help if the subject is stationary, but more often than not, it's moving.

I can live with the 300-400g of extra weight compared to the 24-105 to have the f/2.8 of the 24-70.

get the 24-70L now, and save to get the 70-200L 2.8 IS later. That is a great combo, imo.

I got the 28-70L f2.8 (few years old) and i absolutely love it, although for a walkaround, i usually prefer about 100+mm zoom range. (i shoot details more than wide shots)

I carry the 28-70 2.8L and the 70-200f4L when im out shooting, leave the rest of the kit at home.