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

If they have the right to make stupid irrelivent assumptions and comments then I have the right to say that I dont care about what they think.
Your right, this is the internet and people can say what they want so that means that I have the right to do so also.
Dont worry, I didnt cry myself to sleep over it there are many other things in life much more important and worthy of my time then people who just want to be know-it-all jerks

Rey wrote in post #9554147
Calm down. You are posting on a public internet forum. You ask for opinions and people will give them to you. Yes, they will even make assumptions. The assumptions not only are a reflection of yourself but also the people replying. Don't take anything too personal. Ultimately you are going to need to decide what is best for the kind of shooting you do (or plan to do).

Each lens has their strengths and weaknesses. The 24-105 has a longer focal length and IS. The 24-70 is faster but heavier. If you are taking mostly vacation photos in good light and want an all around walk-around lens that is convenient then go for the 24-105. If you want to take photos such as portraits, possibly in low light, and want better subject isolation and flexibility then think about the 24-70. IMHO, the 24-70 offers more flexibility when you want to get creative with your shots. IS is nice to have but it is NOT a replacement for a fast lens. It's no mistake it is a favorite of wedding and portrait photographers. Also, if you are seriously considering a 5D mark II it may be of value to note that an aperture of f2.8 or larger will enable high-precision AF points on this camera.

sandpiper wrote in post #9554092
Jeez, will you two stop repeating the same arguments over and over. Elisha gets your point and understands where the advantages lie with a faster lens. You are repeatedly pointing out the same things despite Elisha NOT arguing with them.

You are both making good points that suit your individual requirements. Not everybody is the same and trying to tell them that your choice is more flexible is arrogant in the extreme - it doesn't mean that it fits for everybody.

Yes, faster offers more flexibility in some circumstances. As Elisha points out though, one stop isn't a huge difference and it will only help out when the light level is at just that level. Any more light and both lenses will get the shot, then you have that narrow one stop band of light level where the f/2.8 will get the shot but the f/4 won't, then the light level becomes too low for either lens to get the shot. If you are regularly shooting in just that amount of light then the f/2.8 is great.

You seem to ignore the versatility that 3-4 stop IS gives and dismiss it entirely. I fully accept your point about faster lenses and stopping motion, I have a selection of fast primes for that purpose, which give me significantly more of an advantage in that area than the 24-70L. However, the IS does give a huge versatility to the 24-105L over the 24-70L.

Banging on about not needing IS "because you can use a tripod" may be fine for you, but I (and quite possibly Elisha) shoot static subjects in areas where tripods are either not allowed at all, or at best are extremely impractical due to space considerations and the mass of people moving around a confined area. Tripods are great in some circumstances, but not everybody sticks to those shots.

When I shoot in low light, I generally have two bodies in use, one mounted with the 24-105L and the other with a fast prime. This means that I can cope with static OR moving subjects as required. In many cases however, I cannot get sufficient shutter speed with a f/1.8 lens to shoot handheld, but can comfortably do so with the 24-105L at the same (or even longer) focal lengths. If the f/1.8 won't let in enough light, the 24-70L certainly isn't going to. In such cases, quite common for me, the 24-105L is the only lens that I can get the shot with, due to the versatility afforded by IS.

PLEASE, try and understand the points that Elisha has been making. Nobody is arguing that IS works for moving subjects as well as a faster lens does, the point is that there are times IS is the only way to get the job done - please try and accept that. It may not be the case for you and what you shoot, but it certainly is for others.

For myself, and many others, the 24-70L just isn't fast enough to be bought because of its speed. If I need a lens to shoot wide open in low light, then f/2.8 isn't much faster than f/4, it gives very little advantage and loses the IS for other times. It is a compromise, without IS it is poor for handholding purposes and if you need a fast aperture for moving subjects, then fast primes are the way to go.

I could as easily criticise your choice of 24-70L (over a fast prime) the same way you criticise Elisha for getting the 24-105L - by saying "If you don't understand the greater flexibility a faster lens affords then I'm sure in time you will".

The fact is, I am sure you, and Elisha, have bought exactly the right lens for the purposes it will be put to. So please, stop bickering.

good point..... i just recently bought 24-70 over 24-105, thinkin i( as an amteur) will benefit from 2.8 aperture. i know i will. but i found it hard to use on slower shutter without tripod and specifically without IS. that i have to stick on the rule of thumb with speed /focal ratio on handheld shots. one more point, is that @24mm using the on board flash will give you a shadow of the lens using t1i body or any crop sensor body. i learned the hard way, buy the basic gear first beofre jumping into one of major lens purchase... now, im wondering whats gonna happen in the case of 24-105....

ponzy wrote in post #9557078
one more point, is that @24mm using the on board flash will give you a shadow of the lens using t1i body or any crop sensor body. i learned the hard way, buy the basic gear first beofre jumping into one of major lens purchase... now, im wondering whats gonna happen in the case of 24-105....

If you think the shadow is bad now, try it with a 10d--they changed the flash on all cameras after the 10d at least partially because of this awful shadow. Good thing about it was that it pushed me completely away from the onboard flash. I haven't used it since!

Yes and no...

SuzyView wrote in post #9541899
okay, you need to clarify. The 24-70 f2.8 is around $1400. The 24-105 f4 IS is around $1250. The EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS is around $1150. The last one is the one you want for the 40D. The other ones will be too long for many of the shots you want on a 1.6 cropped camera.

That is why DSLR cameras have interchangeable lenses... I just love my 17-55mm f/2.8 lens but for me, it is just too short to be the only lens (and I have tried that route). I carry the 17-55mm in tandem with a 70-200mm f/4L IS lens.

Either the 24-70L or the 24-105L IS will match up well with the OP's Tokina wide angle.

Speaking only about focal range and not about other parameters like image quality and f/stop... My favorite combination is the 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS and the 12-24mm f/4 Tokina.

When I used a single body, I found that I usually had more time to attach a wide angle lens than I did a longer lens, so I preferred a lens with a longer side backed up by a wide angle. Shots with a longer lens were often grab shops - here one second and gone the next.

Elisha wrote in post #9554280
Ok lets put that all aside.

Sharpness wise, isn't the 24-105L sharper than the 24-70L?
Even with both on f/4, the 24-105L is still sharper.

Could be due to a newer design. But the Canon 24-70L is not the best in class class 24-70mm compared to the Nikkor and the Sony's CZ.

I believe to me it's speed does not outweigh it's flaws and the cost associated with it's flaws compared to the 24-105L.

I don't believe this to be true. I owned both lenses at one point a few years ago, did some comparisons with the copies I had, the 24-70 was sharper than the 24-105. Not by a whole lot and only when pixel peeping, so I'm not sure it mattered much. I decided to keep the 24-70.

F4 is gonna be a problem in low lighting condition because this IS thing is not gonna help you if you're shooting moving objects.
From my experience, 24-70mm is a better choice.

But then again it's depending on what you need.

Maybe you need to pray while sitting under the waterfall to get a guidance from Camera God or something.
I'm just kidding.

If you are planning to move to a 5Dii in the near future, it might be worth waiting and getting the 24-105 as part of a 5Dii kit. There are very good deals around. The 24-105 is a very good multi-purpose lens on the 5Dii, I personally find 70mm tol be too short on FF for such a lens.

+1 on getting the 24-105 with a 5D II as a kit. Plus it makes a great combo as I would find 70mm too short for a general purpose lens.

+2 on the kit lens package with 24-105

A couple of issues I have with the 24-70. First is the age of it. It may be 5 years before it's updated, but many a rumor has it to be this year, if not...early next, with IS no less! My second issue goes a bit deeper...There are so many great primes available in this focal range from Canon and Sigma. For darn near the same price of the 24-70...especially if "Subject Isolation" and "Speed" are your primary concerns...one could pick up the Sigma 30/1.4, Canon or Sigma 50/1.4, and either direction....the 24mm or the 85mm...essentially covering the range, with Super Speed, Creamy Bokeh, and about the same money out of pocket.

Obviously, with primes, you lose the flexibility of the zoom...BUT, you gain so much in the speed and isolation, sharpness categories imho. This is kind of a cool option Canon and third party manufacturers have given us...so many great prime choices at decent prices....

I'm with shootpeoplewithcanon..​..L series glass IS the best! Gotta have it and the more, the better Especially on your way to FF. Don't mess with EFS glass. The 24-105 is an excellent piece of glass and a much newer design...lot less likely to be replaced in the near future.

Someone mentioned earlier...

"LOL. L lenses keep their value pretty well. AND if an IS version of the 24-70 did come out I'd expect it to be priced substantially higher than the non-IS version, keeping the non-IS version's value stable on the used market."

Your expectations and reality are two different animals

I just bought an immaculate copy of a 16-35v1 for 750. That's pretty consistent with ebay as well and half the price of the new V2. Canon did NOT price the 16-35vII higher on release...it was the same as V1. To this point, Canon has not done this...they've been very consistent with their pricing on updated lenses...other than the economy having an impact on the prices sliding +/-....

Current L glass seems to typically fetch 70-80% of retail on the used market.

My apologies to the OP for the tangent...but with the end of life on the 24-70 being a real possibility, the lack of IS, it's weight....AND, the almost 500 dollar price difference (*if purchased WITH a 5d2 OR picked up from someone that has)...the 24-105 is attractive...and to those whose 24-70's are sharper than their 24-105's...you're a lucky few. Every test I've seen has the 24-105 as a sharpness winner
My experiences were similar...soft images wide open compared to my primes, at the time (Sig 30 and 50). I've since added some L primes and again, couldn't agree more with the OP in the direction she's going.

L gass is a totally different level of Everything!!! (IQ, build, durability, sealing, feel, aesthetics, etc). The ONLY drawback is the fact that it's a disease...you'll become addicted after the first "L" lens, you've been warned

Jer

Jeremy H wrote in post #9558900
Your expectations and reality are two different animals

I just bought an immaculate copy of a 16-35v1 for 750. That's pretty consistent with ebay as well and half the price of the new V2. Canon did NOT price the 16-35vII higher on release...it was the same as V1. To this point, Canon has not done this...they've been very consistent with their pricing on updated lenses...other than the economy having an impact on the prices sliding +/-....

Jer

Really depends on a) if they come out with a 24-70IS b) if it is a replacement or an option. Remember they have the 70-200 in IS and non IS and the f4IS version came out much more expensive than the non IS--and has stayed that way. The 16-35 was a replacement.

Of course, I'd still suggest looking hard at the focal lengths and f-stops you use regularly and buy accordingly. I'd love to have the 16-35 for instance, but it wouldn't make a lot of sense for me as I rarely use that range and almost never use f4 at that range.

A perfect solution would be a 24-105 2.8IS but imagine the size and weight of that (think this)! I purchased a 24-70 to replace my 24-105 only to find that these are two very different lenses that, for me, serve two different purposes. In the end, I have decided to keep both. I would sell the 24-70 first if needed.

24-105: lighter, better FL range, capable of low shutter speeds, this is my vacation lens
24-70: one stop gain, better bokeh, sexier looking This is more of a portrait lens for me.

I have three lenses, the slowest of which is 2.8. I will have to think long and hard about ever getting a lens that isn't 2.8. I live in MN and it seems like most of my shots, especially in the winter, are indoors. The 2.8 also creates great background blur and lets you capture high-speed action. Also, there always seems to be a trade off with longer zoom ranges. My next lens will be the 24-70.

I wouldn't be surprised if a 24-70 2.8 IS came out and tickled the $2K mark.

I've been very happy with the 24-105 as an all-around lens-- more reach and IS trump the extra stop of aperture for me.

sebr wrote in post #9558323
If you are planning to move to a 5Dii in the near future, it might be worth waiting and getting the 24-105 as part of a 5Dii kit. There are very good deals around. The 24-105 is a very good multi-purpose lens on the 5Dii, I personally find 70mm tol be too short on FF for such a lens.

This is probably the best advice that I have heard yet... I think that's what I will do!!!
Thanks everyone for al of your great advice and opinions, I really appreciate it.
when it comes down to it, I dont think I could go wrong either way
I will probably purchase the 5DII with that lens within the next year.
A far as I am concerned you can never have to much awesome gear

17-55 IS is awesome.
I really like the versatility of IS even in 24-105 f4 over the 24-70 2.8
Besides if i really the speed I just whip out a prime lens.