Lens...24-70 versus 24-105

[tvphotog]

For a basic everyday lens for a Canon 5D, I'm considering the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM and the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM. I do mainly outdoor and landscape shots, but also want the capability to shoot indoors w/o flash.

I've been told by a professional that he uses the 24-105 because he likes that extra 35mm so that he doesn't have to go to a long lens just for a shot here and there. He feels that the IS on the 24-105 makes up for the faster 24-70, taking it down two stops to be equivalent to the latter. He does mainly indoor events.

I plan to get either a 70-200 or a 100-400, depending on which of the above I choose as the basic lens.

Any suggestions?

Thanks.

 

[table1349]

The best lens of the two is the one that will suit what you shoot the best. The only lens in my bag slower than a f2.8 is a 10-22 f3.5 for my 30D. I own the 24-70 f2.8L matched with a 70-200 f2.8L and a fist full of primes. I am more than satisfied with the results.

While IS can be nice, it is not a god send if you use good technique. For me and what I shoot, I prefer fast glass over IS glass and the 24-70 f2.8L is one Killer of a lens, especially on a 5D.

 

[Big Mike]

I agree...it's a personal preference.

Remember, IS will prevent blur from camera shake at slower shutter speeds. It will not, however, do anything to prevent blur from subject movement at slower shutter speeds. So while it's great for still subjects, it doesnt help when shooting people. Only a faster shutter speed will help, and that means that a larger aperture will be more useful.

Other than that, the extra reach is nice and I believe that the 24-105 is lighter than the 24-70.

 

[table1349]

I agree...it's a personal preference.

Remember, IS will prevent blur from camera shake at slower shutter speeds. It will not, however, do anything to prevent blur from subject movement at slower shutter speeds. So while it's great for still subjects, it doesnt help when shooting people. Only a faster shutter speed will help, and that means that a larger aperture will be more useful.

Thanks, I forgot to mention that.

Other than that, the extra reach is nice and I believe that the 24-105 is lighter than the 24-70.

You are correct, the 24-70 is heavier. Thus the name "Brick." It is built like a tank, but one fantastic piece of glass.

 

[usayit]

These lenses start many threads and discussion (here and in other internet forums). Quick search will yield lots of information already discussed. Here are three of which I replied with my input:

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

My opinion.. two lenses that are often compared to but each has a completely different design for different purposes. I like to describe the 20-70mm f2.8 as a fast sports car (fast aperture, specific use) and the 24-105mm f4L IS as the Sports Utility Vehicle (multi-purpose, extremely wide range of uses, good focal range, Image Stabilized, lighter weight, easier to pack).

If you are wedding photographer, you'll need the specialized sports car (20-70). If you are looking for a wonderful walk around do-alot tool, then the SUV (24-105) is for you.

I chose the 24-105mm with the 100-400mm L. Wonderful package for long trips and great flexibility. If I ever need something faster (low light), I skipped the 24-70 and 70-200mm f2.8 (sold both recently) and equip my 4 primes which will outperform both.

 

[soylentgreen]

I have the 24-105 and the only knock on it is the f/4.
I really like the range of the 24-105 and will probably just pick-up a fast prime for low-light stuff. Anyway, both are fantastic lenses, but I wish I could get better shutter speed in lower light from the 24-105. Paired with the 70-200, it should be a no-brainer. To really get the balanced work-out from carrying your lenses, I would reccommend the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS "The Cinder-Block" to match the 24-70 f/2.8 L "Brick".

 

[usayit]

I actually don't mind the f/4 aperture on the 24-105mm.. why? because it kept the lens lighter. Besides.. how many stops are between f/2.8 and f/4? (thats a rhetorical question)

It is the same reason why the 16-35mm f2.8L is heavier than the 17-40mm f4L

Here's a tip that was passed to me a long long time ago from a journalist... low-light.. shoot wider.