lens canon 24-70 or 24-105?

Discussion in 'Photography Equipment & Products' started by Shannon, Jun 12, 2007.

  1. Shannon

    Shannon TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Hi, my first post to this forum.
    I have a canon 20D, 50mm 1.8, 24-85mm usm, and 100-300 5.6.
    I shoot mostly kid portraits.

    My 24-85 sucks at wide open in low light for sharpness. I was looking to replace this lens with a similar range. I looked into the sigma 24-70 2.8 but got the impression to hold out for the canon L glass.

    I recently got my first strobe - Alien Bees 800 with giant softbox, and I have a reflector. My 24-85mm performs much better with the stobe at 5.6 vs wide open with window light.

    So what should I add to my arsonal? I thought of a second strobe, instead, but am leaning towards a new lens tonight. Can only buy one thing for the rest of the year.

    The lenses I am looking at are the

    canon 24-70L 2.8
    canon 24-105L f4 IS (image stablizer)

    I was told to go for IS always. But I don't see a 24-70L with IS. Would you rather have the 2.8 or IS? (They are the same price)

    Thanks!
     
  2. Steph

    Steph No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2006
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Steventon, Oxfordshire, UK
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    Hi. Welcome to the forum. I am not familiar with any of these lenses but a similar question has been asked here recently. You may find the answers you need.
     
  3. Shannon

    Shannon TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Thank you. I read the post and another similar one. Sounds like I was not the only one debating. I think I will go for the 24-70L 2.8

    I wish I had a local camera store that I could test each one.

    Thanks!
     
  4. Alex_B

    Alex_B No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    14,491
    Likes Received:
    206
    Location:
    Europe 67.51°N
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    f/2.8 is always nice to have.

    however the 24-105 is very versatile ... I often need the 105mm if i run into the occasional wildlife shot without a chance to put on the tele lens.

    also the 24-105 is not as heavy as the 24-70, which can be an advantage if travelling.

    it is a very hard decision and really depends on how you want to use it ;)
     
  5. Alex_B

    Alex_B No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    14,491
    Likes Received:
    206
    Location:
    Europe 67.51°N
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    oh, and welcome to the forum :)
     
  6. The 24-70 is a great lens, and I use it to shoot mainly portraits - esp. of kids. The speed of the lens allows for a relatively shallow depth-of-field, which isolates the subject nicely from its background. Let's face it: that's a popular parlor trick that makes clients (parents) go "ooh" and results in better fees.

    70mm can be a little closer than is practical with shy kids at first, esp. when shooting "in-environment" portraits. Worse, it's physically a huge lens, but the image quality will make up for it. The lens is money well spent.

    Also, replace your 50mm 1.8 with the 1.4, same reason.
     
  7. EOS_JD

    EOS_JD TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2007
    Messages:
    1,698
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    With strobes, you'll not be shooting at f2.8 very often. More like f8. If used in the studio, either lens will be very sharp the extra range of the 24-105 would win it for me.

    When using out in the field it's a tough decision

    f2.8 is very useful when in low light anmd shooting moving subjects although you can do this too with the f4L IS with a one stop increase in ISO.

    The 24-105 has IS and having this on 2 other lenses I know how fantastic this technology is. I can shoot at very slow shuter speeds and still get sharp images.

    If you shoot fast moving subjects in natural light, the f2.8 will be high on your list of must haves however if you shoot mainly static subjects like like landscapes the low light capabilities of IS really comes into its own. Both are great lenses, but both in different ways.

    I went with the 24-105 although I already had a 28-75 f2.8 Tamron.

    If you as you say shoot mostly kids portraits in a studio, the 24-105 may be better but if you shoot in lower light, the f2.8 will be invaluable.
     
  8. JIP

    JIP No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Messages:
    3,019
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Pittsburgh PA
    If you can afford it you should always go for the faster lens. The only reason to buy a slower lens i because it is cheaper.
     
  9. Alex_B

    Alex_B No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    14,491
    Likes Received:
    206
    Location:
    Europe 67.51°N
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    wrong.

    I used my 24-105 f/4 more often than my 24-70 f/2.8

    simply because it was more versatile and useful for what I was photographing.

    And I got a 300mm f/4 prime instead of the f/2.8 equivalent... not because of the money, but simply since on my week-long mountain hikes I carry at least 25kg of gear on m back, NOT counting the extra 7 kg of photographic equipment. Every kg counts here.

    do you not think that in some cases focal range andweight play a role, and not only the max aperture?
     
  10. JIP

    JIP No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Messages:
    3,019
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Pittsburgh PA
    No if I am going to spend money on a lens and I can afford it I am goig to buy the best.
     
  11. Alex_B

    Alex_B No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    14,491
    Likes Received:
    206
    Location:
    Europe 67.51°N
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    As said, for me in landscape photography with occasional wildlife, the 24-70 f/2.8 was less useful than the 24-105 f/4. So for that particular application it was the best (at that time I owned both lenses).

    Same with the heavy telephoto which I cannot take with me on some trips. Again, the better lens for that purpose is the f/4 prime, even though cheaper.
     
  12. Groupcaptainbonzo

    Groupcaptainbonzo TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2006
    Messages:
    463
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Turners Hill, West Sussex, UK.
    If you are shooting portraits and getting paid. Then good quality optics are the main importance. If it has a "L" in the title that would be a good hint for a start. In a studio YOU control the light so focal length and quality far outweigh speed.
    Just as If you walk in the mountains (and I do) focal range and lightness become far more important that they were...
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page
24-85 vs 24-105
,
24-70 vs 24-105 sharpness
,
canon 18-70 lens
,
canon 24-105 good for children?
,

canon 24-70 for landscape

,
canon 24-70 landscape
,
canon 24-85 vs 24-105
,
canon 24-85mm vs 24-105mm
,
comparatif tamron 24-70 f2.8 et canon 24-105 f4
,
what is better for portraits 24-70 or 24-105