24-105 IS or 24-70 2.8 ???

maximus78_06 wrote in post #7242417
Good lord! does Canon even know how much money they could make off of a 24-105mm f2.8 IS "L"!!!... but I have found out that I want them BOTH!

Or loose. Many get both because neither make for a complete lens. Why spend $1200 on one lens when you can soak the consumer for $2400 for two. . Yea, I think that the considered it.

I'd love either one of these lenses...but I think they're both out of my price range right now...I could barely afford my 40d + nifty fifty....each of these lenses cost more than my entire bundle....

you should add 4) is weight important to you? yes = 24-105 no = 24-70

a 24-70 will add a significant amount of weight to your camera. if this is going to be your walk around lens, make sure you know how much walking you will be doing ahead of time.

oh damn... ok good point about them making more money with what they are doin now.... I guess I would just really love for them to have that "made up" lens...

I went for the 24-105 because I wanted a more general purpose lens, especially for hikes and travelling, and the 24-105 is much lighter, and the IS lets you get some nifty handheld longer exposure shots. For me, the 24-70 is a more specialized lens - better for weddings, fashion, etc - it also has MUCH nicer bokeh than the 24-105, but I have the 85L for that kind of stuff.

The 24-105 is the most USEFUL lens I've owned - not as glamourous as the 24-70, but just so incredibly useful on the 5D. Both are very sharp, but the 24-70 has less distortion and better bokeh.

Both are excellent choices, and you can't go wrong either way.

c2thew wrote in post #7242721
you should add 4) is weight important to you? yes = 24-105 no = 24-70

a 24-70 will add a significant amount of weight to your camera. if this is going to be your walk around lens, make sure you know how much walking you will be doing ahead of time.

That's a good one but I figure that if you have a 5D, your not all that concerned about weight. Heck it weighs in at almost 2 pounds without a battery all by itself. Maybe if you were looking for the lens on a rebel series camera weight might be an important factor. But yea, the 24-70 is nicknamed the brick for a reason.

gjl711 wrote in post #7242827
That's a good one but I figure that if you have a 5D, your not all that concerned about weight. Heck it weighs in at almost 2 pounds without a battery all by itself. Maybe if you were looking for the lens on a rebel series camera weight might be an important factor. But yea, the 24-70 is nicknamed the brick for a reason.

Your argument is a little like laughing at someone for drinking a diet soda with a high-fat meal.

But the only thing worse than eating a high-fat meal is dumping a bunch of sugar calories on top of it.

The only thing worse than hiking with a heavy camera is putting a monster lens on it.

Rick "who has hiked extensively with a Kiev 60 that outweighs your whole 5D camera bag, and probably the car you carry it in" Denney

gjl711 wrote in post #7242121
Woohoo.. The two heavyweights are gonna duke it out again. I voted 24-70 but just because I like the f/2.8, no other reason. But you might want to do a search. These two lenses have been duking it out for a long time and there is never a clear cut winner. Check out these threads.
https://photography-on-the.net …835&highlight=2​4-105+poll
https://photography-on-the.net …266&highlight=2​4-105+poll
https://photography-on-the.net …750&highlight=2​4-105+poll
https://photography-on-the.net …983&highlight=2​4-105+poll

And my absolute favorite because the 24-105 is the clear winner.
https://photography-on-the.net …hp?t=408385&hig​hlight=win

Hahaha one of those are my threads, i've had both lenses, and i ended up sticking with the 24-70. The extra focal length was covered by other lenses i have but, if it's your only lense, i would go 24-105, gives you more options :P

Another happy 24-105 L IS user.
The extended reach and IS are big plusses for me.

For what its worth, when I upgraded from a 40D to a 5dmk2, I sold my 17-55 2.8IS and picked up the 24-70. For my purposes, it just didnt feel quite right for me, and was also too standard of a focal range to really be of any use to me (in other words, I was more likely to pick up my 16-35 2.8, 70-200 2.8IS).

I ended up returning it, and picking up the 24-105 because despite the f4, I find it to be more versatile as a one lens to carry solution. If my subjects are moving too fast, I can simply up the iso of my 5d to compensate as well. I have not had any regrets on my decision (except that knowing then what I know now, I would have saved some money by picking up the 24-105 as part of the 5dmk2 kit.

IMO if you are shooting things mainly during the day and need the extra reach, the 24-105 is THE way to go. IS also helps too.

If you're shooting at night and don't want to use the flash or don't have the capability to go higher than 1600 ISO then go with the 24-70mm. I bought a 24-70mm 2.8 because I sometimes went shooting concerts with my uncle and the 2.8 helped tremendously. Prior to that all the lenses I've been using resulted in a lot of blurry images.

Wow, another one of these threads

mayerk wrote in post #7242247
Actually, it's yes,yes, no. I could honestly go either way. I guess I'm waiting for someone to give the old " I've used both and I think the 24-70 seems a little sharper" or something along those lines.

I'm yes, yes, no too. Maybe you should sell your 5D and buy a 50D + EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS. It's meant to be a great lens.

Personally I'm a 24-105 person, because I like to have the IS. f/2.8 would be nice, but for me, IS is more important. If I'm shooting anything in real "low light" then I have my 85mm f/1.8 and 50mm f/1.4.

I like the IQ of the 24-70 better than the other. Contrast and colours mainly I feel are better.

On the old 5D, f/4 can be limiting for low light and night time shots. Can't stop people from moving, IS doesn't help at all. But less noise for higher iso's on the Mark II version might make the f/4 ok...

But, I find the 24-70 a bit short for a walk around lens on the full frame camera, the 24-105 is just a better range for me - but the 24-70 is a great range on my crop camera.

I'm going to sell my 24-105, as I use my 135L + 16-35 combo for travelling (instead of the 24-105 cause it is f/4 limited, and not as good), and 24-70 for sport, social and indoor events when I HAVE to use a zoom. Otherwise I'm prime all the way.

decisions..decisions for you!

Get both?

Two different lenses - One more of a general walkaround, the other a big heavy 'brick' with a hood like a bucket that has better bokeh.

IQ may be very slightly better on the 24-70...

24-70 is a bit short for portrait on the 5D, but one of the reasons I chose it over the 24-105 was that I had plan to add a 70-200 later.