canon 24-105l vs 24-70l

[Pa_ool]

hey guys.
i am saving up for a new lens after i buy my 7d soon. i currently use a 60d with 18-55 & 55-250. I am wanting to get a more "all in one lense"
i like the slight range of the 24-105l but like the f2.8 of the 24-70.
i am in a dilemma right now. i do a lot of sports and action photography outdoors but do some in basketball gyms. i was thinking of getting the 24-104 since f4 is not to bad outdoors. then just downgrading to the sigma 17-50 f2.8 for indoors. what do you guys think?

 

[prodigy2k7]

You're gonna want 2.8 or faster indoors.
Personally I have the 7d and plan on getting the 17-55 2.8 IS with 70-200 2.8 combo.

I tested the 24-105 f4 at my local store. I wasn't impressed ( for what I wanted) and i decided on the efs 17-55 2.8

 

[Pa_ool]

You're gonna want 2.8 or faster indoors.
Personally I have the 7d and plan on getting the 17-55 2.8 IS with 70-200 2.8 combo.



I tested the 24-105 f4 at my local store. I wasn't impressed ( for what I wanted) and i decided on the efs 17-55 2.8

Any main reason not really like it? I just like the extra little reach of it since I am not always near my subjects

 

[prodigy2k7]

105 isn't far enough. F4 is too slow for sports indoors or nights. And 24 isn't wide enough. 17-55 is red ring L quality just efs.

70-200 for extra "reach"

 

[Dubaiian]

I am merely a hobbyist photographer but own the 24-105 and the 70-200 2.8 used on my 7d. I often shoot indoor sports for my friends and find that f4 just does not cut it, neither does 105mm. My major issue is that with f4 I find myself in the higher reaches of ISO to preserve the shutter speed I need. Once i acquire my 5dMKIII I will probably be able to use the 24-105 more indoors.

I love the 24-105 as a general walkabout lens outdoors though as it seems to be just the right length and does not attract the attention of the 70-200.

 

[Pa_ool]

105 isn't far enough. F4 is too slow for sports indoors or nights. And 24 isn't wide enough. 17-55 is red ring L quality just efs.

70-200 for extra "reach"

i am outdoor most often. Rarely inside. So that's why I thought of the sigma 17-50 2.8?

 

[Pa_ool]

I am merely a hobbyist photographer but own the 24-105 and the 70-200 2.8 used on my 7d. I often shoot indoor sports for my friends and find that f4 just does not cut it, neither does 105mm. My major issue is that with f4 I find myself in the higher reaches of ISO to preserve the shutter speed I need. Once i acquire my 5dMKIII I will probably be able to use the 24-105 more indoors.

I love the 24-105 as a general walkabout lens outdoors though as it seems to be just the right length and does not attract the attention of the 70-200.

Thts what I want it for. Spend most time outdoors.

 

[Dubaiian]

I am merely a hobbyist photographer but own the 24-105 and the 70-200 2.8 used on my 7d. I often shoot indoor sports for my friends and find that f4 just does not cut it, neither does 105mm. My major issue is that with f4 I find myself in the higher reaches of ISO to preserve the shutter speed I need. Once i acquire my 5dMKIII I will probably be able to use the 24-105 more indoors.

I love the 24-105 as a general walkabout lens outdoors though as it seems to be just the right length and does not attract the attention of the 70-200.

Thts what I want it for. Spend most time outdoors.

In which case, I would suggest that you get one to test as it would seem to fit the bill. I love the lens for walkaround as it seems to produce very sharp images, focusses fast and has the added benefit of IS. Not sure what prices are like in the states, but it regularly trades here on the second hand market at well under US$1000.

Go for it, you wont be disappointed

 

[Pa_ool]

I am merely a hobbyist photographer but own the 24-105 and the 70-200 2.8 used on my 7d. I often shoot indoor sports for my friends and find that f4 just does not cut it, neither does 105mm. My major issue is that with f4 I find myself in the higher reaches of ISO to preserve the shutter speed I need. Once i acquire my 5dMKIII I will probably be able to use the 24-105 more indoors.

I love the 24-105 as a general walkabout lens outdoors though as it seems to be just the right length and does not attract the attention of the 70-200.

Thts what I want it for. Spend most time outdoors.

In which case, I would suggest that you get one to test as it would seem to fit the bill. I love the lens for walkaround as it seems to produce very sharp images, focusses fast and has the added benefit of IS. Not sure what prices are like in the states, but it regularly trades here on the second hand market at well under US$1000.

Go for it, you wont be disappointed

I will try and test it out. But is that sigma 17-50 2.8 any good for indoor sports?

 

[Dubaiian]

Thts what I want it for. Spend most time outdoors.

In which case, I would suggest that you get one to test as it would seem to fit the bill. I love the lens for walkaround as it seems to produce very sharp images, focusses fast and has the added benefit of IS. Not sure what prices are like in the states, but it regularly trades here on the second hand market at well under US$1000.

Go for it, you wont be disappointed

I will try and test it out. But is that sigma 17-50 2.8 any good for indoor sports?

Have never used the Sigma myself, but I do think that 50mm may be a little wide for any kind of sports.

 

[Pa_ool]

In which case, I would suggest that you get one to test as it would seem to fit the bill. I love the lens for walkaround as it seems to produce very sharp images, focusses fast and has the added benefit of IS. Not sure what prices are like in the states, but it regularly trades here on the second hand market at well under US$1000.

Go for it, you wont be disappointed

I will try and test it out. But is that sigma 17-50 2.8 any good for indoor sports?

Have never used the Sigma myself, but I do think that 50mm may be a little wide for any kind of sports.

So which lense you recommend?

 

[Dubaiian]

I will try and test it out. But is that sigma 17-50 2.8 any good for indoor sports?

Have never used the Sigma myself, but I do think that 50mm may be a little wide for any kind of sports.

So which lense you recommend?

If its mainly sports (and outdoors) then I would probably go with a 70-200f4 as I think its a similar price to the 24-105. If you also have the Sigma 17-50, you have better f-stop for indoor work and you will have the wide angle of the 17mm if you need it for landscapes or group photos.

 

[Pa_ool]

X

Have never used the Sigma myself, but I do think that 50mm may be a little wide for any kind of sports.

So which lense you recommend?

If its mainly sports (and outdoors) then I would probably go with a 70-200f4 as I think its a similar price to the 24-105. If you also have the Sigma 17-50, you have better f-stop for indoor work and you will have the wide angle of the 17mm if you need it for landscapes or group photos.

Care to help me but I not familiar with external flash stuff. How about the 24-105 with say the speedlite 580?

 

[JohnTrav]

I would recommend a 70-200 f/2.8 if your shooting sports. If its outside most the time then an f/4 you could get away with since there is a lot of natural light. But even then I still find myself shooting at f/2.8 a lot.

24-105 I don't think offers enough reach for what you want to do. It would be a great lens for walk around and closer up shots.

The canon 580ex II speedlite are awesome flashes. I just got mine and used it yesterday and it's very fast and offers great light.

Keep in mind though that using a flash while shooting sports is quite distracting. Some sports might not let you use it while the game is on.

Also if you are shooting in a basketball gym I would think it is lit enough for f/4. But that also changes gym to gym.

 

[TCampbell]

^^ This.

Use the 70-200mm f/2.8 for both outdoor AND indoor sports shots. I have a 24-70 f/2.8 but you may find that 70mm isn't quite enough to capture the shots with enough detail to make the shots interesting. Another lens I like for indoor action is the 135mm f/2 -- that's my favorite lens for concerts, but as it's a prime, it's appropriateness really depends on your ability to move around, which is why I suspect you'll find the 70-200 to be better suited to the task.

The 24-70 and 24-105 are great standard zooms, but night time games and indoor games are all about the light-gather power of the lens. Since you're trying to freeze action (or at least control it if you're shooting slow enough to imply motion in the shot -- but that's a topic for a different thread) you need to capture enough light that you can use a fairly quick shutter speed... preferably in the 1/250th to 1/500th range. For sports, low focal ratio is king.