lens canon 24-70 or 24-105?

[Shannon]

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!

 

[Steph]

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.

 

[Shannon]

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!

 

[Alex_B]

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

 

[Alex_B]

oh, and welcome to the forum

 

[Iron Flatline]

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.

 

[EOS_JD]

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.

 

[JIP]

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.

 

[Alex_B]

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.

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?

 

[JIP]

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

No if I am going to spend money on a lens and I can afford it I am goig to buy the best.

 

[Alex_B]

No if I am going to spend money on a lens and I can afford it I am goig to buy the best.

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.

 

[Groupcaptainbonzo]

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...

 

[Alex_B]

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...

That is why I carry light L-glass with me all the time when on mointain hikes

 

[usayit]

These lenses are compared to each other numerous times... for me.. they have different purposes.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=83196

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

this was my input in one of those threads:

"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."


Since the OP in THIS thread said they shoot mostly kids portraits, I would recommend the opposite of my previous post: 24-70mm f2.8. The short 70mm on the far end of the focal lengths won't be such a problem on a 1.6 crop from the 20D. On the other hand, I personally would rather use primes for portraits.

 

[Shannon]

Thanks for giving me your advice. I shoot mostly kids, and some adults/family. I just got a strobe last week, but up until now have shot window light. I would like to keep shooting window light too.
I never do landscape or products (stuff that doesn't move).

I don't know that I am any better off - both lenses get recommended over the other, and I am scared I will make the wrong choice.

The two things I have been dissapointed with on my 24-85 was sharpness all around, and especially at wide open, and that it didn't have a lower f-stop. I was glad to see that shooting with my new strobe with a f5.6-f8 I got much better results for sharpness, as I had enough light to shoot the higher f-stops vs the window light. I don't like to shoot high ISO's either. I want my clean 100. I hate grain.

How do I post an image?