Canon 24-70 2.8L vs 24-105 4L IS

bham

I am struggling in deciding. Any advice. I shoot a lot of different things, weddings, sports, events, headshots, etc.

I wish they have a 24-105 2.8L IS. One can always dream.

Anybody that has had both?

I guess I am asking is the IS worth give up the 2.8. A constant 4 isn't shabby. The extra reach from 70-105 is nice but not really the deal killer. It would be the same debate if it both 24-70 but one was 4.0 IS and the other 2.8.

h4rri

Had both and kept the 24-70, didn't think the IS made up for the f/2.8 and couldn't be happier with the 24-70.

Found I use the 24-70 at times when the 24-105 just wouldn't cut it. Bought a 7-200 f/2.8 IS to cover the focal gap too so not bothered about losing the extra range.

One consideration though is that the 24-70 is quite a bit heavier than the 24-105. Something to bear in mind when it's hanging round your neck all day

mercphoto

bham wrote:

I guess I am asking is the IS worth give up the 2.8.

It depends. 2.8 can give you twice the maximum shutter speed the 4.0 will. Is that important to you? Remember, IS will make your camera steady, but it will not make your subject steady. If you are shooting sports at night, or that wedding in a dim church, you need shutter speed. But if the subjects you photograph do not move then shutter speed is not as critical.

claudermilk

IS is nice, but it cannot give you the shutter speed to stop moving subjects. There are things you can do with f2.8 that f4 + IS simply cannot accomplish.

While I bought my 24-70 before the 24-105 came out, I have never been tempted to change. The 24-70 is the mid-range low-light zoom workhorse. The 24-105 is more of a high-quality general use walkaround lens. At least that's the way I see these two.

Combine it with a 70-200/2.8, IS or not, and you have a pretty potent core lineup.

wxwax

Try a search. We've covered this at considerable length in the past.

rutt

I have both lenses and use them both. I decide which to use by a very simple question:

Am I going to be shooting indoors or outdoors when it's dark with no flash?

If you want to shot in available light, consider the faster lens. If not, the 24-105 is a great all around lens. One approach I sometimes take is to augment the 24-105 with an inexpensive fast 50mm. Those are small, easily fit in a jacket pocket. Then you have the best of both worlds, the versatility of the 24-105 and just about the best possible available light lens.

So if you already have a fast 50mm (maybe the most essential lens you can have), then just get the 24-105 and don't look back.

bham

Thanks everybody for the input. I am also getting the 70-200 2.8L IS and I have a 50 1.8. After reading the info it looks like most say don't give up the 2.8. I think this has settled it for me. I was leaning that way, but I guess just wanted some reassurance for other dgrinners.

Rutt, while the 50 1.8 is nice, many times it isn't wide enough.

LiquidAir

My own personal feeling is that when I want a fast lens, 2.8 is often not fast enough so I have the 24-105/4 and a pocketful of primes (35/1.4, 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 135/2). If I had to do it all with one lens, I am not sure which way I would go.