Thinking about switching 24-70 to 24-105?

I have have the 24-70mm f/2.8L and I love it. Today I rented the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS and it was unbelievable. It was the first time I used a lens with IS. I think I need IS from now on. I had so many less blurry picture. I had hold almost exclusively. I almost always shoot from f/5.6 to f/8 I usually don't go below. I think the Rebel XT I have doesn't nail the focus, so I always shoot higher.

Anyway, what are your thoughts about switching? Do you think the 24-105mm f/4 L IS is as sharp? How many stops do you think the IS is good for on that lens?

I appreciate your insight.

I switched out my 24-70 for a 24-105 about a year ago and it was a good choice for me. I use the 24-105 mostly as a walk around zoom, and the IS and extra range are more useful for me than the extra stop of light (and I really love my fast lenses).

So I'd say if you don't need the extra stop on the 24-70, the 24-105 might be a better lens for you.

FWIW, the IQ of the 24-70 is very marginally better, little less distortion, but they're both great lenses IQ wise.

Awesome, that is helpful. I think I will try to rent the lens from school and compare them before I decide.

yes, the IS really works! i was able to shoot inside a cave (with artificial lighting but still dark enough to require ISO 1600) at 1/13 sec w/o tripod. F/4 is also sufficient for brightly-lit staged events and indoor ambient light shots, with a slight boost in ISO. i've never owned a 24-70 so can't compare IQ wise. the wider focal range of the 24-105 also negates the need to changes lenses often. if you don't need the extra stop and better bokeh of the 24-70, the 24-105 would suit you well as a walkabout all-purpose lens.

If you always shoot at f5.6-f8 then yes, the 24-105 IS is a great lens. But if you need f2.8 then IS won't make up for it. If you're shooting stage stuff, I often find that f4 with IS is a great combination. It all depends on your needs and shooting habits.

I find the 24-105 more useful for my style of photography, but I don't think I fit the mold of everyone on these forums. It's a very good lens, and pretty sharp wide open, but if you need the shallow DOF 2.8 provides (i don't shoot wide open very often in real life) it won't be able to compete.

If your not shooting wide open with the 24-70, then go for the 24-105.

I find the 4.0 limiting, but the IS is great. It will not make up for moving subjects in marginal light, but it will always be a favorite walk around OUTDOORS lens. IQ is very high. It is not a speedster, but it does very many things very very well, well enough to make it my choice for most OUTDOOR shooting.

Is wide open on the 24-105 pretty sharp?

I have had my rebel XT serviced before for adjusting the focus. I know it is not dead on. Every lens I put on it seems to back focus slightly at wide open. Thats why I shoot at f/5.6-8.

Another reason I do this is because I typically do outdoors environmental portraits with off camera flash. Usually it is better for my to use 5.6-8.0 for balancing the ambient and flash while keeping the shutter speed below sync speed. With my 24-70mm with no IS, I can't handhold below 1/180 of a second and get consistently sharp pictures at 70mm. I will get some, but most have a little camera shake. With the 70-200mm IS I was getting sharp pictures handheld at as low a 1/50 sec at 200mm.

To me the change is starting to make sense.

Here is a shot from last nights shoot with the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS.

MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script

I opted for the 24-105L because it suits my needs more often than the 24-70L. I find its quality to be outstanding. There are some times I need the extra stop and so for that I picked up a Tamron 28-75. That combination works great for me.

I currently own BOTH... But if one had to go it would be the 24-105 packing up and moving out... I like the IQ, color, and contrast of my 24-70, plus for my pro work I need the 2.8...

With that said, I think both lenses serve two different purposes and I'm fortunate enough where I can own both and use my 24-105 as a casual out doors walk-around / vacation lens...

It is a tough decision. Maybe I will try to maybe save up for the other to have both.

LotsToLearn wrote in post #5795097
I opted for the 24-105L because it suits my needs more often than the 24-70L. I find its quality to be outstanding. There are some times I need the extra stop and so for that I picked up a Tamron 28-75. That combination works great for me.

what body are you shooting it on?

This is an endless debate because it's different strokes for different folks. I've owned the 24-70 (just bought another copy) and like having the peace of mind that f/2.8 is available when needed, instead of having only f/4 wishing I had faster. I also have the Sigma 30mm and fast glass, for me, is the only way to go since I'm an ambient light-type who shoots in a wide range of lighting conditions.

If you can live with f/4, regardless of IS since it won't freeze action, then get the 24-105. If you need that extra stop, then stay with the 24-70. You can always use "foot" zoom to make up the difference.

Karl C is definitely right, each lens has advantages for different kinds of photographers. If you shoot under situations where you'd need to freeze the action or separate your subject from the background with more DOF control the f/2.8 lens may be a wiser choice. If on the other hand you shoot static objects and you want more DOF the 24-105 would be advantageous with the IS allowing you to use a smaller aperture, even handheld.

My subject matter is all primarily stationary objects, so the choice was pretty easy for me. Additionally the 24-105 is smaller and lighter, making cramming it in to an overstuffed bag a little easier and a bit more comfortable as a walk-around lens for long periods of time. I prefer to match fast primes with the 24-105 than fast primes with an f/2.8 normal zoom as well, for me it's more versatile.