The Great 24-70 vs 24-105 Debate

[MikeG2012]

Hey guys,


So just wanted to say sorry that my first post will be opening up pandora's box. I know this particular comparison is probably the most difficult one to answer, and that's exactly why I'm looking for more opinions.


And here we go!


I'm in the market for a new wide angle lens because my current EF 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 isn't cutting it. The IQ isn't where I need it to be as well as the limits on non-constant aperture. So my options are between the 24-70L f/2.8 and the 24-105L f/4 IS. My current photographic disciplines include wildlife, BIF, photojournalism, and a lot of indoor event photography and my other lens is a 100-400L f/4.5-5.6 IS. Most of the indoor events allow me to use a flash, but I still want the extra shutter speed offered from the f/2.8 of the 24-70 incase I encounter and event where flash is prohibited. However, due to the wildlife portion of my interests, the extra reach and IS of the 24-105 is awesome too. I can only afford one of these lenses otherwise I'd use the 24-105 outdoors and the 24-70 indoors all the time. So I need to pick the lens that will satisfy my needs as best as possible. Any ideas?


Thanks,


Mike

[Keith B]

For me the 24-70 is better. I do a fair share of journalistic type shooting and the 24-70 is the lens I use most. I had the 24-105 and liked it but for PJ work the 24-70's extra stop is nice. Usually your subjects are moving and IS can't help that. I also like the shallower DOF.


As far as wildlife, not to sure you'll find 105 is going to get you all that close.

[MikeG2012]

Thanks Keith.


The 24-105 is more for outdoor photography where the fewer times I need to expose my sensor to the elements, the better. The wider angle is good for landscape stuff, but the extra 35mm is useful in my mind to get away with changing lenses as often. Or maybe I'm just lazy and should just swap the lens haha

[Keith B]

I'd probably go with the 24-105 then. You can also get great deals on this lens used. It's resale doesn't hold as well as other L lenses, I think mainly because the market is flooded from people selling it from kits.

[crosbyharbison]

http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/canon_24-70_f2-8_vs_24-105_is.htm

[Keith B]

http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/canon_24-70_f2-8_vs_24-105_is.htm

"From the results of this test, it would seem obvious to go for the 24-105 IS. That said, I have some doubts about the 24-70 I have tested - can it be actually that bad? Or is it a bad copy? The bad copy option would seem the most likely, but some months ago I did another 24-105 vs 24-70 test with another copy of the 24-70, and the results are the same. At that time, I did not publish the test because I thought that it was for sure a bad copy or there was some error in the test, but the results of this new test confirm my previous findings. So, either I got two bad copies, of the 24-70 has so-so image quality...personally, I'd say two bad copies. I have read many opinions about this lens and the majority say that it is very sharp, while some others (about 10%) complain about the lack of sharpness: essentially, I think that Canon has a lot of sample variation on the 24-70 and poor quality control"


I think this was a bad copy of the 24-70. In my own experience I have found the 24-70 better in the corners than the 24-105, especially at 24mm. At 24 I found the CA of the 24-105 unacceptable from the mid frame to the corners. That was the main I sold it.


I found my results very similar to Bryan's


24-70 v. 24-105 @ 24mm

[alex_sb]

http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/canon_24-70_f2-8_vs_24-105_is.htm

Crosby, hi!





I found "Juza" a bit biased towards 24-105: 24-70 shown dirty (which may mean he used it more, in fact), while 24-105 shown clean.

[Jordan]

Well I only read the very first response you got (since I don't want to read all 20-something responses) but I dend to agree. 70mm vs 105mm isn't really a "dilemma" with wildlife. Neither is close enough. Plus, you have the 100-400 for that. f/4 is of course slower, but the IS helps to balance out some of that. Still, though, I'd go with the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM. Have you purchased it yet though, because I hear they may come out with an IS version of that soon! I used to own the 24-105 f/4 IS and liked it, but eventually ended up getting rid of it and purchasing the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM. I have a 7D and 50D so that's why. That's my two cents!

[btaylor]

I hear they may come out with an IS version of that soon!

Iheld out forwhat seemed like an eternity when I first read those rumours, 12 months passed until I bought it (didn't need it until then anyway). My point is, there'll always be something better/ updated on the horizon, who knows how distant that horizon might be though.

[erno james]

I always try to go with the widest aperture I can afford. The 24-70 was my first lens and it's just an amazing piece of glass. As you mentioned, you'd be doing a lot of indoor photography; the f2.8 aperture can definitely be used without a flash. The same cannot be said of the f4. For wildlife you're already covered with the 100-400, so if you went with the 24-70, you'd be missing a small range of focal lengths between 70-100 which to me is just fine. Another option for that little extra reach you're looking for with the 24-105 could be made up with a 1.4 extender.


B&H cost analysis:


$1309 for the 24-70 through July 7th (to me this is the by far better choice)


$1059 for the 24-105 + $309 for the Canon 1.4 extender





Good luck with your choice and like many others have said, I haven't met a piece of L-glass that I haven't liked. Take care, erno.