Should I switch to 24-70mm2.8 from 24-105mm f4l.

[JustALilBud]

Can't decide what would benefit me more. A 2.8 aperture cause I love to shoot in lower light and I don't need all the zoom cause I have the 70-200 2.8 is ii to grab that stuff. But then would I miss the IS on the f4? I'm no pro. But have some decent skill. Anybody's examples or knowledge would be great.
Side note. Yes I want the version 2. But can't afford it.

 

[runnah]

I rented it for a week and Well I have mixed feelings. I liked how sharp it was and the 2.8 but I found I always wanted to go wider or tighter. I know it does cover the 35 & 50 focal range but I really like 85 and above.

 

[SnappingShark]

I owned it for my D7100 and wanted to go wider ... probably wouldn't have been an issue on FF.

I would say yes, as you will get the extra 2.8, 3.2, 3.5 third stops also.

 

[runnah]

Canon needs to make their 24-105 at 2.8. I'd buy one and never take it off.

 

[snerd]

Canon needs to make their 24-105 at 2.8. I'd buy one and never take it off.

This!

 

[Tailgunner]

But then would I miss the IS on the f4? I'm no pro. But have some decent skill. Anybody's examples or knowledge would be great.

You shouldn't need IS/VR on a mid rang zoom like the 24-70mm. Just set the shutter speed to equal the focal length or slightly more. Anything slower is most likely going to be shot on a tripod...which you have to cut it off. Keep in mind, IS/VR doesn't do much anything 1/500 or faster either.

 

[runnah]

You shouldn't need IS/VR on a mid rang zoom like the 24-70mm. Just set the shutter speed to equal the focal length or slightly more. Anything slower is most likely going to be shot on a tripod...which you have to cut it off. Keep in mind, IS/VR doesn't do much anything 1/500 or faster either.

Let's not get too hasty. IS is great for video. You can shoot most sub 100mm lenses handheld if they have IS.

But photo wise yeah it's not needed that much.

 

[Tailgunner]

You shouldn't need IS/VR on a mid rang zoom like the 24-70mm. Just set the shutter speed to equal the focal length or slightly more. Anything slower is most likely going to be shot on a tripod...which you have to cut it off. Keep in mind, IS/VR doesn't do much anything 1/500 or faster either.

Let's not get too hasty. IS is great for video. You can shoot most sub 100mm lenses handheld if they have IS.

But photo wise yeah it's not needed that much.

Sorry about that, I didn't see this was for video.

 

[runnah]

Sorry about that, I didn't see this was for video.

It wasn't but I like to wave the video flag every now and then.

 

[snerd]

I don't think you'll miss the IS. Even with my bad shoulder, I've been able to get "mostly" sharp shots. It's just not that big a deal at those focal lengths.

 

[CAP]

I have both but i like the 2.8 better than the f4.

 

[curtyoungblood]

How often do you find yourself wishing you had one more stop of shutter speed when you're out shooting?

if the answer is "a lot" make the change, but if it isn't, then stick with the f4.

a totally different idea: have you considered buy a used 16-35 f2.8 instead? This would give you wide and moderately long at 2.8 when you need it, and the 24-105 for a general walk around.

 

[TCampbell]

I use the 24-70 f/2.8... it's nice when I'm shooting a low-light event (typically a concert) where I'm trying to minimize motion blur and I want that extra stop of faster shutter speed. It's also nice when I'm trying to force a stronger out-of-focus blur. But these are limited cases -- not everyday shooting situations. For the vast majority of shooting circumstances I don't often set my lenses below f/4.

I don't miss image stabilization. Image stabilization isn't nearly as important in shorter focal length ranges. The longer the focal length, the more sensitive it is to tiny camera movements.

Given that you mentioned you'd be buying a used generation I version of the 24-70 (btw, I really like the reverse zoom on the lens... it's one feature the new lens doesn't have), and mentioned you can't afford the generation II... it makes me wonder if your money isn't better spent on something else. Yes, you'll pick up a few things you can do with it that you can't do with the 24-105 f/4... but these are things I find myself only occasionally using and frankly you could cover those cases by using a different lens (if I really need low light or stronger out of focus blur... I could always use a 50mm f/1.4 prime).

 

[usayit]

I had a set of primes (24L, 50 f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8, 135L), the 24-70L, and 24-105L.

For me, the least used was the 24-70L. Neither the range or IS of the 24-105L nor as fast as my primes. My typical "walkaround" was the 50f/1.4 in pocket with the 24-105L. Other than that, I usually had just the primes.

 

[JustALilBud]

Thanks everyone for the input. There's always pros and cons about everything. I think I may just get it and tinker with them both in situations. Won't be hard to get ride of one if I had too.

Here's a pic though with my 24-105 on my 6d. What you guys think? Would the 24-70 be little bit sharper for this ya think?