Would I be nuts for wanting to trade my 24-70 L for...

The slightest motion will blur a subject, regardless of IS. That's where the 2.8 comes in handy.

burntbizzkit wrote in post #3138020
People always say "I don't shoot a lot of low-light, so I won't miss the extra stop". What these people don't realize is the 24-105 is BETTER in all low-light situations that do not involve a fast moving subject.

The 3-stop IS on the 24-105 lets you hold the lens steady for 2 MORE stops then you would be able to with the 24-70. So in the same low-light conditions and shooting hand-held, the 24-105 will usually give you noticeable better results if your shutter speeds are in the 1/30 or slower range.

It's has a larger range and is much better in the hands then the 24-70. If you're not shooting fast moving subjects, then there's really no reason to have the 24-70.

i agree with the first part: the 24-105L is a better low light lens in general. sure the 24-70L has the advantage in lower light for moving objects until the lights get dimmer.

but i strongly disagree with the part i highlighted. i've owned both of these lenses and have taken literally thousands of pictures with each.

the 24-70L is capable of better IQ. it is a very good portrait lens on a 1.6 crop camera and from what i hear on a 1.3 crop camera as well.

the 24-105L is a mediocre portrait lens and has the worst bokeh in some cases that i have seen and i seldom got that 3d IQ like i get with the 24-70L.

also, the 24-70L is more usable wide open -- i.e., i seldom used the 24-105L wide open because i did not like the results, and i shoot all the time with the 24-70L wide with full confidence.

the way i see it there are plenty of reasons to choose the 24-70L beside for shooting fast moving objects, which i seldom shoot with my brick.

ed rader

Thanks Ed. I didn't realize that the 24-105 had bokeh issues and problems at f/4.0. I assumed it was just as wonderful as the 24-70

And yes, the 24-70 is pretty sweet on a 1.3x. It's tied for my #1 used lens!

I have owned all of them, the 24-105L is the most veratile of them all and my first choice

Or do what I did .. Buy both

I have two bodies and use them both .. The 24-105 works great indoors/outdoors with IS and has a perfect range for grab shots.

Frankly I've debated getting rid of the 24-70 but it's such a work horse of a lens that I just can't do it. I'm a loyal owner and will just keep 'em both.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again- my 24-104 L is going in the casket with me. I'm thinking of having it mummified.

I haven't used the 24-70 though.

My question is- if he's not going to be shooting indoors, why does he need the low-light capabilities of a 2.8? I understand the stop-action, but if he's not keeping his 24-70, why replace it with another 2.8 lens? I'd go for the longer reach of the 24-105 OR for the wider angle of the 18-55, but not for the 18-55 because it was 2.8!

august23 wrote in post #3138021
The slightest motion will blur a subject, regardless of IS. That's where the 2.8 comes in handy.

OMG! Even with 2.8 this does not change. I agree shutter speed goes up but at 2.8 you'll need some distance to get the right dof for your shot.

calicokat wrote in post #3138211
I have owned all of them, the 24-105L is the most veratile of them all and my first choice

I second this and I've owned the 24-70 and the 24-105.

And I seriously disagree that the 24-105 isn't useable at f4. I find it very useable there. The bokeh isn't as good as the 24-70 but it's not horrid by any means.

I would give up my 28-70 2.8L before my 24-105 4L, however I'm planning on keeping both.

Can you rent a 24-105 or trade with someone for a few days to see if you like it?

I was thinking of getting the 24-105 a while ago too but now I have the 24-70, I don't think I'd make the trade.

I have no problem with the bokeh of the 24-105 - I've had it for a while now (since the 400D came out, when I sold my 18-50 EX to a friend who had just got the 400D, and I got the 24-105 to replace it).

While I don't have a problem with the quality of the bokeh with the 24-105, it would be nice to have an extra stop to narrow the depth of field more.

Chris,

I have both the 24-70 and the 17-55. The IQ for both are equal. I much perfer the 17-55 as I can use it for day & night and WA to "street" all wrapped up in one lens. IS is a big plus to me.

I have no experience with the 24-105 but it is not as wide as I like. I did see that you have the 10-22 so you are covered for WA albeit with a lens swap when shooting. So, if continuous focal coverage is your concern then go with the 24-105. But if flexibility in one lens with outstanding IQ is the goal then go with the 17-55.

BTW...I use my 10-22 on my 2nd body and I use the 24-70 when I am shooting portriats and need the flexibility of the zoom...the 24-70 is simply outstanding for portriat photography.

august23 wrote in post #3137690
Thats gotta be a tack sharp lens cjm. I heard UU and on fixed that QC problem with softness.

Is that true?

I've been wondering why so many talk about bad copies of this lens while mine is sharp as a tack......go figure, it's a UU.

I have both. I take the 24-70 along much more than the 24-105. There isn't enough difference (to me) in their range that the 24-105 would eliminate any need for me to carry a second lens. The action-stopping extra stop and DoF control of the f/2.8 on the 24-70 are also big factors.

24-70 for me.