Printable View
hi guys! having the 24-105 as a general walkaround lens is it worth to move up to the 24-70 for better image quality wise. its basically, IS vs f2.8...is it worth the move? considering the weight & no IS on the 24-70. either of the lenses will be with the body 95% of the time. any suggestions? thanks!
according to a CR2 Canonrumors source the 24-70 f/2.8 IS is due to be released next week. You might want to hold off until then.
brendan
I agree with Brendan on the waiting for a possible release, though those rumors were also predicting for this past Wednesday as well... haha. As far as IQ goes I have a 24-105 and have very often used a 24-70, they are very comparable. The 24-70 might let you stop motion a little more, and the 24-105 might let you shoot static objects in low light more, though in good conditions quality is similar.
Depending on how much you shoot, the sheer weight drop in the 24-105 sold me, it is a nice light and compact lens with fantastic optics, what more could you ask for.
Jordan
Quote:
Originally Posted by bburns223
It's not too helpful to quote rumors. The "take this to the bank" rumor (that's a quote from the actual rumor!) stated that the lens was due to be announced earlier this week. Clearly, it wasn't (they announced printers).
Similarly, CR had a thread calledEF24-70 f/2.8L IS Confirmation?- that thread is dated Feb 28th, 2009. Guess they were as wrong a year ago as they were last week.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cxr
Make your decision based on IS, aperture, and lens size/weight. You can turn off IS and see what sort of difference that makes for your shooting. Are you happy with the OOF blur/bokeh at f/4 on your 24-105mm? The f/2.8 of the 24-70mm will be better in that regard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
I second neuroanatomist in this aspect. The shallower DoF at f/2.8 on 24-70 is not something the f/4 on 24-105 can easily achieve. Shallow DoF can be one of the important factors to consider between these 2 very glasses.
I have just purchased the 24-105 after stewing and researching for weeks to make the decision between this, the 24-70 and the 17-55. For me the longer focal range and the image stabilisationmade the decision for me as these suited my usage more rather than the 1 stop aperture advantage. I expect that if the 24-70 IS is introduced it will be more than I want to spend anyway so I wasnt put off by this possibility
I have owned the 24-105 and presently own the 24-70.
When I owned the 24-105 I used it a lot but I cringed shooting wide with it. The outer potions of the image were distorted, not sharp and had heavy CA. I use it a lot for head shots because on the long end it was great and I rarely needed faster than f/4. The IS is very good but I usually shot with it off to conserve battery unless I really needed it.
As my job turned to shooting locations/editorial work, I felt very limited by the 24-105. I found myself in tight areas needing to use the wide end and really needing shallower DOF. So I sold it and bought the 24-70.
The 24-70 is sharp edge to edge and I know if I have it on my camera I've got a chance to get the best shot possible. It is the one lens I could never be with out.
I'll throw in a few more differences, that I think are also important.
The 24-70 is much heavier and bulkier, the difference is significant, especially if you carry the camera hung on your neck for extended periods of time. The camera is much more nose heavy.The 24-70 is also a little sharper than 24-105, at least my copy, but not by much.
The 24-105 is shorter, lighter and more balanced. It has longer zoom range and if you got used to it you will likely miss it in the 24-70. The 24-105 has a little more distortion at the wide range. The lens is also weather sealed,which is a big plus to me.
I have the luxury ofowning both lenses. I love both of them, but for different things.I use the 24-70 mostly for portrait and indoor shooting. The 24-105 goes with mewhen I shoot landscapes. For landscapesonewillrarely need large apertures.When I go hikinglong distances every ounce of kit counts and the 24-105 is the only lens that I take with me.
As far as my usage of each of those zooms goes, the 24-105 is on my5DII 75% of the time and the 24-70 only 25%, but I guess, this only means that I am predominantly an oudoor shooter.[;)]
thanks everyone! i appreciate all your suggestions and comments. actually, i haven't use a 24-70 (i've tried once though)but from all the reviews i've read it seems a really really good lens (if you're lucky to get a good copy). i find the 24-105 very good as well producing sharp images, IS on hand & very versatile range. i'm thinking of moving up to the 24-70 at the moment because (1) i like the 2.8 aperture (2) there's a good price where i live if ever i'll get it and (3) it will be much more cheaper for sure if there will be an IS version of it. so, i still can't justify whether to get the 24-70 and let go of the 24-105 or just stay with the 24-105 and probably get an 85mm f1.8
thanks!