24-70 vs 24-105

[JTM_04]

Ok so I am looking to get either the 24-70 2.8 or the 24-105 f/4. I'm hoping to hear from someone who either owns both or has shot both to see what they think of the differences. I dont know if the IS of the 24-105 is really that necessary or not. I dont plan on shooting in too much low light but I may alittle and I'm just curious if the 2.8 is that much more important. Thanks for the input

 

[macpro88]

I've shot both, own the 24-105. Didn't play around with the 24-70 too much but its a workhorse. A fine piece of glass.

The 2.8 will perform better in low light, and honestly, you say you won't be in low light situations, but eventually you will be, I said the same thing, and there are times where I wished I had the f/2.8.

The 24-105 is a great lens don't get me wrong, its a fine piece of glass as well, had I done it over again, I'd shell out the extra for the 24-105.

Better yet, depending on how desperate you are, wait for the MKII of the 24-70 f/2.8 to come out, if you can afford it.

One of my other factors was price of course, depending on how the pricing works for the new MKII, I may upgrade or find the 1st version used at a decent cost.

 

[macpro88]

Also, do a search of f/2.8 vs f/4 and you will find some great articles.

 

[JTM_04]

Yeah I have looked at some articles and vids about them. I just didn't know how big the difference really was between them

 

[macpro88]

If I'm not mistaken, the f/2.8 is 4 whole stops faster than f/4. That's fast. Even in good light, you can really bump up that shutter speed and really stop action dead in its tracks. Also f/2.8 makes for a nice thinner depth of field than the f/4.

There is a reason the f/2.8 are a hell of a lot more expensive. If there weren't enough difference, nobody would buy them...

 

[sovietdoc]

If I'm not mistaken, the f/2.8 is 4 whole stops faster than f/4. That's fast. Even in good light, you can really bump up that shutter speed and really stop action dead in its tracks. Also f/2.8 makes for a nice thinner depth of field than the f/4.

There is a reason the f/2.8 are a hell of a lot more expensive. If there weren't enough difference, nobody would buy them...

f/2.8 is one stop faster than f/4

And there is no 24-70 II. It's a myth.

 

[leeroix]

i have the 24-70 2.8 and i must say it spends the most time on my camera. i love it. i also have the 70-200 2.8 for when i need extra... some day ill have the holy trinity.

 

[sovietdoc]

i have the 24-70 2.8 and i must say it spends the most time on my camera. i love it. i also have the 70-200 2.8 for when i need extra... some day ill have the holy trinity.

The holy zoom trinity doesn't exist on canon system yet. Now, next year they're supposed to announce 14-24 or something like that...

 

[leeroix]

oops, i have to get better at reading the forum title. didnt realize this was canon.

 

[MLeeK]

If I'm not mistaken, the f/2.8 is 4 whole stops faster than f/4. That's fast. Even in good light, you can really bump up that shutter speed and really stop action dead in its tracks. Also f/2.8 makes for a nice thinner depth of field than the f/4.

There is a reason the f/2.8 are a hell of a lot more expensive. If there weren't enough difference, nobody would buy them...

f/2.8 is one stop faster than f/4

And there is no 24-70 II. It's a myth.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM Zoom Lens 5175B002 B&H Photo

 

[TheBiles]

If I'm not mistaken, the f/2.8 is 4 whole stops faster than f/4. That's fast. Even in good light, you can really bump up that shutter speed and really stop action dead in its tracks. Also f/2.8 makes for a nice thinner depth of field than the f/4.

There is a reason the f/2.8 are a hell of a lot more expensive. If there weren't enough difference, nobody would buy them...

FYI, f/1 is four stops faster than f/4. 1.0, 1.4, 2.0, 2.8, 4.0.

Sent from my Galaxy S III

 

[macpro88]

Haha, indeed the MKII seems to be a myth... they keep delaying the dang thing... lol

and thanks for the clarification on the stops, still learning myself! lol

 

[pgriz]

Besides the optical properties of the lenses, you also need to consider their bulk/weight. If it's the primary lens, it can really wear your neck or arm down carrying a heavy lens.

 

[TheBiles]

Besides the optical properties of the lenses, you also need to consider their bulk/weight. If it's the primary lens, it can really wear your neck or arm down carrying a heavy lens.

That's what the gym is for! Also BlackRapid straps.

Sent from my Galaxy S III

 

[MLeeK]

Besides the optical properties of the lenses, you also need to consider their bulk/weight. If it's the primary lens, it can really wear your neck or arm down carrying a heavy lens.

YES!!
I have tennis elbow from my 70-200. Hasn't bothered me until probably about 2 weeks from now when I start shooting football non stop!