Buying Standard Zoom Lens

[Layton]

Instead of buying a few cheaper lenses which I will replace later I am thinking about investing in one of Canon's standard zoom L lenses.

I have been looking at the following lenses and cannot decided which is right for me. As my main or 'walk around' lens.

EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM

or

EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

The reason I bring up th second lens is becasue of it's bigger aperture. Is it worth it to go for a lens which is faster over one that has a longer focal length?

Also if anyone knows of cheaper/better lenses of this type please let me know.

Thanks
Layton

 

[Don Simon]

Is it worth it to go for a lens which is faster over one that has a longer focal length?

Well that's the question; which would you consider more important? Faster max aperture of longer focal length? Which do you would you use more? Of course in practice it's not so easy to answer these questions. Personally I consider fast lenses extremely useful so I would most likely go for the 24-70mm f/2.8... but then I would probably also want a 70-200mm or something similar. Also are you sure you wouldn't want to shoot wider than 24mm? If you're used to using 35mm bear in mind the "crop factor" of smaller digital sensors.

 

[fmw]

Besides being faster, the 24-70 should provide somewhat better image quality. My rule of thumb with zoom lenses is to buy the least extreme zoom range available. None of my zooms, for example, go beyond a 3X range. They are all outstanding.

I'm not a Canon user but I know Canon isn't any better at making a 4X zoom better than a 3X zoom than anybody else is. Since both are top quality lenses, the 24-70 simply has to be a little better optically. The laws of physics wouldn't allow it to be the other way around.

However, I'm also willing to bet the difference would be subtle since you are talking about top level products. Personally, I would choose the 24-70 without giving it another second's thought.

 

[Don Simon]

Also considering the quality of the glass you could probably sell it on or exchange it for very little loss if you decide the other one would be more useful.

 

[EOS_JD]

24-70 f2.8L IS = +ive faster, +ive excellent build quality, -ive heavier, -ive less range

24-105f4L IS = +ive IS, +ive good build quality, +ive longer range, -ive slower (can be a crucial difference), +ive did I mention the IS (it really is fantastic)

So a tough choice. Do you shoot professionally? Do you absolutely have to have the extra stop? If not I'd go for the f4L IS. I'm considering swapping my 24-105 for the 17-55 IS because I've started getting some paid commercial and wedding work but I love the 24-105 so much I can't let it go...... just yet The Tamron 28-75 is a nice lens as a backup though

 

[usayit]

Is it just me or people really should use the search feature....

this was posted

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

just 5 days ago. Yeh... I don't expect every person to search 1st on each and every question... but it was just 5 days ago... in the same forum..

 

[usayit]

24-70mm versus 24-105mm debates have been extremely common across several photography boards on the internet. So there's a whole book of opinions out there to read of you choose to do so.


I too was faced with the same decision and in the end the 24-105 reigned better for my needs. I was fortunate enough to borrow a 24-70 for a few hours at a family get together. During my decision process, I realized that these two lenses have different intentions. I like to think the 24-70mm as a fast sports car and the 24-105mm as an extremely capable utility vehicle. As such, their purpose and how they are used are fairly different. The one thing that I am certain is that neither is perfect and both have excellent IQ. Its just a matter of deciding which one best fits your needs.

24-70 has that fast f2.8 aperture at an increased weight and shorter focal length.

24-105 has IS, lighter weight, longer focal length at a sacrifice of a slower max aperture.

For me... I was looking for a great walk around, do everything lens. This is why the 24-105mm lens reigned supreme. It is lighter and easier to pack. The 24-70mm range felt too narrow for general use. The extra 1 stop of the 24-70mm was nice in low-light but IS was a welcomed feature in all sorts of situations. I also have a set of fast primes at my disposal so the extra ONE stop the 24-70mm gave me was not all that important. I almost always have my 50mm f1.4 packed and ready to go once I go indoors... and thats a couple stops faster.

So there you have it.... One of the best general use lenses from Canon=24-105mm F4 IS USM. One fast zoom with a history of good reports = 24-70mm f2.8 USM.

Judging from you post above, it looks like you are looking for a utility vehicle of a lens. I would recommend the 24-105mm F4 IS USM but throw in the 50mm f1.4 (or f1.8) prime in your bag as well.

If you notice from the posts above (and in other threads on the internet) people with the 24-70mm lens will always rave about one thing: low light use. Now its up to you to decide if thats important enough to outweigh the 24-105mm.

 

[dontpanic]

I don't think you can really go too awfully wrong with either IMO, but personally I'm leaning towards the 24-70 as a general purpose lens and the 70-200 to take over my primary sports lens...so I'll say the 24-70 in this case.

 

[EOS_JD]

70-200 is a superb lens. Depending on how far away you are to 70-200 is not really long enough for sports. I've shot soccer and really needed the 300 + 1.4x!

 

[dontpanic]

70-200 is a superb lens. Depending on how far away you are to 70-200 is not really long enough for sports. I've shot soccer and really needed the 300 + 1.4x!

I can agree with that, I know from renting the 70-200 several times it is perfect for hockey, arena football and most likely most baseball shots I'd be taking...of course the 1.4x II is in my sights as well to pair up with that 70-200.