24-70 or 24-105

Hello All,

Well I just pulled the trigger on a 5Dc and I am in the need of some more glass. Here is my current gear:
t2i
17-55 2.8
50 1.8
100 2
70-200 4 is
55-250 is (selling soon i hope)

So - I am going to sell or trade the 17-55 as I won't need it eventually. If I like the 5Dc, I will sell the t2i. So, which would you get? I think for me I prefer primes and will acquire more but I want to have a walk around lens, something to take into town and for bdays and such - when I don't want to carry a bag and all my gear. But I don't want the 15-55, had it - sold it.

What about your personal experience with these lenses? Or is there another one I should be considering. I would prefer Canon but if there is an off brand that is smoking good please do let me know. Also, I am looking for a lens that works particularly well with the 5Dc, if there is such a thing.

Thanks - jriley

I don't have the Canon 24-70 but have a similar Sigma version. Comparing it with the 24-105 -- I prefer the 24-105. Lighter, equal quality (imo), better focal lengths. The 5D (and 5Dc) have excellent high iso capabilities and, for me, f/4.0 is not a drawback. I've carried it as my single lens on overseas trips but coupled with my 35L gives me the low light capability when needed.

I have both. If I had to choose, I would keep the 24/105. It is a great lens and stays on my 5D2 most of the time. Light, better reach and great IQ.

I absolutely love my 24-70 but it is heavy and you get the extra reach with the 24-105.

I chose the 24-70 because I don't mind the weight and I often need the low light capabilities.

IQ is going to be better on the 24-70 but if you don't need f/2.8 and you want IS, longer reach, and a smaller package for a day trip or a walk-around, then I'd say the 24-105 is for you.

Would you rather have all that extra light and DOF control supplied by f/2.8 or have IS and an extra 35mm on the long end that you can just manually walk up to with your feet..

Weight- you get used to it. When I was shopping for endless hours with some other teenagers with my old 24-70L I had it on my neck for hours but it didn't bother me at all

gotglade wrote in post #10156744
I absolutely love my 24-70 but it is heavy and you get the extra reach with the 24-105.

I chose the 24-70 because I don't mind the weight and I often need the low light capabilities.

IQ is going to be better on the 24-70 but if you don't need f/2.8 and you want IS, longer reach, and a smaller package for a day trip or a walk-around, then I'd say the 24-105 is for you.

This is very debatable - IMO 24-105 is sharper, but 24-70 has better bokeh. 24-105 has more distortion at 24mm, but less at 70mm. When hiking/climbing to shoot landscapes, I don't care about bokeh...

forthewinwin wrote in post #10156952
Would you rather have all that extra light and DOF control supplied by f/2.8 or have IS and an extra 35mm on the long end that you can just manually walk up to with your feet..

Weight- you get used to it. When I was shopping for endless hours with some other teenagers with my old 24-70L I had it on my neck for hours but it didn't bother me at all

When you're talking landscapes, an extra 35mm could mean 2km off the edge of a cliff...

24-70 = 950 g

24-105 = 670 g

Have tried both. Love the 24-70 as a portrait and landscape lens - on a tripod

Love the 24-105 as a walkaround - also good for candids and landscapes - really good for everything I do except low light.

Had trouble with the weight of the 24-70 (and 28-70)

Went with the 24-105. Very happy.

24-70--you get used to the weight and it's definitely worth carrying around with the quality of the pics

I have been debating this same setup. I ended up going with the 24-70 because of the 2.8. Its worth it for me.

iFloyd wrote in post #10157421
24-70--you get used to the weight and it's definitely worth carrying around with the quality of the pics

says you

24-70 hands down first weight is a stabilizer and second you can always put it on a tripod but you can never make an f4 a 2.8

Damian75 wrote in post #10157464
24-70 hands down first weight is a stabilizer and second you can always put it on a tripod but you can never make an f4 a 2.8

On a tripod you don't need f/2.8

Wow that weight difference is crazy. You could carry the 24-105mm and a prime and come in pretty close.

i have only had the 24-105 for a week now and love it. I can say that the added weight of the 24-70 would be an issue at first but i think you would get used to it. I love the quality of the lens and the smaller price tag is a plus.

forthewinwin wrote in post #10156952
Would you rather have all that extra light and DOF control supplied by f/2.8 or have IS and an extra 35mm on the long end that you can just manually walk up to with your feet

The so-called "foot zooming" technique of reframing images is a very poor technique to consider as an alternative to changing focal length because it changes the entire perspective of the image. This is an often misunderstood aspect to composition.

To understand this better, please read our "sticky" (now found in the General Photography Talk forum) tutorial titled Perspective Control in Images - Focal Length or Distance?.