24-70 vs 24-105 (Great Debate!?)

[hotsecretary]

I figured I'd post a topic here ;)

So... I'm buying a 5DII in the next few weeks.



I have a 70-200 2.8 IS... so I'm wondering, grab the 24-70 2.8L or go for the 24-105 4L IS!?


Seems like this is always a hard one to decide and everyone either loves or hates either... anyone own them both? Used both of them? Etc.



I'll be using the 24-?? for mainly walk around, candids and some landscapes possibly...


Or should I forget them both and go 16-35 on the FF body!? :) Decisions!

[Jon Ruyle]

Well, you get a discount on the 24-105 when you get it with the 5D, right? That did it for me :)

[hotsecretary]

True, but right now, the 24-70 is only $1350Cdn! [:O]

[Julius]

No question...the 24-105 gives you a lot of flexibility as a general walk around lens. If you happen to be somewhere and need a little more speed, with the 5D II, you just have to raise the ISO and even at 3200, there is not much noise.

[Alan]

Take a look at Bryan's ISO 12233 charts for these two lenses. The 24-105 stands out as the better lens.


Yes, the 24-70 is faster, but unless you're going to walk around in the dark, the 24-105 is much more flexible/useful.

[Jon Ruyle]

unless you're going to walk around in the dark, the 24-105 is much more flexible/useful.


Actually, if I wanted to take a picture in the dark (without a tripod), I would prefer the 24-105. I consider it the more flexible lens, no doubt. Not as good for some things, but more flexible.

[Alan]

unless you're going to walk around in the dark, the 24-105 is much more flexible/useful.


Actually, if I wanted to take a picture in the dark (without a tripod), I would prefer the 24-105. I consider it the more flexible lens, no doubt. Not as good for some things, but more flexible.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





Jon, you're right. I was trying to be a little facetious with the "walking around in the dark," but tone/inflection never seems to translate in type. [:D]


I'm with you on this one, too. The IS definitely gives an advantage, especially in low light. Lighter lens, too, so easier to hold. Plus, that extra reach is a real advantage.


With a tripod, I still prefer the 24-105, due to its clarity.

[hotsecretary]

My concern is that the 24-105 is supposedly soft and not so good wide open... I'm honestly on the fence, also thinking that the 16-35 might be an option and picking up a 50 1.4 to fill the gap, since my 70-200 will do the rest :)

Plus if I get the 24-105 I feel there's a lot of overlap.. decisions, decisions!

[Eksmaan]

I have seen some graphs that show the 24-105 getting softer wide-open. I have a done what you are doing now!! I have my kit lens(18-55)that I rarely use. It is a decent lens, never the less. I have a wide angle 17-40mm L. Pretty awesome lens!!! I have a 70-300mm which is also an awesome lens. I also have an 85mm 1.2L MKii, and a 100mm Macro. The two fixed focal length lenses are on my cam most of the time. I have just ordered a 50mm 1.4, and will order the 70-200mm IS USM on Monday. A partner of mine let me borrow the lens for a concert shoot and it rocked!! I like the ability to zoom, but I love the fixed lenses.





I keep hearing that 50mm 1.4 just gobbles up light, and is super sharp starting at f2 or so, and keeps getting better, vs the 50mm L being really sharp wide open, then losing some sharpness at smaller apertures. Ditch the 24-105mm, go for the 50mm 1.4! ;)

[clemmb]

My concern is that the 24-105 is supposedly soft and not so good wide open...






I have seen some graphs that show the 24-105 getting softer wide-open.



Take a look at my "A walk in the park" thread. The 3rd and 5th image are my 24-105 wide open. Look pretty sharp to me.
Also the graphs is see on the slrgear.com/reviews shows the 24-70 to be softer wide open.


I must say though that I agree with you that primes are very hard to beat. I love my 100 f2.0 and I have been thinking of getting a 50 1.4 as well.


Decisions can be so tough!


Mark

[Fast Glass]

I do think that theIQ difference between24-105mm and 24-70mm is more significant than these posts suggest. Check outthe 24-105mm, http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/eos5dm2/downloads/2_landscape.jpg ("http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/eos5dm2/downloads/2_landscape.jpg). I don't have a comparison, but I think this helps to put into perspective what you are seeing in ISO 112233 charts.


Also check out the difference between the 24-105mm at 105mm VS the 70-200mm at 100mm.


Not saying the 24-105mm is bad, just the24-70mm isbetter.

[clemmb]

The two lenses look pretty close to me here. They both are excellent lenses. You can not go wrong which ever one you choose.


/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.24.67/Untitled_2D00_1.jpg


Mark

[Eksmaan]

I'd definitely go with the 24-70mm L before the 24-105mm L. I'd get(already ordered) a 50mm 1.4, and(I have) 85mm 1.2L MKii. Getting the 70-200mm 2.8mml IS USM is more than the icing on the cake. Having said all of that, it depends on your budget and what you'll use the lenses for. If you're anything like me, you'll find a reason to have more lenses than one may think you need, and you'll buy them all!! I am super new to photography, and I am having a blast!! Prime lenses are attracting me the most. I like moving in and out on a subject. I think the zooms at this point compliment the primes. Again, I am totally new, and I may find myself saying later on that primes compliment the zooms! I am learning that whatever lenses I buy, there will be good and bad. If you don't have a lens in your kit that offsets the bad of one particular lens, maybe you will learn a trick or two with that particular lens to get the image you want;) If not, there's always CS4!! Haven't gone there yet! I'm still in the camera!





Good luck!

[Chris White]

It is a tough choice, but I voted for the 24-105 in the end because as much as I am hooked on Canon 2.8's I find myself more addicted to Canon IS. With the exception of my kids sports, I find the IS saves more photos for me than the 2.8. The obvious lament is for Canon to make a 24-105L 2.8 IS, that would be the choice for me and many more, judging by the forums.


As it now stands, however, I agree with Jon, get the 5D with the 24-105 kit and save a little. That is my plan down the road when I add to my 50D.[;)]

[Fast Glass]

The two lenses look pretty close to me here. They both are excellent lenses. You can not go wrong which ever one you choose.


/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.24.67/Untitled_2D00_1.jpg


Mark
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>



These are not a fair comparison, the 24-105mm is at f/4 while the 24-70mm is at f/2.8. You should compare them both at f/4.


Check out these ISO 112233 charts http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?CameraComp=0&amp;FLIComp=0&amp;APIComp=0&amp;Lens=1 01&amp;Camera=453&amp;Sample=0&amp;FLI=0&amp;API=2&amp;LensComp=355 ("http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?CameraComp=0&amp;FLIComp=0&amp;APIComp=0&amp;Lens=1 01&amp;Camera=453&amp;Sample=0&amp;FLI=0&amp;API=2&amp;LensComp=355)Th e biggest difference between the 24-105mm VS 24-70mm is at 24mm, that is the biggest stickler for me personally.

[Daniel Browning]

Take a look at Bryan's ISO 12233 charts for these two lenses. The 24-105 stands out as the better lens.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





I don't see that. At f/4 the 24-70 has less aberration than the 24-105. Maybe you forgot to select f/4?



My concern is that the 24-105 is supposedly soft and not so good wide open


On full frame it is plenty sharp wide open, IMHO. Keep in mind that many people use it on a crop (APS-C) camera, that results in a much softer image than FF.

[Feanor]

A very difficult one. I spent a lot of time debating the same question.


I've had the 5DII for about 6 months now and the 24-70 for nearly a year, and on FF it's often not long enough. I do sometimes find myself swapping to the 70-200 for just that extra bit of reach, and on one or two occasions I've wanted to be able to zoom between 50 and 100mm easily. In these situations it's a hard choice between risking ending up with the wrong lens on or being caught mid-change.


That said, I daresay I'd miss the wide aperture of my lens if I'd gone for the 24-105. I asked lots of people the same question on several different forums and the concensus seemed to be that the 24-70 was better - someone made the interesting point that many who have the 24-105 wish they have the 24-70 but few who have the 24-70 wish they chose the 24-105. Whether or not that's true I'm not sure but it matched what I've read on various forums.


I think that if you intend on shooting even slow moving objects - ie people - in poor light without flash then go for the 70. If you think that anything you'd be shooting without flash will be stationary (so you can let the IS do the work) then go for the 105.

[hotsecretary]

That's the thing, I tend to shoot people more than objects ;) And of course when I shoot an object and I can use a tripod, flash, natural light, etc.. it'll be at f4+ most likely.


But I'm leaning heavily towards the 24-70 as you say, because I'm used to 2.8 or even 1.8 with my Nifty Fifty when I had it (sold it with body, going to grab the 1.4 most likely) ... and I don't think IS is that important at the lower end, on the 70-200 ... IS is great because of the 200mm + the weight of it!


But we'll see.. I might even see how much it is to rent the 5DII with a few lens to see which I like of the lower end. Another possibility is still the 16-35 + 50 1.4 .. and then eventually pickup the 24-70. Just really tempting to pick them up now when the lens have a $150 rebate in Canada.


And it seems to be a very split debate.. I've read numerous threads on POTN and same thing always seems to happen a good 50/50 split of people who love one or the other.



The only true thing that would be beneficial is the cost savings of ~$500 on the kit lens.. the 16-35 is ~$200 more than the 24-70. Darn these expensive purchases!

[clemmb]

These are not a fair comparison, the 24-105mm is at f/4 while the 24-70mm is at f/2.8. You should compare them both at f/4.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>



I have. One may say it is not a fair comparison to have one stopped down. Here it is.


/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.24.67/Untitled_2D00_1.jpg






Check out these ISO 112233 charts





I have. It looks to me like the 24-105 is sharper in the center and the 24-70 is sharper at the edges. Both are so close that when an image is elarged and hung on the wall you probably could not tell the difference. Either lens is a great choice.


Mark

[Maleko]

If I had only one lens, this would be the one.


-Bryan



I looked at both when getting my 50D, i had to get the 24-105, simply being the longer focal length!


It always works perfect for indoor photogrpahy, i use mine for weddings all the time, works a treat! (My mate also uses the same lens for weddings as a full time wedding photographer).

[Fast Glass]

Both are so close that when an image is elarged and hung on the wall you probably could not tell the difference.





I wouldn't go so far as to say that you cannot tell the difference. There is a difference, mabye your standard is not as high as mine (i'm used to primes)but neither lens are bad.

[Dallasphotog]

I only own one of the two, the EF24-70mm f/2.8. For me, being able to get a lot of light is pretty important and I tend toward f/2.8 and faster glass. If you shoot outside, choose the focal length that best suits you. If you need to work in dark churches or gyms, you'll appreciate the f/2.8 aperture.

[peety3]

If I had only one lens, this would be the one.


-Bryan



I looked at both when getting my 50D, i had to get the 24-105, simply being the longer focal length!


It always works perfect for indoor photogrpahy, i use mine for weddings all the time, works a treat! (My mate also uses the same lens for weddings as a full time wedding photographer).
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





Bryan said it well: if you had only one lens, it'd be 24-105.


However, you have another lens, a 70-200, so I'd go with the 24-70. It'll serve you incredibly well until you have enough bodies to become a prime shooter.

[Sinh Nhut Nguyen]

To me sharpness is not really important when it comes to comparing one L lens to another, I think both the 24-70 and the 24-105 are really sharp for most of the stuff people do, one may be slightly sharper than the other, so what? To me what important is detail, you and I can easily increase the sharpness in photoshop, but you and I cannot add more detail to the image...The detail may be a little soft, but it's available, you can't enhance something that isn't there. L lenses have the amazing capability to capture details.

[Alan]

I don't see that. At f/4 the 24-70 has less aberration than the 24-105. Maybe you forgot to select f/4?
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>








Yikes. Carelessness on my part. Yep. I looked again, and I don't see it either.


Sorry for the mix up.

[Jon Ruyle]

To me sharpness is not really important when it comes to comparing one L lens to another, I think both the 24-70 and the 24-105 are really sharp for most of the stuff people do, one may be slightly sharper than the other, so what?


Well said.


And anyhow, they're much closer to each other than to primes in the focal length range.


I wouldn't use iq to decide between these lenses. It's the speed of the 24-70 vs the IS and extra reach of the 24-105.

[Keith B]

My concern is that the 24-105 is supposedly soft and not so good wide open... I'm honestly on the fence, also thinking that the 16-35 might be an option and picking up a 50 1.4 to fill the gap, since my 70-200 will do the rest :)

Plus if I get the 24-105 I feel there's a lot of overlap.. decisions, decisions!






I bought the 24-105 with the 5DmkII kit. I used it a lot, my only complaint was CA on the wide end. The outer portions of the frame showed substatial CA. I then bought the 16-35 II and 70-200 2.8 IS. I had already owned the 50 1.4 so I then sold the 24-105 thinking I had everything covered. Low and behold I found myself needed the versatility of the 24-xx(x) zoom so I bought the 24-70. I think the 2.8 has served me better than 4.0 although I do miss the extra 35mm of reach though. It is a tough call but I say 24-70.

[District_History_Fan]

Most of us that own either of these lenses went thru the same debate before buying. I went with the 24-70L mostly for its better bokeh at the shorter focal lengths. It is a fine lens, but unfortunately, it has been hit and miss at 2.8 on my 40D (and XTi). After a shoot next Friday for work, it is going back to Canon for a tune up. For $1200 I want sharp wide open all the time.


Stopped down to f4-5.6my 24-70Lis crazy sharp. The colors and contrast are superb. If canon ever builds an IS version of the lens, it will be a winner (expensive winner though).

[Derek Reese]

Most of us that own either of these lenses went thru the same debate before buying. ... It is a fine lens, but unfortunately, it has been hit and miss at 2.8 on my 40D (and XTi). ... Stopped down to f4-5.6my 24-70Lis crazy sharp. The colors and contrast are superb.


Pretty much my exact experience. I waffled back and forth between both of these fine lenses before finally settling on the 24-70. Like was mentioned earlier, the 24-105 may be the better lense "if it was your only lens", but it's not my only lens. And 24-70, after reviewing my shots, covered my focal length needs probably 90+% of the time. And when it didn't, I could switch to my other lenses.


I have noticed also, on my copy of the 24-70, it can be hit or miss at 2.8 on my 50D. Not sure what would cause that. There's a very good chance it could be user error as I'm not that good! :-) But as mentioned, it is crazy sharp once I get to f/4.


I'll probably always wonder if I would have preferred the 24-105, but if I had gotten the 24-105, I'd be wondering the same thing about the 24-70. Pick the one that fits your needs (f/2.8 or 105mm) and you can't go wrong with either one, I would guess.

[District_History_Fan]

I have noticed also, on my copy of the 24-70, it can be hit or miss at 2.8 on my 50D. Not sure what would cause that. There's a very good chance it could be user error as I'm not that good! :-) But as mentioned, it is crazy sharp once I get to f/4.


I'll probably always wonder if I would have preferred the 24-105, but if I had gotten the 24-105, I'd be wondering the same thing about the 24-70. Pick the one that fits your needs (f/2.8 or 105mm) and you can't go wrong with either one, I would guess.





Hi Derek,


I don't think it is you at all. My 24-70 has been evaluated wide open at high shutter speeds on two cameras. One frame will be sharp and the next may be considerably OOF. Since my lens is out of warranty on Sept 10 (been waffling about sending it in), I went ahead and got a Repair Request in with Canon last week. After Friday's shoot, it is going back for repair. Hopefully they will get it right.


Several years back I shot witha friends24-105. From what I recall, the 24-70 justseems to havesome extra "magic" to it over the 24-105.


Interestingly, I bought the Canon lens after buying a Sigma 24-70 (the old version). It missed focus at 70mm occasionally, but not as often as the Canon lens that cost nearly 3 times as much! That Sigma was SERIOUSLY sharp most of the time. The Sigma didn't have the overall polished IQ of the Canon glass to my eye though, that's why I kept the L.


The 24-70 is so good that I'm willing to put up with the aggravation of a warranty repair trip. Hopefully it will come back spot on.

[Tony Printezis]

also thinking that the 16-35 might be an option


Also consider the 17-40 which is a great lens for the price.



Plus if I get the 24-105 I feel there's a lot of overlap.. decisions, decisions!


So, I keep asking this question and I've never got an answer: what's the problem with focal length overlap? If anything else, having some overlap might decrease the number of times you change lenses and maybe keep your sensor a bit cleaner.



[/b] ("/forums/members/Fast-Glass/default.aspx)Eksmaan ("/forums/members/Eksmaan/default.aspx)]it depends on your budget


No budget issue here! Both lenses cost roughly the same... and the 24-105 will be cheaper if bought as the 5DmkII kit.



and I don't think IS is that important at the lower end


Oh, but it is! Consider the following shot I recently got accepted on a.net, taken with my 40D + 24-105 (sorry for the shameless plug):


http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA---Air/Lockheed-SR-71A-Blackbird/1574849/L ("http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA---Air/Lockheed-SR-71A-Blackbird/1574849/L)


It was shot at ISO 500, 35mm (I'd call that low end!), f/7.1, and 1/4 sec handheld. I couldn't have used a tripod (not allowed in museums). The only advantage that the 24-70 would have offered me over the 24-105 in this situation would have been the ability to shoot at 2.8. But, it would have ruined the large depth-of-field that I wanted (and even f/7.1 is marginal here, notice the OOF pitot tube). So, I just couldn't have taken this shot with the 24-70 (at least I personally cannot handhold at 1/4 sec without IS).


Of course, you might shoot different types of subjects where 2.8 would be more appropriate. But, as Chris White correctly said, IS is very helpful in many, many situations.



Fast Glass ("../members/Fast-Glass/default.aspx)[/b]]Also check out the difference between the 24-105mm at 105mm VS the 70-200mm at 100mm.


Sorry, but that's a pointless comparison. I admit that the 24-105 is indeed a bit soft on the longer end. But, first, the 24-70 doesn't reach that focal length anyway. And, second, you're comparing a 4x zoom lens (the 24-105) which goes from wide to moderate telephoto to a 3x zoom lens (the 70-200) which goes from moderate telephoto to longer telephoto. Of course the former is a bigger compromise and of course it cannot compete in sharpness with the latter.



Jon Ruyle ("../members/Jon-Ruyle/default.aspx)[/b]]It's the speed of the 24-70 vs the IS and extra reach of the 24-105.


And don't forget that the 24-70 is almost 300g heavier! One of the reasons I have the f4 L lenses (17-40, 24-105, and 70-200 IS) is that they are lighter and I didn't want to add weight to my shoulders when I carry my camera bag around.


Tony

[MOF_Sydney]

OK, I've got both lenses. I tend to use the 24-70 on the1D much more when I'm doing paid work, but I tend to use the 24-105 on the 5D when I'm just out taking photos for myself. The 5D with 24-105 is much lighter to carry around all day and IS means I can do more without a tripod or flash.


Part of it is just what you get used to but I do think the 24-70 takes better photos, within its shortened range.


Certainly the 24-105 has quite noticeable pin cushion/barrel distortion (especially at the shorter end) and I use lens correction software on most of the wider angle shots. I find this much less of an issue with the 24-70.


Also, the 24-70 is an f2.8 lens and this helps with the auto focus. I do a lot of my paid work in low light conditions and the extra stop is worth it and IS doesn't help if you are photographing people nearly as much as double the shutter speed (when you can't use flash).


On balance though, assuming you need to choose one or the other in a limited selection of lenses, I believe I'd opt for the more flexible 24-105 solution. In most situations the extra reach is more useful than the extra f stop. (This is especially true on a full frame camera that "feels" like it has less reach anyway).


FWIW


Michael

[hotsecretary]

Well, I'm going to see if it's possible to rent both lens with a 5D if it's not too expensive I might do that.


Heck, if it's cheap enough I might take a 16-35 out for a spin!

[clemmb]

Sounds like a plan.


Let us know how it goes.


Mark

[Fast Glass]

Sorry, but that's a pointless comparison. I admit that the 24-105 is indeed a bit soft on the longer end. But, first, the 24-70 doesn't reach that focal length anyway. And, second, you're comparing a 4x zoom lens (the 24-105) which goes from wide to moderate telephoto to a 3x zoom lens (the 70-200) which goes from moderate telephoto to longer telephoto. Of course the former is a bigger compromise and of course it cannot compete in sharpness with the latter.





Of course it is. Thats why I mentioned it. Use the shorter zoom range with out a overlap and gain the sharpness.

[Mark Elberson]

So, I keep asking this question and I've never got an answer: what's the problem with focal length overlap? If anything else, having some overlap might decrease the number of times you change lenses and maybe keep your sensor a bit cleaner.
<p style="CLEAR: both"]



<p style="CLEAR: both"]You're right Tony...and no one ever seems to complain about the overlap between the EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L and the EF 24-XXmmL's

[hotsecretary]

So, I keep asking this question and I've never got an answer: what's the problem with focal length overlap? If anything else, having some overlap might decrease the number of times you change lenses and maybe keep your sensor a bit cleaner.
<p style="clear: both;"]



<p style="clear: both;"]You're right Tony...and no one ever seems to complain about the overlap between the EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L and the EF 24-XXmmL's
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





Most likely due to the fact there's not the options on that end ;)


Heading by the store hopefully today to see if I can rent them for a reasonable price, if not it'll come down to last minute... EENY MEENY MINY MO!?


In the end though, the most important purchase is the camera ... I missed not having my camera this weekend!

[alexniedra]

Think about this in terms of your style. Both lenses, from my experience, are optically and physically great. Given that you mentioned "mainly walk-around" and landscapes, I think the logical choice here is the 24-105 f/4 L. For landscapes, you will most likely be using narrow apertures for the most depth of field in your images, so I think that f/4 will be adequate, along with the advantage of IS. For your walk-around shooting, the obvious winner, in my opinion, is the 24-105 L. You can't beat the versitality of the zoom range, and the IS will keep you shooting sans-flash in low light.



Since you mentioned candids in your main uses, here I would recommend the 24-70 L - I find it's bokeh worth it. But given you aleady own the 70-200 2.8 L IS (which is great for portraits), I don't think the 24-70 is that much more useful for portrait photography than the 24-105 L.



In the end, it all comes down to your own choice. I would suggest getting some time to use both lenses, even if it involves renting them for a little while. Shoot a variety of subjects with both lenses and get some real-world experience with the glass.



Good luck.

[Cory]

For me it comes down to this: Do I need a faster F Stop or more range? That would pretty much make my choice.


While doing a set that stop and start at each others mm's sounds like a cost effective plan most lenses take better picture in their mid ranges, so it's nice to have some overlap.