The Great 24-70 vs 24-105 Debate

[neuroanatomist]

Another option for that little extra reach you're looking for with the 24-105 could be made up with a 1.4 extender.


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

Nice suggestion. Or, it would be except for the small but critical fact that the Canon 1.4x extender does not work with the 24-105mm f/4L lens.

I found "Juza" a bit biased...

Yeah, that sums it up, except for mentioning the frequent factual errors in his reviews, too.

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.


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...

Given your interests, I'm not sure you'd benefit too much from the 35mm on the long end. If you're out in nature, 105mm is not going to be any better for wildlife or BIF than 70mm - you're still looking at a lens change to go from wildlife to wide landscapes. For photojournalism and indoor event photography, I think the 24-70mm is the better choice (better subject isolation when needed, better low light performance with moving subjects).

[peety3]

24-105 is great if it's your only lens, 24-70 is the better lens once you have a telephoto (because it's a better lens, period).


(I started with 24-105, and it was the right choice then but isn't now.)

[MikeG2012]

Thanks for the responses guys!


It definately sounds like the 24-70 is the way to go. I'm gonna head over to my local pro shop and try out both lenses sometime this week. Hopefully that will help make my decision.


Mike

[Dman624]

Good luck with the 24-70 L, I think its a great start. When I was first putting together mylenskit I was really trying to figure out where I wanted to go too, 24-105 or the 24-70. I purchased my 40D a few years back and along with it I purchased the 24-70 because I liked lower light side of the 24-70 and the out of focus background the 24-70 can give. I dont think you can go wrong with the 24-70, its a beautiful lens

[pilotdane]

I cast my vote for the 24-105.


When I go on vacation and can only take two lenses I take the 24-105 and the 100-400 and the 24-105 is my everyday walk around lens. I find that most of my shots are around f8 and I and only occasionally get down to f4 so going down to f2.8 is not a huge deal for me. Much of my photography is of wildlife, aircraft & boats where I rarely get the chance to carefully do anything so the IS is a major bonus for me. I get a clear picture and more depth of field which is what I want.


My father-in-law is a very different photographer than I. He does a lot of wedding, portrait and carefully planned landscapes. He is big on primes and big aperture and often uses the 24-70 for his walk around flexible lens.

[cxr]

I just want to ask about image quality between the two lenses. Which one is sharper? According to the charts, it seems that the 24-105 is a bit sharper than the 24-70 but how about on real life images? f4 is f4 and f2.8 can be stopped down to f4, is the 24-70 sharp wide open or do you need to stop down to f4 atleast to get a sharp image?

[btaylor]

In the "real world" I've got no issues with the sharpness/ image quality of my 24-70mm f/2.8 wide open. There's a photo I took at f/2.8 blown up to A2 size hanging in the main office of my work and the detail is delicious. Sure, it's even sharper at f/4 but it's still excellent wide open.


Ben

[cxr]

If stopping a subject is out of the picture, is it worth the move to 24-70 than having an IS and extra reach?

[btaylor]

Hmmmm... that's a question only you can answer I reckon. Depends on what YOU want out of your lens. I love having f/2.8 but more for the narrow depth of field than the low light capabilities. I haven't found much of a need for IS anyway, I've got a pretty steady hand and I guessI'm just a little more conscious ofmy techniqueto eliminate camera shake when using it.

[Fast Glass]

I just want to ask about image quality between the two lenses. Which one is sharper? According to the charts, it seems that the 24-105 is a bit sharper than the 24-70

At a 1 or 2 focal lengths the 24-105 is a LITTLE BIT sharper, but overal the 24-70 is better. And by a significant amount at wider apertures, like f/4 and f/5.6. Remember, Bryan's crops are not all the way to the extreme corner. So differances at certain focal lengths arenot visible in the charts, so ifyou see a significant differance inhischarts in the corners then the corners will beeven worse when you look at the full rez picture in the extremecorners.I think the most obvious differance between the two is at 24mm, the 24-70 is a little worse in the center but significantly better in the corners with about half of the distortion.


At atypical landscape aperture of f/11 they are about the same.


Hope this helps,


John.