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

[hotsecretary]

I figured I'd post a topic here

So... I'm buying a 5DII in the next few weeks.



I have a 70-200 2.8 IS... so I'm wondering, grab the 24-70 2.8L or go for the 24-105 4L IS!?


Seems like this is always a hard one to decide and everyone either loves or hates either... anyone own them both? Used both of them? Etc.



I'll be using the 24-?? for mainly walk around, candids and some landscapes possibly...


Or should I forget them both and go 16-35 on the FF body!? Decisions!

[Jon Ruyle]

Well, you get a discount on the 24-105 when you get it with the 5D, right? That did it for me

[hotsecretary]

True, but right now, the 24-70 is only $1350Cdn! [:O]

[Julius]

No question...the 24-105 gives you a lot of flexibility as a general walk around lens. If you happen to be somewhere and need a little more speed, with the 5D II, you just have to raise the ISO and even at 3200, there is not much noise.

[Alan]

Take a look at Bryan's ISO 12233 charts for these two lenses. The 24-105 stands out as the better lens.


Yes, the 24-70 is faster, but unless you're going to walk around in the dark, the 24-105 is much more flexible/useful.

[Jon Ruyle]

unless you're going to walk around in the dark, the 24-105 is much more flexible/useful.

Actually, if I wanted to take a picture in the dark (without a tripod), I would prefer the 24-105. I consider it the more flexible lens, no doubt. Not as good for some things, but more flexible.

[Alan]

unless you're going to walk around in the dark, the 24-105 is much more flexible/useful.

Actually, if I wanted to take a picture in the dark (without a tripod), I would prefer the 24-105. I consider it the more flexible lens, no doubt. Not as good for some things, but more flexible.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Jon, you're right. I was trying to be a little facetious with the "walking around in the dark," but tone/inflection never seems to translate in type. []


I'm with you on this one, too. The IS definitely gives an advantage, especially in low light. Lighter lens, too, so easier to hold. Plus, that extra reach is a real advantage.


With a tripod, I still prefer the 24-105, due to its clarity.

[hotsecretary]

My concern is that the 24-105 is supposedly soft and not so good wide open... I'm honestly on the fence, also thinking that the 16-35 might be an option and picking up a 50 1.4 to fill the gap, since my 70-200 will do the rest

Plus if I get the 24-105 I feel there's a lot of overlap.. decisions, decisions!

[Eksmaan]

I have seen some graphs that show the 24-105 getting softer wide-open. I have a done what you are doing now!! I have my kit lens(18-55)that I rarely use. It is a decent lens, never the less. I have a wide angle 17-40mm L. Pretty awesome lens!!! I have a 70-300mm which is also an awesome lens. I also have an 85mm 1.2L MKii, and a 100mm Macro. The two fixed focal length lenses are on my cam most of the time. I have just ordered a 50mm 1.4, and will order the 70-200mm IS USM on Monday. A partner of mine let me borrow the lens for a concert shoot and it rocked!! I like the ability to zoom, but I love the fixed lenses.





I keep hearing that 50mm 1.4 just gobbles up light, and is super sharp starting at f2 or so, and keeps getting better, vs the 50mm L being really sharp wide open, then losing some sharpness at smaller apertures. Ditch the 24-105mm, go for the 50mm 1.4!

[clemmb]

My concern is that the 24-105 is supposedly soft and not so good wide open...

I have seen some graphs that show the 24-105 getting softer wide-open.

Take a look at my "A walk in the park" thread. The 3rd and 5th image are my 24-105 wide open. Look pretty sharp to me.
Also the graphs is see on the slrgear.com/reviews shows the 24-70 to be softer wide open.


I must say though that I agree with you that primes are very hard to beat. I love my 100 f2.0 and I have been thinking of getting a 50 1.4 as well.


Decisions can be so tough!


Mark