Another 24-70 vs 24-105 thread

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

FuturamaJSP wrote in post #9894704
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

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!

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

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.

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.

the phelp wrote in post #9894840
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

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

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.

FuturamaJSP wrote in post #9894704
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

Excellent suggestion since ...

CalPiker wrote in post #9894675
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
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?

get both

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.

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.