Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L or 24-105 f/4L

[Dilly]

Hey all,

long time reader first time poster

Was looking to get a lens for a digital rebel that I could use for general photography(ie. walking around a town taking general pics). Which one would you guys recommend? I'm kind of stuck as both get rave reviews...

Thanks!

 

[Innocence]

i was looking at both and seemed to me the latter would be more suitable as a walkaround purely based on the weight. like you mentioned, both have great optics.

 

[Dilly]

One more thing I need to think about is the redudancy as I already have a 70-200 f4.. So the faster 24-70 might be a better choice...

I also have heard of rumors that the 24-70 doesn't perform very well at f2.8? Not too sure..

 

[Innocence]

sorry, I'm pretty noob haha. I hope some more knowledgeable folk will come rescue you haha.

or, you can go to other places to read up.
(www.fredmiranda.com seems nice to me) Goodluck

 

[lostprophet]

I own a 24-70 and was thinking of getting 24~105 but went for 2.8 because Ive never heard a bad thing about it. I work in a camera shop and have sold loads of each. never had a 2.8 returned but have had 24-105 returned. that said my friend has one and loves it, Ive used it and its great, if you can go to a shop take a shot with each, feel the weight and see which suits you best

 

[darich]

I own a 24-70 f2.8 and i take around 90% of my shots with it.
I love it and would receommend it very highly. especially if your other lens is a 70-200
A good site for reviews is The Digital Picture

It's a fantastic lens and i can't think of a lens i'd rather have in its place.

 

[Iron Flatline]

The 24-70 is better for portraits and people shots in lower light than the 24-105. It's a little heavy, but absolutely worth it.

As an aside, I bought the 24-70 L and had a bad diaphragm. But B&H took it back and I got a new one, no problems or questions asked, and they even threw in free expedited shipping.

 

[Dilly]

THanks for all the replies guys!

I have one last question though, this lens will probably have to serve as my wide angle lens for quite awhile. I know that the 24-70 is very soft at the 24mm end while the 24-105 isn't all that wide.. I'm confused as to which will give the best results on a cropped camera that I have? (I won't be upgrading to a ff anytime soon).

Thanks!

 

[Innocence]

haha you know I am having exactly the same problems, and I was thinking 17-40 or 10-22. I am actually having trouble deciding between those two ahaha.

 

[darich]

THanks for all the replies guys!

I have one last question though, this lens will probably have to serve as my wide angle lens for quite awhile. I know that the 24-70 is very soft at the 24mm end while the 24-105 isn't all that wide.. I'm confused as to which will give the best results on a cropped camera that I have? (I won't be upgrading to a ff anytime soon).

Thanks!

I've never noticed the 24-70mm being very soft at 24mm before.
Sionce both the lenses you're considering are the same focal length at the short end, the decision shouold either be regarding the long end or the f stop.
since you already own the 70-200 i'd recommend the 24-70. Having the overlap will only benefit you if a lot of your shots are around the 50-100mm mark and would mean you changing lenses often,
Quality wise, the 24-70 f2.8 is hard to beat.

 

[reg]

I know that the 24-70 is very soft at the 24mm end while the 24-105 isn't all that wide

Uh.. the only difference is that the 24-105 has an extra 35mm on the telephoto end. 24mm = 24mm.

 

[icassell]

haha you know I am having exactly the same problems, and I was thinking 17-40 or 10-22. I am actually having trouble deciding between those two ahaha.

I love my Sigma 10-20 -- and I did a side->side with the canon 10-22. It works great and cost alot less. http://www.10-20mm.com/

 

[usayit]

24-70 and the 24-105 comparisons come up very often here.... some to aid in your decision

http://thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=84510
http://thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=76828
http://thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=42694

In essence, my feeling is that the 24-105L is one of the best all around lenses you can get. Its sharp, has IS, good focal range, and easier to pack. The 24-70L is one of the best FAST zooms you can get. The fast f/2.8 aperture comes at a shorter focal length and heavier packaging. This comparison is very similar to that of the 70-200 f2.8 versus 70-200 f4 IS (speed versus packaging).

I've shot with all the lenses in question and ended up with the 24-105L + 100-400L for the sheer flexibility of focal range. That combination saw more use than the 24-70L + 70-200L f2.8L IS. For low-light, I still feel that a fast zoom is still a compromise over fast primes (at least for me).

You really can't go wrong with either.... the 24-70L is the bread and butter for many wedding shooters and with good reason.

 

[Mystwalker]

Hey all,

long time reader first time poster

Was looking to get a lens for a digital rebel that I could use for general photography(ie. walking around a town taking general pics). Which one would you guys recommend? I'm kind of stuck as both get rave reviews...
Thanks!

Personally, I would go 24-105 f/4.0L IS because I like "L" build.

Have you considered 17-55 f/2.8 IS for your camera? IQ and priced like an "L", but not built like one.

 

[Zansho]

I've used both of the lenses you have mentioned.

I purchased the 24-70 2.8 - simply because it fit my shooting style better. I took a look at a lot of my photos, and looked at my exif data, and I found I shoot a lot of my images at 50mm -70mm range. I rarely go beyond that, unless I'm using my 70-200F4, which then it shows I'm usually in the 100-150 range on that one.

Yes, it is heavy. But that sharpness and speed that you get in exchange for the heavy lens, I feel is worth it. It's reasonably sharp at 2.8, better at 5.6, optimal at F8-F11.

Really, you can't go wrong with either one. I liked both of them, but I just preferred the 24-70 more.