24-70L or 24-105L (Travel Photography)

[TNHphoto]

Hi everyone,

I've been agonizing over this question for weeks now so I wanted to get some opinions. I'm upgrading to full frame this summer (either a 5D Mark ii or iii) and I want to get an excellent walkaround zoom as my main lens. I'm mainly interested in travel photography (landscapes, beaches, sunsets, outdoor portraits, and the occasional indoor shot). I don't use a tripod when I'm backpacking.

I'm torn between the 24-70L and the 24-105L.

I hear from pro friends that the 24-70 is the sharper lens, but I worry about not having IS and the convenience of the extra focal length.

Any feedback would be great! I suppose I could rent both too, but taking two rentals traveling can get pretty pricey...

Thanks!

 

[The_Traveler]

At this focal length, IS isn't an issue unless your technique is terrible.
From years of travelling with a D700 and 24-70, I can tell you it is heavy to schlep around and intimidating to subjects.
All of my travel pictures were with D700 (early ones with D200) and 95% using 24-70.

 

[Derrel]

I shot the 24-105 f/4 L for about three and a half years as my "main" walkaround lens on my 5D classic. It's an okay lens, it really is. Size- and weight wise, it's not too bad. 670 grams on the 24-105, 805 grams on the 24-70 Mark II.

I think IS is good when you want to do smooth, slow-speed panning shots, and when you're shooting in windy conditions, or when you're out of breath and breathing hard, have elevated heart rate, or when you're shooting from a moving platform (boat, ferry, train, car,etc). Both are good lenses. One costs twice as much as the other. The 24-105-L has been paired in kits with the 5D, 5D-II,and 5D-III, so there are TONS of them available used for around $850 or even less occasionally.

 

[TheBiles]

24-70. I'd never trade aperture over image stabilization given the equal choice.

Sent from my Droid DNA

 

[goodguy]

Get the 24-70mm and the 5DIII and not the 5DII.

 

[Jad]

I really like my 24~105 f4. It has a great range and I bet you buy a used one for half the price of a new 24~70.

 

[Big Mike]

Specifically for travel, I'd probably go with the 24-105mm. It gives you more reach, which is often nice when you're out and about. It's smaller and lighter, which may be a big issue for some people. And while IS isn't a necessity, it would certainly help in many situations.

The difference between F2.8 and F4 is only one stop...and if you're upgrading to full frame, you'll more than be able to make that up with higher ISO.

But on the other hand, F2.8 will always be bigger than F4...and sometimes you'll want/need that....but is that worth the extra cost/size/weight.

 

[TCampbell]

If you're ONLY going to have one lens, I'd go with the 24-105.
But I'd go with the 24-70 / 70-200 combination if you could have two lenses.

 

[o hey tyler]

24-105 is more practical for travel IMO.

 

[TheBiles]

The difference between F2.8 and F4 is only one stop...and if you're upgrading to full frame, you'll more than be able to make that up with higher ISO.

It's not just the fact that it's faster. The depth of field created by f/2.8 is much more pleasing, especially on full-frame.

 

[Big Mike]

The difference between F2.8 and F4 is only one stop...and if you're upgrading to full frame, you'll more than be able to make that up with higher ISO.

It's not just the fact that it's faster. The depth of field created by f/2.8 is much more pleasing, especially on full-frame.

That's pretty subjective. It's a little shallower at F2.8 but it could easily be too shallow for a lot of things....especially on full frame.

 

[TheBiles]

The difference between F2.8 and F4 is only one stop...and if you're upgrading to full frame, you'll more than be able to make that up with higher ISO.

It's not just the fact that it's faster. The depth of field created by f/2.8 is much more pleasing, especially on full-frame.

That's pretty subjective. It's a little shallower at F2.8 but it could easily be too shallow for a lot of things....especially on full frame.

Which is why you just stop it down. You can't open a f/4 up to f/2.8, though.

 

[o hey tyler]

It's not just the fact that it's faster. The depth of field created by f/2.8 is much more pleasing, especially on full-frame.

That's pretty subjective. It's a little shallower at F2.8 but it could easily be too shallow for a lot of things....especially on full frame.

Which is why you just stop it down. You can't open a f/4 up to f/2.8, though.

Just as you can't zoom a uselessly short 24-70 to 105mm.

 

[dbvirago]

Just got back from 2+ weeks in Europe. Only took the 24-105 and the 70-200, both f4. First travel trip with the 24-105. 33% of shots were taken between 70 and 105, with 20% at 105. 33% were shot at f8 and about 10% at f4. Most of the f4 shots were on the non-IS 70-200 trying to squeeze out a faster shutter speed. Having said that, there were many low light situations where I could have used the extra stop.

 

[TNHphoto]

Thanks everyone. This definitely helps. It does seem more convenient to be carrying one lens when backpacking (seems to favor 24-105), but sharpness is always important too (seems to favor 24-70).

Any thoughts on which is the better lens for landscapes? Or is there little difference?