Ahhhhh Choices.

Misfitlimp · Jul 23, 2009

So the old lady decided to give me an option of having a whole day of doing fun stuff and what not on my bday or buying me new glass so of course I chose new glass. the predicament im in is weather i want the wide range of a EF 24-105mm F/4L IS (being able to zoom in and out and have those ranges) or EF 24-70mm F/2.8L which still has a little range in the zoom catagory but has a faster apature? ill be doing some comercial stuff like weddings and portraits every now and again and a wide range of stuff from action and landscape photography. Thanks in advance

Samanax · Jul 23, 2009

Personally, between those two choices I'd go with the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 USM lens ("The Brick") for the better low light performance.

Baaaark · Jul 23, 2009

A lot of people on here have the 24-70. And then they get the 70-200 also. That's the setup I see in a LOT of people's signatures.

I've never used either, but it seems to be a very popular solution. You could maybe get the 70-200 later on (though they're REALLY expensive)?

Edit: The 24-70 is REALLY expensive too. So it probably wouldn't matter all that much to you either way.

Stosh · Jul 23, 2009

Very difficult choice. I own the 24-105 and I do really enjoy the lens, but sometimes it leaves me wanting some speed. On the other hand the extra range is pretty nice sometimes. If it were just between the extra speed vs. the extra range, I'd take the speed, but when you factor IS into the equation, it's much more difficult. The IS can certainly account for the extra stop you'd get in the 2.8, but there are some things IS just can't do - like freeze a moving target, aid your autofocus in low light situations, accuracy in focus, etc.

I say buy both!

Misfitlimp · Jul 24, 2009

Stosh said:
Very difficult choice. I own the 24-105 and I do really enjoy the lens, but sometimes it leaves me wanting some speed. On the other hand the extra range is pretty nice sometimes. If it were just between the extra speed vs. the extra range, I'd take the speed, but when you factor IS into the equation, it's much more difficult. The IS can certainly account for the extra stop you'd get in the 2.8, but there are some things IS just can't do - like freeze a moving target, aid your autofocus in low light situations, accuracy in focus, etc.

I say buy both!

thanks for the responses guys but it looks like we are at a stand still here. My gf is very generous when it comes to my birthday but i think if i said hey i want not only do I want one lens thats over a G but i also need the other thats about the same price she would prolly just show me the door. HA!

musicaleCA · Jul 24, 2009

This is pretty much the same choice I was facing recently. I decided on, ultimately, the 24-70. The reason being is that I've actually heard people complain about the 24-105, and not just that it's slowish. In my case, I do shoot in low light often enough to completely warrant the extra speed. And in my case no IS isn't an issue, because I can pretty safely hand-hold a 50mm on a 1.6x crop (so 80mm) at 1/30, or 1/15 when I also use flash to help freeze the scene, without IS, when using proper technique to stabalize the camera (hmm, and with one hand too...creepy).

One big plus of the f/2.8 here is the reverse zoom, which really, really, really reduces the risk of flare, and gives the lens even more protection, what with the massive hood. They're both built like tanks though.

It really comes down to what you're shooting. Indoor, low-light photography is going to benefit from the f/2.8; if you're shooting outside, doing portraiture, etc. and can't foresee buying a 70-200 anytime soon, then the f/4 may be the best option.

Misfitlimp · Jul 24, 2009

musicaleCA said:
This is pretty much the same choice I was facing recently. I decided on, ultimately, the 24-70. The reason being is that I've actually heard people complain about the 24-105, and not just that it's slowish. In my case, I do shoot in low light often enough to completely warrant the extra speed. And in my case no IS isn't an issue, because I can pretty safely hand-hold a 50mm on a 1.6x crop (so 80mm) at 1/30, or 1/15 when I also use flash to help freeze the scene, without IS, when using proper technique to stabalize the camera (hmm, and with one hand too...creepy).

One big plus of the f/2.8 here is the reverse zoom, which really, really, really reduces the risk of flare, and gives the lens even more protection, what with the massive hood. They're both built like tanks though.

It really comes down to what you're shooting. Indoor, low-light photography is going to benefit from the f/2.8; if you're shooting outside, doing portraiture, etc. and can't foresee buying a 70-200 anytime soon, then the f/4 may be the best option.

Thanks that helps a bunch. Im still on the fence but leaning towards the faster of the 2

Stosh · Jul 24, 2009

musicaleCA said:
It really comes down to what you're shooting.

Agreed.

Misfit, I don't know if you've used IS before, but it really is a super nice feature. I'm not trying to sway a vote, only reiterating how well IS works. It almost sounded silly to me at first to have IS on a zoom with a wide angle, but I can tell you it saved me many times from 35mm up. It can easily compensate for the extra stop the 24-70 would have, it just can't freeze moving targets like that extra stop could. They claim up to 3 stops. I like it because I can keep my sometimes desired deeper depth of field and not need more light from larger apertures. There are the few occasions I'd like to have the extra stop, but most of my shooting in this range is f/4 or slower anyway. For crazy speed I have a few primes. I've had no focus or mechanical problems at all with this lens.

I can tell you one thing for sure - if the 24-70 had an IS option, I'd sell the 24-105 IMMEDIATELY.

Misfitlimp · Jul 24, 2009

Stosh said:
musicaleCA said:

It really comes down to what you're shooting.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

Misfit, I don't know if you've used IS before, but it really is a super nice feature. I'm not trying to sway a vote, only reiterating how well IS works. It almost sounded silly to me at first to have IS on a zoom with a wide angle, but I can tell you it saved me many times from 35mm up. It can easily compensate for the extra stop the 24-70 would have, it just can't freeze moving targets like that extra stop could. They claim up to 3 stops. I like it because I can keep my sometimes desired deeper depth of field and not need more light from larger apertures. There are the few occasions I'd like to have the extra stop, but most of my shooting in this range is f/4 or slower anyway. For crazy speed I have a few primes. I've had no focus or mechanical problems at all with this lens.

I can tell you one thing for sure - if the 24-70 had an IS option, I'd sell the 24-105 IMMEDIATELY.

Well now i dont know what to do. I think i read on here that the 24-70 is getting a mark II upgrade with IS we will have to wait and see.

UUilliam · Jul 24, 2009

Tbh.. I think the answer your GF was looking for was "A fun day out you babe is worth more than any lens is to me!" ... "Cough HAHAHA!"

get the 24-70mm L (it costs more)
So if you decide to go for the 24-105L you can sell the 24-70 and do the good thing and treat your GF with the money left over =]