The Great Debate: 24-70mm f/2.8L USM OR 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM

[HughGuessWho]

I was one click away from ordering a 24-70mm f/2.8L USM and the suddenly found myself in a great debate with myself about purchasing a 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM instead. Now, I can’t decide which way to go.

My issue isn’t prices, rather the range difference, though there is a substantial difference in price. I have a 70-200 2.8L, but could foresee myself swapping lens a lot, where if I had the 24-105, I may not have to swap as much. I shoot mostly landscape and outside so the elements are a concern.I have read tons of reviews but my questions are still not answered.

Is there that much of a difference between the 2.8 an 4?
Is there that much difference in the IQ? They are both L’s.

Help a guy out.

 

[TCampbell]

If you were to ONLY own one lens, then I'd probably suggest the 24-105 just for it's versatility as a general purposes "walking around" lens.

But if you're shooting action, image stabilization doesn't really buy you anything (because shutter speeds already have to be fast enough to freeze the action) and a lower focal ratio will gather more light (twice as much in this case -- so that allows you to double the shutter speed when necessary.)

You already have the 70-200mm f/2.8 -- so covering the range isn't really an issue.

I went with the 24-70 f/2.8 myself because I found that I was often needing a lens that could deal with lower light situations with some movement... the f/2.8 lenses had the clear advantage. For my "walking around" shots, I'll typically just pick a lens and stick with it. But also in "walking around" shots, I'm not necessarily in a hurry ... so I do have time to change lenses without missing the shot.

 

[Robin Usagani]

Is there that much of a difference between the 2.8 an 4?

the difference is 1 stop

 

[jwa345]

The last two post before mine were right on...... I have a 24-105mm f/4L and it's an incredible and diverse piece of quality glass, and the only difference is that one stop, so it really depends on what your shooting conditions are like, if it's low light...go with the 24-70 f/2.8 As far as the 70-200mm f/2.8...keep it, great lens!

 

[Robin Usagani]

personally i would get 24-105L. You can afford going 1 more stop higher on your ISO (assuming you have the latest full frame). You should be able to find it pretty cheap locally used because it is a bundle lens for 5DII and 5DIII.

 

[brian_f2.8]

If you use the 24-105 the 70-200 will collect dust. Yeah you might be switching lens here n there but now you are 24-200 f2.8 which is a nice set up.

 

[HughGuessWho]

Is there that much of a difference between the 2.8 an 4?

the difference is 1 stop

Well, yeah, I understand that. I am asking, from those that may have the lens, if they reallly miss that extra stop.

 

[Joshonator]

Comparison of Canon 24-70 vs 24-105 lenses
This guy has owned both and thinks the image quality is slightly better on the 24-70. In your position I would probably go with the 24-70 because then you'll have the full 24-200 covered with a 2.8 aperture. If you buy the 24-105 your giving that up in exchange for not having to lens swap as much (And the IS of course). IMO there's no point in making that sacrifice when your already covered from 70-200.

 

[Overread]

Here are my thoughts:

The 24-70mm f2.8 is a great lens, heavy, but offering a good image quality through its working range and a nice wide aperture of f2.8. For someone working indoors or in dim lighting a lot of the time and who might not always have access to using a flash its an ideal choice if they just want to bolt one lens to the camera and go.

The 25-105mm is another great lens, maybe not pixel for pixel as sharp as the 70mm version, but certainly able to deliver a more than usable image quality through its range. It also gives you a larger working range of focal lengths; suitable for outdoor and general shooting. You do have a stop less light to work with - so for indoor or lowlight situations you might find you need a stop more ISO or a flash to help things out. Also remember you lose a little creative ability when limited to f4 over f2.8. However if wide aperture creativity is important to you I'd would supplement either of the two zooms with a fast prime (a 50mm or 85mm).

In the end I'd say if you want a good generalist walk around lens for typical snaps the 24-105mm is an ideal option; if you're more serious about portrait work, want that creative edge even in a zoom and also might be shooting in dimmer lighting more often then the 24-70mm would be the more suitable option.

 

[HughGuessWho]

My original thought, since I have a 17-50 f2.8, I was covered on low light situations or when I needed something in the 2.8 range, but, you have all convinced me to go with the 24-70 f/2.8. I may as well do it right.
Thanks all.

 

[bratkinson]

I think you'd be better off with the 24-105. I have (for a little longer) both, and yes, the IQ from the 24-70 is a tad better.

But...There have been many times when having the 24-105 mounted was what I needed...to quickly zoom past the 70mm end. Nowadays, I do most of my shooting indoors, and to the extent possible, try to do it with a single lens. Having the 24-105 mounted with a flash on a bracket more than satisfies my needs. The IS is also a great help for these not-so-young-anymore hands.

I also feel that having 'abutting' focal lengths (24-70/70-200) rather than 'overlapping' focal lengths (24-105/70-200) ends up 'forcing' a lens swap when you only want 'just a little more zoom' capability. If you have two bodies, this isn't a problem. But I can think of many instances where the time lost swapping lenses would result in lost "important" shots.

Also, the 24-105 is lighter weight to carry around for hours on end. I'm no wedding photographer, but just last week, I had my 60D, 24-105 w/grip, and 580EX II on a bracket in my hand for well over 3 hours. IT GOT VERY HEAVY! A 24-70 would only be heavier!

Lastly, I put my 5 month old 24-70 on ebay late Sunday night. I've made my decision.

 

[HughGuessWho]

bratkinson, it is as if you posted my exact thoughts. I keep battling with the idea of the overlapping focal lengths. I seem to shoot a lot in that range and could see myself swapping lenses a lot and since most of the time I shoot outdoors, that is obviously not ideal.
My battle is magnified by the fact that I decided some time back that going forward I would only buy the best glass. I, like many, have never purchased cheap glass, but have purchased many middl of the road lenses and they have severed their purpose but I am just not pleased with the performance many times and want to move up to all "L" glass. No doubt, either of these lenses are better that my current 24-70 f/2.8, but the Great Debate is would I be giving up too much by loosing the full stop, for the gain the over lapping focal lenght. Something tells me I would be.
Just when I had made up my mind, you come along arguing for the other side....:er:

 

[Buckster]

I think it really depends on what you shoot.

My everyday walk-around lens is the 24-105mm. My 70-200mm is the f/4, but honestly, I don't use it all that much.

I don't do much low light stuff that would prevent me from just getting on a tripod or bumping up the ISO and still get acceptable shots, so that's not been an issue for me, where it might be for you.

I don't shoot a lot of high-speed action stuff like sports, but again, even if I did, I probably wouldn't personally have a problem just bumping up the ISO. So, that's not an issue for me, though it might be for you.

It's not like I'm going to crop the heck out of them and reaveal a bunch of noise, and I have noiseware to deal with that situation, even if I did crop them, so that's not an issue for me either, but it may be for you.

Once in a while the f/2.8 would probably come in handy, but I don't seem to miss it much, to be honest - but that has to do with what and how I personally shoot. Again, not an issue for me, but may be for you.

I'd love to be able to give you some sound advice, but I can only tell you what tools work well for me and what I shoot, not what's good for you and what you shoot.

 

[bentcountershaft]

If you use filters a lot then I would go with the 24-70 since it takes the same size as your current 70-200 2.8. If you don't use filters and you plan on keeping that 17-50 it's hard to argue against the 24-105. That said I have a 24-70 and it's my most used lens. I love it.

 

[sovietdoc]

I currently have 1 lens, 70-200 and I thought that for me, getting a 24-105 was just a waste of cash. Yes, it has a very useful focal length but there is a reason there is a focal length break at 70mm.

24-70 covers everything in "general" photography. You can do semi-wide shots, 50mm shots and portraits.

then 70-200 give you that 70 at wide end for general use, closer to 135mm for portraits and 200mm for tele.

Having a 24-105 completely renders 24-70 obsolete unless you have tons of cash to spend on the same lens with 1 stop better light performance. And it steals some range from 70-200. So in reality, I see 24-105 as a poor mans replacement for both 24-70 and 70-200, or if you can only carry one lens.

If you already have 70-200, i'd recommend 24-70, not 24-105. And not Canon's 24-70 which is quite the terrible. Get the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC