Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 or 24-105mm f/4L IS Lense?

gooseattack

Hi, I am about to buy one of these two lenses

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

or

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM

But I can't make up my mind to which one purchase. I'm am photography student just getting started. I have a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM already. What are the main difference between the two lenses? If you have used these lenses before, can you please tell me what are some of the pros and cons of each lense? Any suggestion/recommendation is helpful!

Thanks a bunch!

Scott_Quier

I second the motion. I also am having a hard time deciding between these two lenses. My use will primarily be such things as wedding photog, portraits, that sort of thing. But, I also take vacations, so this lens would be my primary walking around lens as well.

I'm sooooo confused!

USAIR

I have the 24-70 and it's a great lens.
Can't comment on the 24-105 never used it.
I also have the 70-200 and they seem to be a good match...at least for me.

If you go with the 24-70 you save a little money and get a faster lens.
You already have covered the 70 to 105mm range with the 70-200.
Just my .02

Fred

John Mueller

I have had the 24-70 and now the 24-105.Its hard to tell a difference.
IQ is about the same.
Of course you have f2.8 on one and IS on the other

Andy

Short user review (me) of the 24-105L
http://dgrin.smugmug.com/gallery/1161613

Two Dgrin Threads:
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=26874
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=19589

wxwax

If you think you'll be shooting things that move, in low light, then you'll need the extra speed of the 24-70.

If you want a do-everything lens that isn't terribly good at shooting moving things in low light, then get the 24-105.

Generally speaking, the 24-105 is the better walk-around lens. It has a wide range, and the quality appears to be very good. But it's kinda slow for indoor, natural light work. The IS will compensate for your shaky hands, but it won't stop motion.

The 24-70 is an excellent lens that can handle more lighting situations. But you do give up 35mms of focal length, which reduces its flexibility. You'll just have to decide which you value more: extra focal length, or better low-light capability?

pathfinder

I agree with Waxy's answer. I am an owner of both the 24-70 f2.8 L and the 24-105 f4 IS L.

The 24-70 is larger and heavier to schlup around all day, so outside in good light I strongly prefer the reach of the 24-105 and do not miss the f2.8.

But for shooting candids and portraits indoors, I prefer the 24-70 f2.8 L, with the faster focusing due to the faster lens, and do not miss the shorter telephoto indoors.

One other factor to consider, is which style body do you have. I prefer the 24-105 on a 20D APS sensored body. The 24-70 seems large and bulky on a 20D to me. But the 24-70 and the 24-105 seems perfectly sized for the larger 1 series cameras. Also 24mm is not wide enough on a 20D, but is usually fine on a full frame camera.

If I had to have only one, I probably would choose the 24-105 F4 IS L overall. Image quality seems equivalent to me. They both are superb.

gooseattack

Scott,

This is pretty helpful too. Thanks!

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=169435

claudermilk

Good advice so far. I have the 24-70 myself, and will be adding the 70-200 iS to my kit later. These two lenses make a pretty good match.

It seems the 24-70 is more for low light situations with the f2.8, while the 24-105 is more of a general outdoors walk-around lens. So it really depends on what you're going to use it for.

I know I would not be happy with the 24-105 for my needs--the IS doesn't replace the f2.8. On the flip side, I can--and do--press the 24-70 into walk-around duty and on the whole it works fine for me; I guess I'm weird in that the 24-70/20D/grip combo doesn't bother me much as far as weight & bulk.

BTW, this is some serious kit for just starting out!

System

FWIW, after a few months with the 24-105 there is no way I'd trade it for the 24-70 2.8. While there are times I need a faster lens than the 24-105 I don't feel that F/2.8 would really be fast enough to help. I'll be adding something to the quiver eventually that will be a low ambient light lens specifically. As a daylight walk around lens the 24-105 produces as many keepers for me as my 70-200 f/2.8. Even though there is overlap between the two lenses they are actually quite a nice combo. I rarely find myself struggling over which lens to choose for a specific goal as they are quite different tools. 90% of the time I know which lens I want to shoot before I leave the house.

jdryan3

And still I can't make up my mind ...
DavidTO suggested I post a PM I sent so others could respond.
I am posting it here as a way to bump an existing thread on this topic rather than start a new one.

I have read many posts on loads of websites (including here, Fred Miranda, & others) on the Canon 24-70 v 24-105. So I went thru a bunch of my images. I do shoot mainly hand held (or monopod), with some 'action shots', a decent amount of portraits an candids, indoors & out, just a hodgepodge of everything. I do shoot landscapes in low light sometimes, but on a tripod. I find my 28-135 soft and just not fast enough at the mid-upper range, but I think the IS would come in handy, especially when not at f/2.8

I have the 24 f/2.8, 50 f/1.8, 100 f/2, and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. But at times I would like to just take the 1 or 2 zooms as I roam around in my PJ mode. I was going for the 24-105 for the reach & IS. Now I'm back to fast is better.
But it conflicts with my recent experience on the 200 f/2.8 prime. I bought it but it seemed that in low light I would have been better served going for IS and upping the ISO. It is why I got the 70-200.

Which of these do you prefer? I have the 5D FF, so crop is not an issue.

Another thread on this is here http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=45323&highlight=lens+whore .

Tom K.

I had the 24-70 from Canon and while the photos were brilliant and razor sharp from f/2.8.........I ended up selling it. Why???? For a walk around general purpose lens it is painfully heavy and bulky. I walked around a huge Fair for about 8 hours with it and the experience was such that I felt like I was trying to have a good time at a Fair with an enormous weight over my shoulder. It was so dominating in it's heaviness that despite the quality of the photos I dreaded taking it out for street shooting in the city. Plus it is very large with an enormous hood that really attracts attention. While I completely agree that it's optics are unsurpassed in it's focal length.......the bulk and weight just ruined the experience for me. It was a love/hate relationship. Love the quality....Hate the weight and bulk.

If you can deal with that factor......then buy it. If not......look at other options. Best of luck.

Tom K.

gooseattack wrote:

Hi, I am about to buy one of these two lenses

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

or

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM

Whichever you choose....you can save a bundle on either by putting this code into the B&H search box: PPE06
Here are direct links to each lens at the reduced price. Plus there is a $50 rebate on each lens right now:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=Search&A=details&Q=&sku=465887&is=USA&addedTroughType=search

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=Search&A=details&Q=&sku=465888&is=USA&addedTroughType=search

claudermilk

For a different opinion, yep the 24-70 is big & heavy. But it didn't bother me carrying it around all day at the fair--in fact I did it several times. Got a few comments, but nobody else could get the midway-after-dark shots that I did. One thing that helps is I use the Op/Tech Pro-loop strap instead of Canon's crummy one and a Slingshot 200; both have nice wide comfortable straps & the camera hangs right beside the bag when out of it--some camouflage there.

Seefutlung

On the 20D, as I have a 10-22 EFS and a 70-200 2.8, ... I never used the 24-70 much (on the wide side I'd rather have the 10-22 because of the extended range down to 10 and on the long side I'd use the 70-200 because I could zoom out to 200). Now I have a 5D, and the 24-70 is in it's own element ... extremely useful in all lighting situations, sufficiently wide to be practical and long enough for head and shoulders in tight quarters. IMO, there is no substitute for speed ... so if you plan to move to a FF ... the 24-70 is wonderful ... on an APS-C sensor ... it's a bit like a fish out of water if you have the 24-70 range bracketed.

Gary

LiquidAir

For the kind of low light shooting I do, I prefer the fast primes (35/1.4, 50/1.4, 85/1.8 and 135/2) to the the 24-70/2.8. I think that preference is because in most situations I have the flexibility to foot zoom so the faster primes work better for me. The 24-105/4 is my daylight/tourisim/walk around lens and for that it works great.

My feeling is that if you really need a low light zoom, the 24-70/2.8 is the way to go. However, if primes or a flash will work for you in the low light situations you shoot in, get the 25-105/4.

David Taylor

The 24-70 was my first lens, and is still the one that I use more than anything else. Although it might not be considered a classical focal length on a 1.6 crop camera (I have a 20D), it is perfect for what I shoot. That's all that matters, right?

I'm sure if I had started with a 24-105 I'd feel the same way, but there's no way I'd have both (for reasons of marital harmony:D)

claudermilk

I know a lot of people find hte 24-70 range a little odd on the APS-C bodies, but for me it's perfect. In one of my common venues it gives me a perfect full-body to head & shoulders range. I would not be happy with the 24-105 being f4 (even the f2.8 is slow at times ).

Manfr3d

If you're using a crop body, you should also
take a look at the Canon 17-55mm/2.8 IS USM.
The best of both worlds (2.8 and IS).