Which is better and why?

I'm interested in either the 24-70L or 24-105L, but can't decide. Is having an f2.8 max aperture better than f4 with IS?

With all the primes you have, might as well get a 24-105L IS if you like the range.

Me personally, I didn't buy a 70-200L IS for nothing. 24-70 wins out for design, sharpness, bokeh, IQ, contrast, low distortion, etc. etc. Too many positives for the 24-70 for me to even look in the general direction of the 24-105.

I agree with Ronald. If you want the range get the 24-105, but otherwise the 24-70 is the bomb!!

I also agree to the above two comments. I have owned both and the 24-70 is where it's at. period.

Take my fatherly advice which is based on the actual use of those lenses: NEITHER.
Get a $560 used (EX condition) 28-80L lens instead. KEH have a few.

Lord_Malone wrote in post #4334762
I'm interested in either the 24-70L or 24-105L, but can't decide. Is having an f2.8 max aperture better than f4 with IS?

Get the 24-105. It has IS. It'll stop the action for you.

:p

24-70L all the way

Hmm... should have added the 17-55 f/2.8 IS to the list as well. Too bad it's only for a crop but it beats both for IQ. With the other two, I have never had a chance to play with the 24-105 other than on 5D at Best Buy, but the 24-70 is a nice lens as well. I think that no matter which you choose, it's going to be good.

Stop being silly, pantie hoser (or whatever your nick is).

This is getting friggin' ridiculous! How many threads can run at once on these two lenses?!?

You are all idiots

Wouldn't the Tamron 90 Macro be a better choice?

I think the 15 fishy is the winner. Everything from landscapes to birding with one lens.

omgeez, are you serious with this thread, malone?

The answer is obviously neither. The 5d is such a vastly superior camera, all you need is crumpled up wax paper taped to the lens mount to create stunning images. Why spend any additional money.