Lens Suggestion, 24-105 f/4L IS vs. 24-70 f/2.8L to Compliment 70-200 f/2.8?

[Rocketman1978]

you'll never wish you had a slower lens.

And for this reason I am getting ready to pair my 70-200 2.8 with a 24-70 Mk I. For me as a hobbyist the Mk I will do just dandy.

 

[bratkinson]

24-70:
-Faster
-Smaller
-Lighter!

Smaller??? Lighter??? That is definitely NOT the 24-70 f2.8L mark i that I owned a little over a year ago!

I had the 24-105 for a couple of months and figured I'd give a try to the 24-70. Used it for a wedding (as guest) and found that although it was a stop faster, the lack of IS caused this old geezer problems...especially at slower shutter speeds on my 60D (no surprise, really). The weight was another problem for me. It's not called 'the brick' without reason. So I sold the 24-70 and kept the 24-105.

Since upgrading to the 5D mark iii, f4 is no problem whatsoever these days...neither is f5.6 or f8 in dim light. ISO 6000 solved all my slow shutter speed problems!

As for the 24-70 mark ii, however, all I've read was how super sharp it is, etc. But even with improved glass and less weight compared to the mark i, I'll stick with my 24-105. For me, and many others, the 24-105 is a great walk-around lens. Perhaps 70% of my shots are with that lens. It would also give you a great focal length 'overlap' with the 70-200, to reduce the number of lens swaps needed.

If I could only own 1 lens, it would be the 24-105, hands down.

 

[Derrel]

SNIP>>>> ISO 6000 solved all my slow shutter speed problems!

Ummm,yeah....funny how formerly astronomically-high ISO values, made possible AND practical on the newest modern d-slr cameras, have redefined the term 'slow glass'. It's amazing what modern sensor technology has done to expand the boundaries of what is possible; what used to be impossible is now merely difficult; what was once difficult, is now fairly easy.

F/2.8 at 1/30 has given way to f/4 at 1/125 in bad light. High-speed shutter now means 1/1600 to 1/4000 under real-world conditions.

 

[TCampbell]

Low focal ratio lenses usually are heavier -- not uncommon. I own the original 24-70mm f/2.8L (which _is_ a fantastic lens, btw. Yes, the "II" is better... it's particularly better in the center... as you get toward the edges it's probably not noticeable that it's better.) It's a heavy lens. Lots of people complain about the weight. I don't mind it myself, but it _is_ a heavy lens.

The 24-70 II is 805g.
The 24-105 is 670g

And just in case you're interested, the original 24-70 is 950g (the heavyweight winner!) So while the "II" is noticeably lighter than the original, it's still not lighter than the 24-105.

I went with the 24-70 because of the f/2.8 advantage and didn't care about the image stabilization of the 24-105. But that's me. I don't shoot video. I have done a lot of low light events where even if the camera is braced, I needed the fastest shutter speed possible (e.g. music concerts where I'm shooting down at 1/30th... but that'd be 1/15th if all I had was f/4 glass). Derrel is right in that we've got such incredibly high ISO that I no longer have to pray that ISO 3200 wont look too terribly awful with noise even in low light situations, and frankly ISO 6400 looks really good, and ISO 12800 is acceptable.

One of my local photography buddies went with the 24-105. HE shoots almost nothing but video. BTW, he also bought a really cool CarrySpeed brand videofinder for his DSLR: ViewFinders | Carry Speed Store