Canon 24-70/2.8L & 24-105/4L IS, which one would you prefer?

<span style="font-size: small; font-family: Arial;"]
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"]I am a very happy ownerof my 24-70/2.8L lens. I chose the 24-70L for the following five reasons:
<p style="margin: auto 0cm auto 36pt; text-indent: -18pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;" class="MsoListParagraph"]<span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol;"]<span style="mso-list: Ignore;"]&middot;<span style="font: 7pt 'Times New Roman';"] <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';"]It has the great f2.8 aperture (!!!)<o:p></o:p>
<p style="margin: auto 0cm auto 36pt; text-indent: -18pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;" class="MsoListParagraph"]<span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol;"]<span style="mso-list: Ignore;"]&middot;<span style="font: 7pt 'Times New Roman';"] <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';"]It produces less distortion<o:p></o:p>
<p style="margin: auto 0cm auto 36pt; text-indent: -18pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;" class="MsoListParagraph"]<span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol;"]<span style="mso-list: Ignore;"]&middot;<span style="font: 7pt 'Times New Roman';"] <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';"]It has about one full stop vignette advantage<o:p></o:p>
<p style="margin: auto 0cm auto 36pt; text-indent: -18pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;" class="MsoListParagraph"]<span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol;"]<span style="mso-list: Ignore;"]&middot;<span style="font: 7pt 'Times New Roman';"] <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';"]It&rsquo;s easier to zoom precisely at wide angle<o:p></o:p>
<p style="margin: auto 0cm auto 36pt; text-indent: -18pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;" class="MsoListParagraph"]<span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol;"]<span style="mso-list: Ignore;"]&middot;<span style="font: 7pt 'Times New Roman';"] <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';"]The hood provides more effective protection to the lens barrel<o:p></o:p>
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"]However, quite a lot of people will disagree with me and go for 24-105/4L IS for its image stabilization and the extra 35mm of reach (the main two reasons I&rsquo;ve been hearing). I personally will be tremendously reluctant totrade my f2.8 with the IS and extra 35mm. The IS and more reach plus light weight are the only aspects that the 24-105L surpasses the 24-70L in my mind,but they are sort of trivial to me as I don&rsquo;t find I beg IS for help in this range and I have a 70-200L to take care of the rest of focal length needed.
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"]I would love to know what you guys think, that will surely help me to be more objective about these two lenses. (I&rsquo;m also prepared to get flamed by angry fire&hellip;[:)])
<font size="3" face="Arial" style="font-size: small;"]



<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"]Thanks guys,
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"]Benjamin

</font>

I like the 24-70 better (though I don't have one), the only thing it is lacking maybe the 3- or 4- stop IS


But I seriously suspect that there will be an IS verison coming out either this year or next year.


The 24-70 was introduced in 2002, as a comparison, the 70-200 2.8L came out in 1995 and its IS version came out in 2001, so if the cycle holds to some extent I'd expect to see the IS version of 24-70 soon...


But again, it'd be $500 more expensive I would estimate...


For me I am currently using 16-35 II and 70-200 2.8IS on a 30D, so I can probably fill the gap with some standard prime and wait a bit long to see if there's anything coming out this year

Owned the 24-105 and while its a great lens it didn't offer enough to be kept around for my style of shooting. Aperture is a main factor and while IS is nice its no substitution when it comes to moving subjects and the ability to blow out backgrounds. However, if you're into back packing, hiking or one lens solutions its hard to beat the 24-105 on a FF body. It's relatively light and small, range is outstanding, IS is nice and IQ is exceptional. It paired with a 100-400 and a macro makes for a great hiking/wildlife kit. Then again if you find yourself shooting in low light or portraits the 24-70 is the better bet.


-Matt

I have the 24-105 It is on my camera most of the time. I'd probably recommend it over the 24-70 due to it's longer range. Even in low light because of the IS. At f/4 has a decent bokeh. IS = 3 stops, the difference between 2.8 and 4 is only one.


If a 24-70 IS is on the horizon, I'd get that though.

IS doesnt stop action and unless your going for a time elapse, motion blur effect it certainly is no substitution for aperture.However, if your shooting inanimate objects, IS is very helpful.

Ah, the "eternal" IS vs. wide aparture question!!! :-)


I have the 24-105 and I never regretted getting it. I mainly shoot stationary objects, therefore a 3-stop IS is more helpful to me than a one-step wider aperture (especially given that a lot of the time I want to maintain some depth-of-field). For me, the choice was a no-brainer.


Tony

Benjamin,
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small; font-family: Calibri;"]I have used both lenses on a FF body.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] The problem with fast lenses (1.2 to 2.8) is their depth of field is less and their corner to corner sharpness, on FF bodies, is not razor sharp until they are stopped down.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] Therefore, you will be shooting at f4 to f5.6 anyway on the 24 &ndash;70 if you require razor sharp images corner to corner. This is true for 24 mm and 70mm, whereas, the lens is very sharp wide open corner to corner at 35mm and 50mm.
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small; font-family: Calibri;"]Since newer digital camera bodies have lower noise at higher ISO settings, let your body provide you with faster shutter speeds.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] The final choice is what kind of photography do you do - hi speed action requiring &gt;1/2000 shutter speeds or landscapes?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"]
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small; font-family: Calibri;"]<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"]I own the 24 105 and use it 80% of the time and the IS is a big deal for razor sharp images.
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small; font-family: Calibri;"]
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small; font-family: Calibri;"]Bob

I own both and owned the 24-70 first. The 24-105 came with a camera I purchased for my wife.


Now, I shoot weddings where a necessarily low f-stop isn't required but appreciated but also I shoot indoor sports where every f-stop counts


Overall- 24-105 due to price and additional 35mm reach.


I find more and more that my wife and I prefer to use it. In fact, when I purchase additional 5D MKII's in a few weeks I am ordering another 24-105.


It is much lighter to use for wedding and has been my 'goto' lens in that situation.


Now when I shoot indoor sports I am finding that I am using a different lens - the 70-200 f 2.8 IS or my 85 1.2. (basketball, gymnastics, etc)


I am finding the 24-70 lens is more and more being either left in the bag or at home.


I'm currently using the Mark III D with the lenses.


Will I sell the 24-70? Probably not but the thought has crossed my mind.

airfang: I'm also looking for the updated version of the 24-70L, possibly with IS and hopefully with some more reach. If such a lens comes out that's a MUST BUY for me![:)] I have the 16-35L II too, it was a great lens! I found this lens to be on my 1V more and more often. Skip the 24-70L and fill the gap with something like a 35/1.4L and a 50/1.4 will make sense too, the image quality will be better but the combo's lack of convenience.


Matt: Thanks for mentioning the "1 lens solution" thing. That's exactly right. If I can only have one lens with me on FF body the 24-70L will be the one, however, I do feel that it's a bit too heavy especially when there're lots of other stuff in my bag and sometime I indeed would feel better if i had more reach on the single lens.


Keith: The 24-70L is sold $10 more expensive than the 24-105L in Canada... If there is a greater price difference I think the choice between these two will become less confusing.


Bob:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob

<p class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small; font-family: Calibri;"]Since newer digital camera bodies have lower noise at higher ISO settings, let your body provide you with faster shutter speeds.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"] The final choice is what kind of photography do you do - hi speed action requiring &gt;1/2000 shutter speeds or landscapes?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"]
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

That was a great point. I should have realized earlier that it indeed is the difference about how such a lens is used. I like the background blur @f2.8 and I do shoot portraiture quite often on 1.6x body, in this regard the f2.8 makes a lot of sense for me to have. If I'm going to choose a lens to walk around or mainly do landscape, the 24-105L will certainly be on the top of my choices. However, there're just two things that I cannot stand for the 24-105L. 1. the distortion at 24mm is quite significant. 2. Vignette is certainly stronger throughout f4-5.6. But anyway, I do wish to own both of the lenses, if there's a updated 24-105L coming along, with a big chance I'll bag it home!


Thom Deevers: True, if pair the 24-70 with primes for IQ or pair it with 70-200/2.8 for sport, it will lose its shininess quick...


Well, thank you all guys![:)]


Ben

I'd like both, but between the two I went with the 24-105 f/4 because it served a wider range of purposes. I like the bokeh quality, though the quantity doesn't match a 2.8, and if you want to get much blur, you need to get in close. Up close, less depth of field would be dangerous... Below was at f/4, 93mm, and I kind of screwed it up by nailing his snout with the focus, so that the eyes are behind the focal plane...


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.24.92/20070910_5F00_WocketDog_2800_800x1200_29005F00_003 .JPG[/img]

Ben,





WIDE angles distort, but with Canon's DPP software the distorton is remove quite well. Try it.


Bob

Colin,





My point also, The photo of your dog required at least 6" of focus (DOF). Most photos need at least this much, so awould have to shoot at f8 to f11 to get your dogs ears in focus.





Bob

I must admit, that at 24mm, f/4, the 24-105 barrel distortion and vignetting is pretty extreme. When i first did so on a full frame body, I was a bit pissed with the light fall off. The barrel distortion is most noticed if you've got straight lines in the picture. Otherwise, it isn't that obvious to me.





Anybody got an example of the 24-70 set at 24mm at f 2.8 and/or at f/4?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin

Anybody got an example of the 24-70 set at 24mm at f 2.8 and/or at f/4?
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

Crap! The only full frame I shoot now is film, and when it comes to film I lose track of all shooting data... I barely remember any valuable shots I've ever made is with the 24-70 set to 24mm f2.8 or f4. Will go for digital when FF digital SLRs come to match film in every possible way. Possibly soon.


But I've had some good time with both lens on FF film, from the view finder at least the distortion of the 24-105L is quite significant. That's only from what I have seen though, haven't been bothered to shoot film shots for evaluation...

Colin,


<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black; font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif';"]The Geometric Distortion is about .75% at 24 mm for the 24-70 and about 1.5% for the 24-105. You should view the results after using Canon's DPP lens correctionbefore you make a final judgment.<o:p></o:p>


<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black; font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif';"]The Pincushion / Barrel crossover is about 40mm for the 24-70- and about 35mm for the 24-105. <o:p></o:p>


<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black; font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif';"]Bob<o:p></o:p>

"Keith: The 24-70L is sold $10 more expensive than the 24-105L in Canada... If there is a greater price difference I think the choice between these two will become less confusing."





If a new IS version of the 24-70 comes out expect to be at least $600 more than the original too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keith B

"Keith: The 24-70L is sold $10 more expensive than the 24-105L in Canada... If there is a greater price difference I think the choice between these two will become less confusing."





If a new IS version of the 24-70 comes out expect to be at least $600 more than the original too.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

Well worth it IMO. In fact, Im banking on it...it's the reason I do not already own a 24-70.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob

Benjamin,
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small; font-family: Calibri;"]I have used both lenses on a FF body.<span> The problem with fast lenses (1.2 to 2.8) is their depth of field is less and their corner to corner sharpness, on FF bodies, is not razor sharp until they are stopped down.<span> Therefore, you will be shooting at f4 to f5.6 anyway on the 24 &ndash;70 if you require razor sharp images corner to corner. This is true for 24 mm and 70mm, whereas, the lens is very sharp wide open corner to corner at 35mm and 50mm.
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small; font-family: Calibri;"]Since newer digital camera bodies have lower noise at higher ISO settings, let your body provide you with faster shutter speeds.<span> The final choice is what kind of photography do you do - hi speed action requiring &gt;1/2000 shutter speeds or landscapes?<span>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small; font-family: Calibri;"]<span>I own the 24 105 and use it 80% of the time and the IS is a big deal for razor sharp images.
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small; font-family: Calibri;"]
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small; font-family: Calibri;"]Bob
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

I found the 24-70 (and all of my 1.4-2.8 lenses) very acceptable using wide open. They are not as sharp as when stopped down a few stops, but plenty sharp. Saying that he will need to use the 24-70 stopped down past f/4 is crazy talk. As for the high ISO thing--yea, you can bump the ISO--but keep in mind when you do so your losing quality and that ISO only takes you so far. If you're using a 40D you can shoot a moving subject at ISO800 instead of ISO1600, and god forbid matters got worse ISO1600 instead of ISO3200. The same even applies to the 5D, 5DII and the 1DsIII. Like IS, ISO is no substitution for a wider aperture.


To the OP, why not buy/rent the 24-105 and shoot with it along side your 24-70 that way you get a good idea of what each one offers pertaining to your shooting style.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MVers

Well worth it IMO. In fact, Im banking on it...it's the reason I do not already own a 24-70.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

The IS 24-70Lwill totally beworth it! I'll make the moveimmidiately if this comes true.


On the other hand, I'm really not very confidentabout ifthe 24-70L is going to be replaced with IS version fairly soon or not. Nowadays Nikon &amp; Sony both have excellent 24-70/2.8 lens but both w/oVR or anything similar, in this case Canon's not pushed that much. Second, the IS issure to add weight and size more or less, would Canon really do this to an already very fat lens, I don't know how those experts will think. So my point is, it makes sense for Canon (actually a lot sense) to introduce an IS 24-70L; but it is also seems to be not that urgent if they just leavethe current 24-70Lfor some years. So I will not bet on that.


I can't read Canon's mind, but I will enjoy my 24-70L[:)] Happy shooting!


Ben

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MVers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keith B

"Keith: The 24-70L is sold $10 more expensive than the 24-105L in Canada... If there is a greater price difference I think the choice between these two will become less confusing."





If a new IS version of the 24-70 comes out expect to be at least $600 more than the original too.

---

Well worth it IMO. In fact, Im banking on it...it's the reason I do not already own a 24-70.

---

Not questioning the value just wasn't sure I understood Benjamin's point.


I wouldn't be surprised if Canon didn't add IS to that model. That range is already pretty hand holdable at some slow shutter speeds and with the sensitivity of sensors these days they may not see it necessary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Benjamin

Second, the IS issure to add weight and size more or less, would Canon really do this to an already very fat lens, I don't know how those experts will think. So my point is, it makes sense for Canon (actually a lot sense) to introduce an IS 24-70L; but it is also seems to be not that urgent if they just leavethe current 24-70Lfor some years. So I will not bet on that.

---

Not neccessarily. Current IS systems are very light, as are lens barrel materials--not to mention new lens designs and special elements. With the introduction of Sony/Ziess and Nikon 24-70 variants (possibly even Sigma's new 24-70HSM--which is very small) I believe they may have lit a small flame beneath Canon's a**. The lens is most deffinitely due for an update and I honestly believe it will happen soon *crosses fingers*. We shall see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MVers

I found the 24-70 (and all of my 1.4-2.8 lenses) very acceptable using wide open. They are not as sharp as when stopped down a few stops, but plenty sharp. Saying that he will need to use the 24-70 stopped down past f/4 is crazy talk. As for the high ISO thing--yea, you can bump the ISO--but keep in mind when you do so your losing quality and that ISO only takes you so far. If you're using a 40D you can shoot a moving subject at ISO800 instead of ISO1600, and god forbid matters got worse ISO1600 instead of ISO3200. The same even applies to the 5D, 5DII and the 1DsIII. Like IS, ISO is no substitution for a wider aperture.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

Just some clarification. I shoot my 24-70L wide open mostly for portraiture. I found it to have massive resolution in the central area, but what's on the corner I don't really care since portraiture I shoot normally doesn't require corner sharpness (usually blurred background at corners). Regarding the ISO, I do believe that technology will eventually bringing us noise-free or at least close to noise-free images at high ISO. But on the contrary, I thinkimporved ISOshould help us to say goodbye to IS not the f2.8! IS does nothing but help to stable the image, once this goal is acheived through other method (i.g. high quality image @ high ISO), there'slittle value for IS anymore. On the other hand, the f2.8 will always helpwith background blur, vignette, and so on and so on...


I do stop down this lens when I'm working with great DOP or landscape. These two lens become very similar optically after stopped down, but the distortion produced by 24-105L won't go away untill you open PS on your computer later on...


Same here, we shall wait for the IS! Even possibly an extended range too. Maybe a 24-85/2.8L IS?? Since the 17-55/2.8 on 1.6x body translates to 24-85mm on FF. I do feel 70mm to be a little bit short for this lens. 85mm will be perfect!

17-55 on 1.6 body is not equal to 24-85 on FF. Do the math again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oren

17-55 on 1.6 body is not equal to 24-85 on FF. Do the math again.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

K, it's 27.2 - 88mm. But I think they're gonna start from 24mm no matter what. Just wish if they can end the range at 85mm that's all. The 24-70L replacement may not even happen very soon, take the 24-85/2.8L IS as a joke...

Wow you guys really take the fun out of life.





Anyone ever heard of gray area, personal preference, individual needs. Opinions. Any of that.





Let it go.

What body are using at the moment?


My experience 24-105L is the best lens OUTDOOR. But indoor is NOTanadvantage due to its extended barrel and F4.But if you want to be versatile i would go for 24-70L 2.8 if you have the extra$$$.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Benjamin

the IS issure to add weight and size more or less

---

The two 70-200 f4s (non-IS and IS) are identical in size and the IS is only 55g heavier...


Tony

I think you summed up the tradeoffs well. With the new high-ISO sensors, an f/4 lens seems to be OK for general purpose shots, even indoors. I worried about the sheer size and weight of the 24-70/2.8, since the mid-zoom is my principal lens for travel. I like shooting at f/2 for shallow DoF, so I use primes if the f/4 lens isn't fast enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Benjamin

But on the contrary, I thinkimporved ISOshould help us to say goodbye to IS not the f2.8!

---

In all honesty, I highly doubt this. Even with better ISO performance, photographers will always want to push the limits on how little light they would like to shoot in. And IS will always help them push the limits. Also remember that the longer the focal length the more important (and desirable) IS is.


BTW, is this our most heated thread to-date? :-)


Tony

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SupraSonic

But indoor is NOTanadvantage due to its extended barrel and F4.

---

Eh? Doesn't the barrel of the 24-70 extened? In fact, (extended or not) the 24-70 is I think longer than the 24-105...


Tony

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken Schwarz

I think you summed up the tradeoffs well. With the new high-ISO sensors, an f/4 lens seems to be OK for general purpose shots, even indoors. I worried about the sheer size and weight of the 24-70/2.8, since the mid-zoom is my principal lens for travel. I like shooting at f/2 for shallow DoF, so I use primes if the f/4 lens isn't fast enough.

---

YES!


That is why I have 24 1.4L and 50 1.4 in my bag. Actually my 2 favorite lenses, but for practicality the 24-105 is on my camera most of the time.


I think my next major purchase will be the 85 1.2L.





Please, please no debates on the 85 1.2L.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tony Printezis

In all honesty, I highly doubt this. Even with better ISO performance, photographers will always want to push the limits on how little light they would like to shoot in. And IS will always help them push the limits. Also remember that the longer the focal length the more important (and desirable) IS is.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

Maybe I didn't really say that well... By saying "say goodbye to IS" I just mean that the functionality of IS can be replaced identically with excellent highISO performance. However, theeffect deliveredby a wide aperture like f2.8 can hardly be simulated in any other way. IS is and will always be highly appriciated by all users, this i agree.

The IS on my 24-105 is almost never on (battery conservation). I think the 24-105 with the 50 1.4-$300 lens is a great cover most of the bases set up.

Yah, the 24-105L + 50/1.4 will be a good approach. [:)]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keith B

The IS on my 24-105 is almost never on (battery conservation).

---

If you don't mind me asking, do you feel any difference in battery life between IS on and off? I have never experienced any noticeable difference in battery life myself; I know the IS should affect battery life, just don't know how great.

I haven't really noticed much on the 24-105 (it is a relatively new lens to me 12/08) but I did notice a little bit with my 100-400. I couldn't tell you exactly how much. It is probably negligible but when you take into battery cycle life spans and such and being $90 a pop.


I also get a little tripped out when the IS enables (noise, vibrations) especially in the 100-400 so I don't like to have it on when I don't absolutely need it.

I usually don't think about whether I should have it on or off, but it's usually on because of my habit of not having enough light to get by without it.


When it's off, sometimes THAT weirds me out. I find the sound reassuring. When I use my 400mm, with no IS, and I watch the image bounce around in the viewfinder, my first impulse is to look for the switch to turn it on. I wish I had such a mechanism for my compound bow [:D]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keith B

I also get a little tripped out when the IS enables (noise, vibrations) especially in the 100-400 so I don't like to have it on when I don't absolutely need it.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

Ahh, feel the same actually. The only IS lens I have is the 70-200/4L IS. Because I use film, it usually takes me time to compose or just lookinginto the view finder for quite some timebefore actually taking a picture. When IS's switching on and off frequently I do feel disturbing a bit. So when I need time tocompose and focusI just turn off the IS, and when I'm shooting I'll put it on, no matter what speed I'm using. The image shake is not that bad at 200mm, but I can imagine it will be hard to handle when it's 400mm...


It will be hard to live w/o IS for the 70-200mm, the 24-105L should still be reasonably handy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keith B

Please, please no debates on the 85 1.2L.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

My only bitch with the 85 1.2L is that I can't get in close. Minimum focus distance is way beyond reach range. Can't even take a picture of somebody across a short table.


That, and I'd prefer a different manual focus mechanism. It's kind of neat, but not that neat.

Our 24-105 was use on wedding ceremony in some case there is indoor shooting but when peformance of 24-105 was sluggish then we have to make adjustment i.e. increase iso. And we always wish that we had 24-70 F2.8 where iso setting can be universal.I know the 24-70 has extended barrel but the F2.8 has the edge.


The 24-105 was used outdoor i have no issue.Indoor no issues too if there is enough room lighting.

i'm a fan of the 105.. i was nervous going in (i bought the kit with my 5dmkII), but it has far exceeded my expectations. my previous general purpose combo was the 40d + 17-55, and i haven't missed the f/2.8 near as much as i thought i would.