Canon 24-70mm VS 24-105mm

[Bakko]

Which would you prefer, and why?

 

[fivedeemarktoo]

I have 24-105 because it came in a bundle.. Would I have picked it if I could choose? Probably not, because I do love the lower F-stop on the 24-70

 

[Village Idiot]

I had the 24-70 f/2.8L before I purchased my 5D MKII. At that time, the 5D MKII could only really be found bundled with the 24-105. I took the 24-105 out of the bundle and sold it without even opening it's box.

The 24-70 has a wider aperture for a narrow DOF and the IS of the 24-105 isn't needed for what I shoot. I also own a 70-200 f/2.8L so I have no need of the extra range.

 

[chaosrealm93]

24-70

 

[usayit]

I owned both but chose the 24-105L as my general zoom. For me, it fits much better (extra range, IS, packaging) as a general zoom. I generally use primes and I much prefer a fast prime over a zoom that is even 1 stop slower. For those times I wanted to carry a small Canon kit, I'd take the 24-105L and 50mm f/1.4 which I found much more useful than just the 24-70L.


Either works.... its a matter of which "configuration" works better for what you shoot.

 

[Robin Usagani]

Im loving my 35mm f/1.4L so much im ready to sell my 24-70mm f/2.8L. What shall I get usayit? 85? 135?

 

[usayit]

After buying and selling a huge chunk of the Canon EOS lineup the final set that kept me totally content for a long time:

24-105L 100-400L, 24 f/1.4L, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8, 135 f/2L, 300 f4L.

The 135 f/2L is one of those lenses that I experience "seller's regret" when someone asks me about it. It is outstanding! especially on a full frame 5D. On the other hand, the 85mm f/1.8 is probably the most value... not expensive.. good optics...

 

[Derrel]

After buying and selling a huge chunk of the Canon EOS lineup the final set that kept me totally content for a long time:

24-105L 100-400L, 24 f/1.4L, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8, 135 f/2L, 300 f4L.

The 135 f/2L is one of those lenses that I experience "seller's regret" when someone asks me about it. It is outstanding! especially on a full frame 5D. On the other hand, the 85mm f/1.8 is probably the most value... not expensive.. good optics...

The lens lineup usayit references is basically hitting on all the "needed" focal lengths, with prime lenses at 24,50,85,and 135 that simply cannot be substituted for by ANY (and I mean ANY) zoom lens, regardless of price or exotic design. There is simply no equivalent for a 24/1.4, or a 50/1.4, or an 85/1.8 (except an 85 1.4 or 1.2, and even there....the 1.8 has several advantages,and the "value" usayit mentions makes both the Canon and Nikon 85/1.8 lenses better bang-for-buck lenses for most people), and the 135/2-L by Canon is one of the better "normal" primes I have ever owned. A 300mm f/4 lens equivalent can be had in a Sigma zoom,and a couple other zooms of very high cost, so that makes the 300mm f/4 prime lens basically a must-have for a lightweight yet still very high quality prime lens that is versatile (for use with a 1.4x TC and or extension tubes).

In terms of the 24-70/2.8 versus 24-105/4 dilemma....I went with the 24-105-L instead of the 24-70. To me, 70mm is not long enough to be limited to on a general-purpose or walk-around lens. I also would not be comfortable shooting the 24-70mm at f/2.8 because the image quality is so much below what I can get with a prime lens, or stopped down. So, to me, the f/2.8 aperture of the 24-70 is largely a theoretical advantage, not a real-world advantage. I still think of it as a lens that needs to be stopped down to f/4, so it's a 24-70mm f/4 without Image Stabilizer (and IS is good for panning shots, good when out of breath, good when shooting at slow speeds to pick up DOF) and to me, that means the 24-70 is, well, an "ehhh" lens.

 

[Hardrock]

After buying and selling a huge chunk of the Canon EOS lineup the final set that kept me totally content for a long time:

24-105L 100-400L, 24 f/1.4L, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8, 135 f/2L, 300 f4L.

The 135 f/2L is one of those lenses that I experience "seller's regret" when someone asks me about it. It is outstanding! especially on a full frame 5D. On the other hand, the 85mm f/1.8 is probably the most value... not expensive.. good optics...

The lens lineup usayit references is basically hitting on all the "needed" focal lengths, with prime lenses at 24,50,85,and 135 that simply cannot be substituted for by ANY (and I mean ANY) zoom lens, regardless of price or exotic design. There is simply no equivalent for a 24/1.4, or a 50/1.4, or an 85/1.8 (except an 85 1.4 or 1.2, and even there....the 1.8 has several advantages,and the "value" usayit mentions makes both the Canon and Nikon 85/1.8 lenses better bang-for-buck lenses for most people), and the 135/2-L by Canon is one of the better "normal" primes I have ever owned. A 300mm f/4 lens equivalent can be had in a Sigma zoom,and a couple other zooms of very high cost, so that makes the 300mm f/4 prime lens basically a must-have for a lightweight yet still very high quality prime lens that is versatile (for use with a 1.4x TC and or extension tubes)



This is very interesting. I sold my 70-200L f2.8 IS due to it was soft at f2.8 on my 50D and now have the money for the 70-200 f2.8 IS II. But in the back of my head I have been thinking about getting the 135 f2 and 85 f1.8 instead. I"ve rented all 3 and its just a hard decision.

There are lovers and haters of both lens but I would rather the 24-105 due to the IS and longer focal length. At 105 and f4 you can get a fairly shallow DOF for a head shot or waist up. But it really depends on what you shoot...

 

[Cheesy_DSLR_Man]

this is really helpful to me as im stuck between buying one of these lens, so all this input is really helpful to me as well

 

[penfolderoldo]

The lens lineup usayit references is basically hitting on all the "needed" focal lengths... and

I also would not be comfortable shooting the 24-70mm at f/2.8 because the image quality is so much below what I can get with a prime lens, or stopped down. So, to me, the f/2.8 aperture of the 24-70 is largely a theoretical advantage, not a real-world advantage. I still think of it as a lens that needs to be stopped down to f/4, so it's a 24-70mm f/4 without Image Stabilizer (and IS is good for panning shots, good when out of breath, good when shooting at slow speeds to pick up DOF) and to me, that means the 24-70 is, well, an "ehhh" lens.

There's no such thing as a universally 'needed' focal length, it depends entirely what type of photography you do. I also have a bit of an issue with saying the IQ of the 24-70 at 2.8 is so much below what you get with a prime - depends on the prime - im my experience the 24-70 at 2.8 DOES outperform most primes outwith the L series. At the end of the day its horses for courses, I use the 24-70 everyday in my work, and like village idiot I use a 70-200 2.8 too, so for me there'd be little point in having the 24-105, superb lens as it is.

 

[usayit]

"At the end of the day its horses for courses"....

Yup.

I'm a prime shooter... mostly.

The lenses listed are among the best primes in the Canon lineup: for starters the 24mm L has much better control over barrel distoration than 24mm on the 24-70. As someone who likes street shoots, 24mm is nice in part to the DOF you get... even when wide open. In this respect f/1.4 on a 24mm is extremely beneficial. Much more so than f/2.8 on a zoom. At the long end, 70mm to 85mm and on... f/1.8 (or f/2 on the 135mm) is quite useful in terms of obtaining a faster shutter speed while still maintaining IQ. There are other major differences but I am sure an experienced person already knows... or can research.

When I reach for a zoom, I want flexibility... decent range... packaging.... I'm already accepting it as a compromise.... I've shot with all the lenses in question, I simply found the 24-70 way too short as a general walk-around. Now pair that with the 70-200mm f/2.8... you have a heavier package. My cousin (portraits mostly) had borrowed my 24-70 and 70-200mm... he loves it. I had my 24-105L and 100-400L (w/ 50mm f/1.4). On a whim we decided to head to a Polo match... after wondering around taking misc. photos just for fun. Guess who was more satisfied? .

Now I understand that 24-70 70-200mm is the bread and butter for the working wedding photog.... Makes sense... as you said it depends on the type of photography.


I believe what Darrel referred to as the set of primes I listed will basically meet al the needs most photogs will encounter..... Don't think he meant a focal length that is universally needed....



Some people can taste the difference between box wine and expensive wine.... I can't....

 

[gsgary]

I only have 2 zoom lenses 24-70 and 70-200, rest are fast primes but the 24-70 is a very sharp lens that is on my 5D most of the time

 

[Nubbs]

I have the 24-105 and love it. I have thought at times of trading it for the 24-70 but I like the range of the 105 and the IS is a must in my book. My 24-105 is on my camera 90% of the time.