Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 29 Mar 2010 (Monday) 15:13
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Another 24-70 vs 24-105 thread

 
CalPiker
Senior Member
Avatar
397 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2009
Location: 33° 36' 26", -117° 55' 45"
     
Mar 29, 2010 15:13 |  #1

So after many months and switching between wanting to get the 24-70 or the 24-105, I finally decided to rent both and make a comparison. I just could not make up my mind on which one to get. Just when I thought I wanted the 24-70, because I already have the 70-200 (didn't need the 70-105 part), I changed my mind because of the IS on the 24-105. I don't do a lot of indoor, low-light shooting, which for some reason people think that's all the 2.8 is good for (based on some other posts. I guess it is good for them, but not me). Getting the shallower depth of field was kind of important, but I do have the 50 f1.8 if I need it. Weight wasn't a concern for me and the prices are only about $100 difference.

So I have been going back and forth between the two and it has been driving me nuts. The thing I think I might miss most is not having these lenses be wider than they are. I'm going to get one of them to replace my 18-55 kit lens (could possibly upgrade to 5D soon). I have found that I use 18mm a lot. But I have been shooting with the kit lens at 24mm for some time just to see how much I would miss it. Maybe a little bit. Which this now puts me in another dilemma - 16-35 or 17-40 as my next lens. What a terrible problem to have, right? :)

Right now, I think the IS is the determining factor for me to get the 24-105 over the 24-70. I don't normally shoot people, so I'd like to be able to use this at slower shutter speeds than 1/FL with that little extra help. I'm definitely going to do some comparison testing between the two lenses at times when I would normally shoot (I do a lot of sunsets, so I will have to see how the IS vs 2.8 compares. See my Smugmug link in my sig for what I like to shoot). Wish me luck, because I think at the end of my rental period I will still have a problem deciding.


Gear List
Can I take your picture? "I'll swallow your soul!" Well, my camera will at least.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
FuturamaJSP
Goldmember
Avatar
2,227 posts
Likes: 81
Joined Oct 2009
     
Mar 29, 2010 15:17 |  #2

I can bet a hundred bucks on that within the next 5 replies someone is going to try to talk you into getting a ef-s 17-55 :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Seriously though I had the very same dilemma before I bought the 24-70L and I am very happy with it mainly because of it's wider aperture. I just love the bokeh and shallow dof created by that lens. I have had a nifty fifty believe me the brick totally outperforms it even though it's like one and a half stops faster.


They asked me how well I understood theoretical physics. I said I had a theoretical degree in physics. They said welcome aboard! - Fallout New Vegas
blah blah blah
DA (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Jerobean
Senior Member
785 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Mar 2008
     
Mar 29, 2010 15:23 |  #3

hmm, why would you shoot a sunset at f2.8?

seems for you a 24-105 is the answer. If you need to shoot indoors, get a flash or get a fast prime.


_______________
6d, 24-105L, Tak SMC 50 1.4, 85 1.8, 135L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
GilesGuthrie
Goldmember
Avatar
1,103 posts
Joined Jul 2006
Location: Edinburgh, UK
     
Mar 29, 2010 15:25 |  #4

I have both. 24-70 is, for me, a "people lens". Whereas 24-105 is a "scenery lens". A lot of people think that low light automatically requires wide aperture, but if you're being a tourist, you don't want the narrow DOF that wide aperture necessitates.


Blipfoto (external link) - Flickr (external link) - Twitter (external link)
Canon EOS 1d X, 1d MkIII, 5d. Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CalPiker
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
397 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2009
Location: 33° 36' 26", -117° 55' 45"
     
Mar 29, 2010 15:26 |  #5

FuturamaJSP wrote in post #9894704 (external link)
I can bet a hundred bucks on that within the next 5 replies someone is going to try to talk you into getting a ef-s 17-55 :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Haha, yeah. That's why I put in there that I would probably upgrade to the 5D soon. I don't need another lens I can't use! :)


Gear List
Can I take your picture? "I'll swallow your soul!" Well, my camera will at least.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
chadmyers
Hatchling
8 posts
Joined Mar 2010
Location: Columbus, Ohio
     
Mar 29, 2010 15:36 |  #6

I have the Canon 5Dmk2 and the 24-70 and use it for weddings and I love it! Works great in low light, and i'm sure the 5dmk2 helps!

chad


Chad
DM Studio2 Photography (external link)
Columbus Ohio Wedding Photographer (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tisun
Member
38 posts
Joined Jan 2009
Location: SF Bay Area
     
Mar 29, 2010 15:37 as a reply to  @ CalPiker's post |  #7

I think you need both. :) I used to have a 24-70 and used it for indoor, kids, and walk-around lens. It was too damn heavy as a walk-around lens and I wasn't using shallow DOF much so I traded for a 24-105 IS. Indoor shots of people with flash was a tad sharper because of IS. As a walk-around lens, it's great. However, I found I missed the shallow DOF so I got a 50mm f/1.8. The 50mm lens is too slow in focus and misses focus more frequently than the 24-70. Now I miss the 24-70. :(




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
the ­ phelp
Senior Member
Avatar
581 posts
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Malvern, PA
     
Mar 29, 2010 15:37 |  #8

I went through the same thing, and ended up with the 24-70. Depth of field was a big factor, but also consider that shooting in anything but bright sunlight can push your ability to get a desirable shutter speed for a moving subject. I spent a couple hours shooting running dogs in overcast weather yesterday, and the extra aperture was helpful.


->Mike
---------------
Gear List: 7D; 40D; 10-22; 24-70; 50/1.4; 100/2.8; 135/2; 100-400; 580ex; MT-24
my zenfolio (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
iFloyd
Senior Member
Avatar
439 posts
Joined Feb 2010
Location: Hawaii
     
Mar 29, 2010 17:12 |  #9

the phelp wrote in post #9894840 (external link)
I went through the same thing, and ended up with the 24-70. Depth of field was a big factor, but also consider that shooting in anything but bright sunlight can push your ability to get a desirable shutter speed for a moving subject. I spent a couple hours shooting running dogs in overcast weather yesterday, and the extra aperture was helpful.

same here, my 24-70 is my go-to lens


gear | flickr (external link) | blog (external link) | website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Deep ­ Pocket
Goldmember
1,329 posts
Joined Feb 2010
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
     
Mar 29, 2010 17:24 |  #10
bannedPermanent ban

I don't find the slight extra reach and IS of the 24-105 justifiable to give up f/2.8. F/2.8 can be very useful in isolating subjects. If you really want something slightly longer just pick up a 70-200.

On the other hand, I find it perfectly justifiable to get the 24-105 and just a fast prime for subject isolating and low light. f/2.8 is no means a miracle and a lot of the time it's not enough for any indoor work without high ISO, or not enough to isolate much. Your option here would be a 24-105 and perhaps something like a 50 1.4 / 135 2.0


17 and learning..
Canon Rebel XSI/450D:
Sigma 30 f/1.4, EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS, 18-55 Kit Lens

Deviantart (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
PrimeGlass
Member
Avatar
173 posts
Joined Feb 2010
Location: Texas
     
Mar 29, 2010 17:37 |  #11
bannedPermanent ban

I kept both the 24-70 and 24-105. It was hard to justify at first but it makes the most sense in the end. The 24-70 is great for portraits, lower light shooting, better isolation, etc. but its too heavy and short for me when travelling.


5D MKII I 1D MKIII GEAR LIST & FEEDBACK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
xarqi
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,435 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2005
Location: Aotearoa/New Zealand
     
Mar 29, 2010 18:07 as a reply to  @ PrimeGlass's post |  #12

FuturamaJSP wrote in post #9894704 (external link)
I can bet a hundred bucks on that within the next 5 replies someone is going to try to talk you into getting a ef-s 17-55 :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Excellent suggestion since ...

CalPiker wrote in post #9894675 (external link)
So after many months and switching between wanting to get the 24-70 or the 24-105, I finally decided to rent both and make a comparison. I just could not make up my mind on which one to get. Just when I thought I wanted the 24-70, because I already have the 70-200 (didn't need the 70-105 part), I changed my mind because of the IS on the 24-105. I don't do a lot of indoor, low-light shooting, which for some reason people think that's all the 2.8 is good for (based on some other posts. I guess it is good for them, but not me). Getting the shallower depth of field was kind of important, but I do have the 50 f1.8 if I need it. Weight wasn't a concern for me and the prices are only about $100 difference.

So I have been going back and forth between the two and it has been driving me nuts. The thing I think I might miss most is not having these lenses be wider than they are.
I'm going to get one of them to replace my 18-55 kit lens (could possibly upgrade to 5D soon). I have found that I use 18mm a lot. But I have been shooting with the kit lens at 24mm for some time just to see how much I would miss it. Maybe a little bit. Which this now puts me in another dilemma - 16-35 or 17-40 as my next lens. What a terrible problem to have, right? :)

Right now, I think the IS is the determining factor for me to get the 24-105 over the 24-70. I don't normally shoot people, so I'd like to be able to use this at slower shutter speeds than 1/FL with that little extra help. I'm definitely going to do some comparison testing between the two lenses at times when I would normally shoot (I do a lot of sunsets, so I will have to see how the IS vs 2.8 compares. See my Smugmug link in my sig for what I like to shoot). Wish me luck, because I think at the end of my rental period I will still have a problem deciding.

CalPiker wrote in post #9894777 (external link)
Haha, yeah. That's why I put in there that I would probably upgrade to the 5D soon. I don't need another lens I can't use! :)

"Probably soon" = "maybe one day".

When and if you move to a different format, you'll have to re-evaluate your lens set anyway, and you may even choose to keep an APS-C body. You would certainly be able to recoup a large fraction of the purchase cost if you should choose to sell your EF-S lenses at that time.

Why deny yourself access to the lens that perfectly addresses your needs now because, one day, maybe, you'll change formats?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bluefox9er
Goldmember
Avatar
1,706 posts
Joined Jun 2007
Location: UK,don't move ehre,it rains a lot, it's incredibly violent and the women pee standing up..
     
Mar 29, 2010 18:11 |  #13

get both


http://www.flickr.com …s/sets/72157602​470636767/ (external link)
http://www.flickr.com …ctions/72157604​292148339/ (external link)
Canon EOS 1d mk III, Canon EOS 5d,Canon EOS 400d, 24-70 mm F2.8 L, ef 24-105 F4 L IS, ef 17-40 mm F4 L, 70-200 mm f2.8 IS L, 100-400 mm IS L, 50mmm f1.8, 85mmf1.8mm, ef 35 mm f1.4L, ef 135 mm f2 L,Canon Powershot G9, Epson p400-, hyperdrive space 120gb

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
deadpass
Goldmember
Avatar
3,353 posts
Joined Jun 2006
Location: phoenix, az
     
Mar 29, 2010 18:22 |  #14

Rarely do I find myself in a situation where the 1 stop of light difference matters. If I need light that bad I'll switch to a fast prime.


a camera
http://www.deadpass.co​m (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Fodowsky
Senior Member
Avatar
590 posts
Joined May 2007
Location: Dallas, TX
     
Mar 29, 2010 18:22 |  #15

I went thru a similar thing. I ended up with both. 24-105 is my outdoors lens and the 24-70 gets the indoor gigs.

I'm glad I have both.


Gear and Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

7,978 views & 0 likes for this thread
Another 24-70 vs 24-105 thread
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is smarshall1
2197 guests, 318 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.