24-105L F4 IS or 24-70L F2.8

I'm thinking of buying a 2nd hand lens to fill in the gap of 24-70 with my 400D camera. I have a 70-200L F4 IS already covering the top end and a Tamrom 10-24mm covering the ultra wide end. I have a Sigma 18-200 which I want to get rid of, hence my need for a lens in the 24-70 range.

What are your thoughts about the 24-105L F4 IS versus the 24-70L F2.8 in terms of optical quality and build quality? I appreciate the 24-105L F4 has IS which interests me a lot, and so does the fact that it's cheaper. Any reason not to go for it?

Many thanks

Golfboy1971

No reason not to go for it. Just need to decide do you want the 2.8 or not. There are so many threads saying one is preferred over the other. Either would be good. I would go for the 2.8 as it is less likely to have any problems with regards to the IS going wrong and the expense of the repair. Not saying it will but it takes out a variable.

There are tens if not hundreds of threads that cover this topic so you should find no shortage of information concerning this to help make your mind up.

Personally seeing as though you have a crop camera, it might be worth going with the 24-70 as range may not be too much of an issue for you.
Again, it comes down to the following - which is more important to you: the extra 35mm or the extra stop of light? Answer that question and you have your answer.

2.8... I was going to get the 24-105L, but bought a 28-70 2.8 because it was a good deal and couldn´t be happier. 2.8 is really nice on a zoom.

As has been said, there are loads of threads comparing these two lenses.

They are both well made, and both are capable of producing good images. Ultimately the choice will come down to whether you prefer to have IS and a bit more reach over a maximum aperture of f/2.8.

Only you can answer that one.

For me the f2.8 won out over the IS and extra reach. If I want to go longer than the 24-70 I have a 70-200.

Build quality is rock-solid L goodness for both. That's a complete non-factor in the decision. The only thing I will say is that the 24-70's hood covers the telescoping part of the lens. I can't prove that it will be more durable, but I like the fact that no moving/sliding parts can get bumped around on the 24-70.

I have similar pridicament and actually require to make three way decision, ie, 17-55 or 24-70 or 24-105. After a lot of contradictory thought processes I have removed 24-105 from list as I do not wish to have both zooms f4 (while I would have loved IS & extra reach).
Now question between 17-55 & 24-70 -- with 17-55 (best sharpness of three) I am worried that my UWA will become redundant. In the end with so many sub-optimum decisions choice comes down to 24-70. Now the problem is that this lens is too heavy & big -- so I am looking at Tamron 28-75 (with canon 50 for critical / important portraits) in another thread.
I have stopped using my sigma -- no decision making required

I picked up the f/2.8 over the f/4 simply because I find f/4 to be too limiting.
A lot of people shout about the IS and how it is the greatest thing ever, and sure, the IS helps counteract your movement, but what people often overlook is that the IS does nothing for subject movement. I can handhold a 24-70 f/2.8 down to 1/15th of a second without IS or a monopod, but if you are shooting anything with movement, the IS won't help in any way. The extra stop of light though, that can give you the difference between 1/250th @ f/4 and 1/500th @ f/2.8! Try shooting boxing, hockey, football or any other fast paced sport at 1/250th!
Conversely, if all you shoot is landscapes on a tripod, then the f/4 should be fine as you will most likely be shooting at a smaller aperture, though keep in mind the IS still won't be much of a help!

I had the 17-55 f2.8 IS on my 40D, then went fullframe with a 5D + 24-105L f4, never sold a lens so quickly, after 4 months, for a 28-70 f2.8L, superb lens! Photography = writing with light, you are nothing without light, avoid the high f-value lenses...

Thanks everyone for your help and comments.
It sounds like both will serve me well so it's just down to that F4/F2.8 battle and the size/weight battle.... and obtaining the necessary funding after only recently getting my 70-200L F4 IS that broke the bank

I'm not keen on using the tripod unless I really have to so the IS is useful for low light work and I don't tend to do any sport based photography, so maybe the lighter and smaller 24-105L F4 IS will be the best option.

Many thanks

Golfboy1971

ssmanak wrote in post #11546739
I have similar pridicament and actually require to make three way decision, ie, 17-55 or 24-70 or 24-105. After a lot of contradictory thought processes I have removed 24-105 from list as I do not wish to have both zooms f4 (while I would have loved IS & extra reach).
Now question between 17-55 & 24-70 -- with 17-55 (best sharpness of three) I am worried that my UWA will become redundant. In the end with so many sub-optimum decisions choice comes down to 24-70. Now the problem is that this lens is too heavy & big -- so I am looking at Tamron 28-75 (with canon 50 for critical / important portraits) in another thread.
I have stopped using my sigma -- no decision making required

ssmanack, my only thought here is where you might be going with your camera in the future, because I'm in a similar position as you in that I have a crop camera and traditionaly bought EF-S lenses, but now I'm getting lenses that are good quality for my 400D but with compatibility of a full frame camera in the future, such as the 5D MKII, hence I've ignored the 17-55 EF-S in my shopping.

Just something to bear in mind.

Knotty By Nature wrote in post #11547543
If your 70-200/4 IS has ever left you hanging for lack of light and 2.8 was an "answer" that the IS couldn't match/surpass...then weigh that and go the route you must.

Reality is,the IS will buy you more than a stop.

To be honest I've found several occasions whereby even the 70-200L F2.8 wouldn't have helped me because it would still have only given me 1/120th sec for example; so my 70-200L F4 IS gave me 1/60th sec which was still perfectly fine because the IS is so good..... coupled with the fact the 70-200L F2.8 IS was waaaaaay outside my price range

24-70 is more of a portrait, people lens.
24-105 is more of a travel lens, walk around ( what ever that means :-}.

Both can work for travel and both can work for portraits. I have had both and I could have flipped a coin, both are good. I kinda wish I had kept both, I sorta miss my 24-105

Inspired by this discussion, I wrote a post on my blog about what I was thinking when I had to decide between these two lenses.
Please check it our here: http://****/nww24v24