Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L or 24-105 f/4L

Posted in xn--kfs74mzzid01b.com edit by smith on January 7th, 2009

haha you know I am having exactly the same problems, and I was thinking 17-40 or 10-22. I am actually having trouble deciding between those two ahaha.

I love my Sigma 10-20 -- and I did a side->side with the canon 10-22. It works great and cost alot less. http://www.10-20mm.com/

Hey all,

long time reader first time poster :)

Was looking to get a lens for a digital rebel that I could use for general photography(ie. walking around a town taking general pics). Which one would you guys recommend? I'm kind of stuck as both get rave reviews...
Thanks!

Personally, I would go 24-105 f/4.0L IS because I like "L" build.

Have you considered 17-55 f/2.8 IS for your camera? IQ and priced like an "L", but not built like one.

True.
But with f2.8 most of the time you don't need IS - especially at the shorter focal lengths.

But with f2.8 the DOF sometimes works against you - especially at the longer focal lengths.

With the 24-105 you have the advantage of the IS but it's impossible to shoot at f2.8.

With the 24-70 you have the advantage of f2.8 but its impossible to shoot between 71-105mm focal lengths. The difference between f/2.8 and f/4 is one stop. The IS in the 24-105L is good for 3 stops.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the 24-70 will give you something the 24-105 won't (ie f2.8) but the 24-105 only has IS over the 24-70 and in my opinion it isn't very necessary at shorter focal lengths.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the 24-105 will give you something the 24-70 won't (ie focal range, lighter package, IS) but the 24-70 only has f/2.8 and in my opinion it isn't very necessary. The 24-70 is a compromise (as most zooms) for low light shooters that might be better off with even faster primes.

>> My point is.... 24-70 and 24-105 are tools of specific purposes to fit different photographer's needs. You can't argue one is better than the other in general terms. As such, you can spin any argument for/against the other way around<<

THanks for all the replies guys!

I have one last question though, this lens will probably have to serve as my wide angle lens for quite awhile. I know that the 24-70 is very soft at the 24mm end while the 24-105 isn't all that wide.. I'm confused as to which will give the best results on a cropped camera that I have? (I won't be upgrading to a ff anytime soon).

Thanks!

I've never noticed the 24-70mm being very soft at 24mm before.
Sionce both the lenses you're considering are the same focal length at the short end, the decision shouold either be regarding the long end or the f stop.
since you already own the 70-200 i'd recommend the 24-70. Having the overlap will only benefit you if a lot of your shots are around the 50-100mm mark and would mean you changing lenses often,
Quality wise, the 24-70 f2.8 is hard to beat.

24-70 and the 24-105 comparisons come up very often here.... some to aid in your decision

http://thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=84510
http://thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=76828
http://thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=42694

In essence, my feeling is that the 24-105L is one of the best all around lenses you can get. Its sharp, has IS, good focal range, and easier to pack. The 24-70L is one of the best FAST zooms you can get. The fast f/2.8 aperture comes at a shorter focal length and heavier packaging. This comparison is very similar to that of the 70-200 f2.8 versus 70-200 f4 IS (speed versus packaging).

I've shot with all the lenses in question and ended up with the 24-105L + 100-400L for the sheer flexibility of focal range. That combination saw more use than the 24-70L + 70-200L f2.8L IS. For low-light, I still feel that a fast zoom is still a compromise over fast primes (at least for me).

You really can't go wrong with either.... the 24-70L is the bread and butter for many wedding shooters and with good reason.

I own a 24-70 and was thinking of getting 24~105 but went for 2.8 because Ive never heard a bad thing about it. I work in a camera shop and have sold loads of each. never had a 2.8 returned but have had 24-105 returned. that said my friend has one and loves it, Ive used it and its great, if you can go to a shop take a shot with each, feel the weight and see which suits you best

I've used both of the lenses you have mentioned.

I purchased the 24-70 2.8 - simply because it fit my shooting style better. I took a look at a lot of my photos, and looked at my exif data, and I found I shoot a lot of my images at 50mm -70mm range. I rarely go beyond that, unless I'm using my 70-200F4, which then it shows I'm usually in the 100-150 range on that one.

Yes, it is heavy. But that sharpness and speed that you get in exchange for the heavy lens, I feel is worth it. It's reasonably sharp at 2.8, better at 5.6, optimal at F8-F11.

Really, you can't go wrong with either one. I liked both of them, but I just preferred the 24-70 more.

I own a 24-70 f2.8 and i take around 90% of my shots with it.
I love it and would receommend it very highly. especially if your other lens is a 70-200
A good site for reviews is The Digital Picture (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Default.aspx)

It's a fantastic lens and i can't think of a lens i'd rather have in its place.

I know that the 24-70 is very soft at the 24mm end while the 24-105 isn't all that wide

Uh.. the only difference is that the 24-105 has an extra 35mm on the telephoto end. 24mm = 24mm.

The 24-70 is better for portraits and people shots in lower light than the 24-105. It's a little heavy, but absolutely worth it.

As an aside, I bought the 24-70 L and had a bad diaphragm. But B&H took it back and I got a new one, no problems or questions asked, and they even threw in free expedited shipping.

Personally, I would go 24-105 f/4.0L IS because I like "L" build.

The 24-70 is built like a tank, and it is an "L" like the 24-105.

You cannot go wrong with either. Decide if you need the extra reach or larger aperature. The 24-70 is a bit short on zoom for an all-around lens hence my decision to go with the 24-105. The IS was also a boost and weight was a bonus. Will eventually get the 24-70 when Canon puts IS on it. :)

sorry, I'm pretty noob haha. I hope some more knowledgeable folk will come rescue you haha.

or, you can go to other places to read up.
(www.fredmiranda.com (http://www.fredmiranda.com) seems nice to me) :) Goodluck

One more thing I need to think about is the redudancy as I already have a 70-200 f4.. So the faster 24-70 might be a better choice...

I also have heard of rumors that the 24-70 doesn't perform very well at f2.8? Not too sure..

IS is also really useful, often more so than f2.8

True.
But with f2.8 most of the time you don't need IS - especially at the shorter focal lengths.
With the 24-105 you have the advantage of the IS but it's impossible to shoot at f2.8.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the 24-70 will give you something the 24-105 won't (ie f2.8) but the 24-105 only has IS over the 24-70 and in my opinion it isn't very necessary at shorter focal lengths.

Get the 24-70 to compliment your 70-200 f4. No sense in having two lenses that cover the same focal length and have the same max aperture. You will love the 2.8 also. A little warning though, after you get 2.8 on your reguar zoom you'll want it on your 70-200...

haha you know I am having exactly the same problems, and I was thinking 17-40 or 10-22. I am actually having trouble deciding between those two ahaha.

the 24-70 is pretty heavy and the 24-105 would probably be better suited as a walk around just because of that (a really front weighted camera can tax on your hands quicker than you might think). IS is also really useful, often more so than f2.8. I like the 24-70 because I put quite a bit of use through it and therefore the tank like build will come in handy. Plus, less moving parts means less things that might go wrong.

With a crop sensor, I'd look at something a bit wider. I tend to use my wide end very often and wish I had a wider lens most of the time. It's just my shooting style though. I think I would personally only get a mid-range zoom if I already had a wide to complement it, otherwise I would look at the 17-55 F2.8 IS EF-S. It's a bargain when it comes right down to it, the only thing you'll be missing are weather seals (and silly red rings and cool looking lens hoods).

i was looking at both and seemed to me the latter would be more suitable as a walkaround purely based on the weight. like you mentioned, both have great optics. :)

#If you have any other info about this subject , Please add it free.#

Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L or 24-105 f/4L

Archives

Meta