24-70mm f2.8 vs 24-105mm f4.0

[cconner]

I have a 24-70 2.8L II and a Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC. The Canon gets most of the attention, but the Tamron really does shine in low light when you must have a zoom. If you shoot video it is a dream other than the focus and zoom rings are opposite of canon and backwards. Just another thought, plus the 24-70 from Tamron was $1299.

 

[bratkinson]

While f2.8 may seem like the cats' meow for low-light work, as Derrel stated, an f1.8 and faster beats that hands down.

For what it's worth, I tried a couple of primes and zooms, and decided to go with 3 zooms and a they'll-pry-it-from-my-cold-dead-hands 135 f2L. Note that the 135 on my former 60D (crop) necessitated I was quite some distance from the subject, but I still liked it. It's a perfect match for the 5D3, though.

As for zooms, once I figured out I needed fast glass to go with my 60D, I went with a 16-35 f2.8L ii, 24-105 f4L, and 80-200 f2.8L. And, for a while, tried a 24-70 f2.8L i...aka, 'the brick'. It was rightfully named. The 24-70 mark i I had gave great results, even on my crop 60D. But being I'm an old geezer, my hands just aren't as steady as there were, and the lack of IS at shutter speeds in the 1/60 and slower range needed to keep the ISO at 1600 was a problem. After 2 hours as a guest at a wedding with that camera and lens, I don't remember which hurt more, my feet or my right arm. So I sold the 24-70 and kept the 24-105. The 24-70 mark ii is lighter than the brick, but for me, I'd rather have the zoom range and IS of 24-105, even at the cost of a stop. From my experience, and that of others, the 24-105 is a fantastic walk-about, do-all lens.

If you're 'set' on getting a 24-70 f2.8 and don't want to break the bank, consider either the 24-70 f2.8L mark i (used), or a 3rd party lens with image stabilization. For low light, no flash photography, f2.8 and faster is pretty much 'a given' to get reasonable shutter speeds. But even f2.8 is often not fast enough with ISO 1600. I don't know about the t5i ISO OK-on-the-noise maximum, but I'll guess 1600 or 2400, and 3200 in a squeeze (better a noisy shot than no shot). So, an f1.8 prime is needed go get shutter speeds fast enough to stop subject motion.

But shooting wide open has a couple of pitfalls, if you're not careful. The first is a thin DOF. Trying to squeeze 3 people in a picture from 8-10 feet away might end up with 2 in focus, and one not. Note, too, that very few lenses are at their sharpest when wide open.

One more thing...if your plan is to use the new lens for holiday get-togethers, be sure to get some practice and looking carefully at the results BEFORE the big bash. As I and countless others have learned the hard way..."under pressure" is NOT the time to be learning how to use new gear!

 

[LShooter]

My 24-105 L is crazy sharp and takes great images. With the 5d Mk III ISO capabilities low light is not a big deal. Pick up a Sigma 85 1.4 to go along with it and you're set.

 

[gsgary]

I returned my 50mm 1.8 because I love the ability to be able to zoom in and out its a must when taking pictures for me

Don't your legs work ?

 

[underemployed]

I've for the 50mm 1.4 and it's amazing in low light. A real bother to have to move around to zoom in/out though. I also have the 24-70 2.8L and while it's fantastic for being able to zoom it's going to need a flash if you are taking pictures in low light and need to take them fast and/or aren't able to get people to pose for more than one shot.

 

[MK11_user]

The Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 is Designed for APS-C-Sized Sensors (crop frame) whereas the Canon 24-70 f2.8 is a full frame lens that can also be used with APS-C-Sized Sensors.
I see you currently have AN APS-C-Sized Sensors camera but if you are planning on going full frame in the future I recommend you go for the Canon 24-70 f2.8 or Sigma 24-70 f2.8 Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 IF EX DG HSM Autofocus Lens for Canon 571101.