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

[Zansho]

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

The 24-70 is built like a tank, and it is an "L" like the 24-105.

 

[soylentgreen]

You cannot go wrong with either. Decide if you need the extra reach or larger aperature. The 24-70 is a bit short on zoom for an all-around lens hence my decision to go with the 24-105. The IS was also a boost and weight was a bonus. Will eventually get the 24-70 when Canon puts IS on it.

 

[Antithesis]

the 24-70 is pretty heavy and the 24-105 would probably be better suited as a walk around just because of that (a really front weighted camera can tax on your hands quicker than you might think). IS is also really useful, often more so than f2.8. I like the 24-70 because I put quite a bit of use through it and therefore the tank like build will come in handy. Plus, less moving parts means less things that might go wrong.

With a crop sensor, I'd look at something a bit wider. I tend to use my wide end very often and wish I had a wider lens most of the time. It's just my shooting style though. I think I would personally only get a mid-range zoom if I already had a wide to complement it, otherwise I would look at the 17-55 F2.8 IS EF-S. It's a bargain when it comes right down to it, the only thing you'll be missing are weather seals (and silly red rings and cool looking lens hoods).

 

[darich]

IS is also really useful, often more so than f2.8

True.
But with f2.8 most of the time you don't need IS - especially at the shorter focal lengths.
With the 24-105 you have the advantage of the IS but it's impossible to shoot at f2.8.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the 24-70 will give you something the 24-105 won't (ie f2.8) but the 24-105 only has IS over the 24-70 and in my opinion it isn't very necessary at shorter focal lengths.

 

[usayit]

True.
But with f2.8 most of the time you don't need IS - especially at the shorter focal lengths.

But with f2.8 the DOF sometimes works against you - especially at the longer focal lengths.

With the 24-105 you have the advantage of the IS but it's impossible to shoot at f2.8.

With the 24-70 you have the advantage of f2.8 but its impossible to shoot between 71-105mm focal lengths. The difference between f/2.8 and f/4 is one stop. The IS in the 24-105L is good for 3 stops.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the 24-70 will give you something the 24-105 won't (ie f2.8) but the 24-105 only has IS over the 24-70 and in my opinion it isn't very necessary at shorter focal lengths.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the 24-105 will give you something the 24-70 won't (ie focal range, lighter package, IS) but the 24-70 only has f/2.8 and in my opinion it isn't very necessary. The 24-70 is a compromise (as most zooms) for low light shooters that might be better off with even faster primes.


>> My point is.... 24-70 and 24-105 are tools of specific purposes to fit different photographer's needs. You can't argue one is better than the other in general terms. As such, you can spin any argument for/against the other way around<<

 

[Deadeye008]

Get the 24-70 to compliment your 70-200 f4. No sense in having two lenses that cover the same focal length and have the same max aperture. You will love the 2.8 also. A little warning though, after you get 2.8 on your reguar zoom you'll want it on your 70-200...