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

[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]Eksmaan]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


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[/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[/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