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

[Benjamin]

<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></o>
<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></o>
<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></o>
<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></o>
<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></o>
<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>

[airfang]

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

[MVers]

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

[Keith B]

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.

[MVers]

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.

[Tony Printezis]

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

[Colin]

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]

[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

[Colin]

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?

[Benjamin]

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...