24-70mm L or 24-105mm L?

WOW there is a lot of really good advice. It seems that there are perks to both lenses. I am back to the start again I think I am a little worried that the 24-70 doesnt have the IS...
I just dont know!!! I wish I was filthy rich and just get both

Ishootpeoplewithmycano​n wrote in post #9542011
I dont really need it to go that wide. I am very aware that I have a crop sensor. VERY aware.
I was just asking which lens you all liked better...
I want an L series lens because I have borrowed them and I love them.
So if you all are saying that those lense arent for lanscapes, portraiture, etc... then what are they used for?
I need an all purpose lens

Everybody take a deep breath If you're going to drop the money, some thoughts about what you're going to be shooting would be great. Not that you haven't done so, and not that you don't know all the specs. I think you're going to find lots of chatter good/bad about both. I've been reading lots of reviews of folks with a love/hate with their 24-70....lots of people raving about the sharpness of the 24-105..right next to those calling it overrated. If you like to shoot lots of different angles, and tend to go to the long end, my guess is you'll be happier with the 24-105. It will be fine outdoors, and some ok indoor shooting (if you can't flash). 24-70 if you're going to shoot in darker spots, and find yourself not shooting in the 70-105 range much. Essentially, you're not going to go wrong....either will be great...unless it doesn't match with how you want to shoot. If you just want to buy an L to buy an L, 24-70 should pack more 'shock n awe' and is weather sealed (even though your 40D isn't fully sealed).

Ishootpeoplewithmycano​n wrote in post #9542890
WOW there is a lot of really good advice. It seems that there are perks to both lenses. I am back to the start again I think I am a little worried that the 24-70 doesnt have the IS...
I just dont know!!! I wish I was filthy rich and just get both

and the IS is pretty good from what I understand. It's nice to have.

Better IS than no IS however you have to decide which is more important to you.
1 stop of light or 3 stops of handheld IS.

I drove 75 miles to meet the seller in person and inspect the lens (24-70) before I dropped $1200 bucks on it.

About IS...I remember back in the 70's IS wasn't an option on lenses!

MT Stringer wrote in post #9542971
About IS...I remember back in the 70's IS wasn't an option on lenses!

LOL but then neither was AF so should we all start shooting in MF?

Ishootpeoplewithmycano​n wrote in post #9542854
I wasnt refering to you when I was talking about being rude, I was talking about the guy who attacked me for asking a question.
I appreciate all feedback. BUT he way he said it was condescending like I should have known that. I have never posted on this board and havent been on potn for a while. So I felt he was very rude.

I didnt realize that I mis-typed the lenses I was talking about.
I meant the 24-70 and 24-105

don't be so defensive.

re-read my post, it's not an attack by any stretch of the imagination!

and what i actually said is still very valid. do a quick search and you will uncover a heap of info about your query.

Elisha wrote in post #9542919
Better IS than no IS however you have to decide which is more important to you.
1 stop of light or 3 stops of handheld IS.

No amount of stops from IS is going to stop subject motion. IS is great in good light but in low light... I'll take the faster lens.

sol95 wrote in post #9543463
don't be so defensive.

re-read my post, it's not an attack by any stretch of the imagination!

and what i actually said is still very valid. do a quick search and you will uncover a heap of info about your query.

She doesn't even have to search anymore. Now she can just look at the bottom of the page at the results a search would have brought up

From my perspective the IS is nice to have, but not critical. I would not say the same thing about my 70-200--on that, I can see a huge difference. I would not let the lack of IS be the deciding factor, but that's just my shooting style. Others make some good points in favor of it. The smaller size/weight and greater reach mean more to me. BUT the 24-70 makes some beautiful photos at 2.8...

Ishootpeople.... I have had both lenses and I wound up selling my 24-105 in order to buy the 24-70. I loved the image quality of the 24-105, but missed shooting at 2.8.... hence the 24-70. The image quality on both lenses is great... you really have to evaluate how often you might need to shoot in lower light. If you shoot mostly outdoors or in controlled lighting situations, you really can't go wrong with the 24-105. If money were not a factor, I probably would have kept both lenses. If you decide to get the 24-105, you should be able to find a very good copy on ebay for around $950-975.

Rey wrote in post #9543515
No amount of stops from IS is going to stop subject motion. IS is great in good light but in low light... I'll take the faster lens.

True but will you be able to take a 1/10th handheld shot of something stationary in an extremely dim situation at 70mm like you could with the 24-105L?

Both have their merits but I still stand by better IS than no IS. How often are you gonna shoot action in low light situations?

this debate never gets old. get both, seriously. I personally bought a 24-105 for it's compactness. However, I will probably end up picking up a 24-70 someday as well.

the 24-105 is dirt cheap new now, I'd buy that LOL (I have one for sale too BTW)

i am returning my 24-70 to maybe buy the 24-105L. so i'm on the same boat! 2.8 wasn't as sharp as i had anticipated.