Need advice: 24-70L vs 24-105L

I'm currently at a dilemna with my gear. I'm selling my 28-135, because it doesn't get any use and I have no space in my bag for it. I would like to have that reach, but I don't particularly want the 70-200L at this point and time. I have one prime lens which is the nifty. I do find my self shooting at that focal point a decent amount on my 24-70L. I'm looking to sell the brick and purchase the 24-105L, or trade for it with some cash from a buyer on this forum. I'll lose a stop going from f/2.8 to f4, but I do have an external flash and a fast prime. I'm thinking the 24-105 would really suit my needs, but I'm unsure how much that extra stop would impact my photography. Any ideas; I would greatly appreciate. Sorry the sentences aren't super clear, but I was in a hurry typing it.

OH no. Not another thread!

Yeah, I know. This crap pops up all the time and it drives me crazy too. This one doesn't drive me as crazy as the 17-40 theads.

It really depends on what you're shooting. Walk around for a couple of days with the brick on f/4 and see if it makes a big difference to you or not.

SnapLocally.com wrote in post #7031803
It really depends on what you're shooting. Walk around for a couple of days with the brick on f/4 and see if it makes a big difference to you or not.

That's a good idea. I'll do that over the weekend.

I have both, and am a recent convert - I like the 24-105. Didn't think I would, being snobby with 2.8 I suppose, but the 24-205 is lighter and smaller, has the longer range, has IS and seems just as sharp, maybe sharper depending on focal length, than my 24-70.

I decided that all those factors trumped the loss of one stop.

That said, horses for courses...

How often are you shooting at 2.8? In those situations can you use a flash? Do you shoot low light a lot? I think you will be happy with the 24-105, but it just depends on what you shoot.

I shoot low light, I also bought my brick to "solve" my low light issues. I then ended up buying a flash and a 17-40 for my dedicated landscape lens. I shoot at f/2.8 to make it easier for me to get creamier bokeh, without having to fill the frame up. I'm trying to get outside more with my camera, but I've been sick all week and I haven't used it in a week. There's some cool places that I can take pictures at around my area as well. Decisions, decisions. . . . .

I actually find myself shooting at 2.2 on my nifty fifty, but I hardly ever shoot 2.8 on my brick like I thought I would. When I bought a flash so many problems were fixed, but I do like the pictures my 24-70 can produce. I just feel trading the brick for the 24-105 will halfway fill the void between the 24-70 and 28-135.

Well, the combo I like is the 17-55 2.8 to cover landscape and low light and the 24-105 for outside when I want more reach. A little off what you're considering but its another suggestion for ya.

All those topics are about what's more practical in individualized situations... but after having read them all, I still didn't find an answer I'd like to have:

side-by-side, same f/stop (say f/4), same focal lenght, IS turned off ... is one better than the other ?
if so, which one?
and in which aspects? contrast? sharpness? color accuracy? all those ?

The 24-105 is smaller and lighter and has IS. I see it as more of a walk around and general use type lens.

I see the 24-70 as more of a studio or application specific type lens. It is bigger and heaver, and it may not be something that you want to carry around all the time.

edit: omg I hit post 2699, I'm the same as the 5DII...yay!

Rodinal wrote in post #7035689
All those topics are about what's more practical in individualized situations... but after having read them all, I still didn't find an answer I'd like to have:

side-by-side, same f/stop (say f/4), same focal lenght, IS turned off ... is one better than the other ?
if so, which one?
and in which aspects? contrast? sharpness? color accuracy? all those ?

at f4 the 24-70L is much better....in every respect .

ed rader

ed rader wrote in post #7035747
at f4 the 24-70L is much better....in every respect .

ed rader

That's what I read today on Amazon. The reviewer who shot with the 24-105 and 24-70 said the 24-105 couldn't hold a candle to the 24-70.

The brick at f4 is wicked sharp. Granted the 24-105L is probably sharp at wideopen too but no comparison to a stopped down brick.

Bottom line is how important f/2.8 (f/3.2 to f/3.5) is to you or if range is more important to you.

If your a bokeh junkie and want "pop" the 24-70L is a great lens. If f/4 suites you fine and the option of IS you'll be happy with the 24-105L. One day I'll get the 24-105L for the sake of added range. At this moment the brick suites me fine with phenominal pop.

Not a duck!!! Brick f/2.8, 1/160, ISO 320 w/430EXII (resized only)

Could be significantly sharper at f/3.2