24-70 or 24-105?

[thetriguy]

It's birthday time and the Mrs wants to buy me a lens for my 60th. I have a 70-200 f4 , a 100 macro and a 28-105. I'm in a quandry over which to get of the two in the subject line. I have a 30D. I plan on getting a 5D mkII for Christmas but want to upgrade my lenses first. I really don't have a particular type of photo specialty although I never take portraits. I do take lots of flower images. We also travel a lot and enjoy looking back at photo memories. Any suggestions (or thoughts) would be more than welcome. Thanks,


Bill

[markcoons]

Bill,


I own both and for different reasons. Based on what you describe I'd say that the 24-105 would be what you are looking for. Mine is on my 40D most of the time as it is my general purpose lens. My 24-70 I use only for portraits, it is just way to heavy to use as a walk around lens. At least for me that is. If the 24-70 has IS it would be the perfect lens but then it would be even heavier!!![]


The 24-105 has great color reproduction and produces sharp clear images. The f/4 aperture does not bother me as I am using it outdoors most of the time anyway.


Have fun making your choice and enjoy whichever you get! [H]

[Oren]

Never used either of them but you:


1. Don't take portraits = no need for shallow DOF --> 24-105


2. Travel a lot = landscapes = narrow aperture for large DOF --> 24-105


3. A lot of flowers = shallow DOF --> 24-70





So, without #3, I'd have said 24-105 without a doubt since it has more reach (105mm) and has IS.


But... I got some nice flower picture with relatively shallow DOF using my 17-85 at 85mm f/5.6, so you can probably do it at 105mm f/4.


Good luck!

[Mark Elberson]

It's birthday time and the Mrs wants to buy me a lens for my 60th. I have a 70-200 f4 , a 100 macro and a 28-105. I'm in a quandry over which to get of the two in the subject line. I have a 30D. I plan on getting a 5D mkII for Christmas but want to upgrade my lenses first. I really don't have a particular type of photo specialty although I never take portraits. I do take lots of flower images. We also travel a lot and enjoy looking back at photo memories. Any suggestions (or thoughts) would be more than welcome. Thanks,


Bill
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

Bill,


If you don't need the action-stopping ability or the shallow DOF of an f/2.8 then it sounds like the EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USMis the one for you. If you are taking landscapes or other stills the IS will be extremely helpful and it's a much lighter lens as well.


Here comes the shameless plug...I actually have one for sale if you don't mind a gently used one. It's only 6 months old and looks like new! FS: Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens

[Sean Setters]

Shameless Mark, shameless....(although I would have done the same thing!) ;-)


It sounds like a good match to me...

[Bill W]

Bill the triguy.....gee, nice wife. I just turned 60 and my wife offered me a new set of golf clubs which I needed badly....though I would have much preferred the 500 f4. []


You have the 100 macro for flowers....I'd opt for 24-105....nice lens for carry around and PHOTOS.


Mark....missed your post concerning the 24-105 fs/ft before posting my questions and comments. [:$] Still, glad to see you went the 2.8...enjoy.


Regards


Bill

[Mark Elberson]

Shameless Mark, shameless....(although I would have done the same thing!) ;-)


It sounds like a good match to me...
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

It was laid out right in front of me! I had to respond [:P]

[peety3]

I have the 24-105, with a 1D Mark III and a Rebel XTi. Girlfriend has a 40D with 28-135. We also have the 16-35L, EFS18-55IS, 50/1.8, and 70-200/2.8IS. We shot three bicycling events in the past four weeks and rented a bunch of stuff. In doing so, I got to try the 24-70 (at times with 5D and 1D3, other times it was two 1D3) along with the 16-35 and 70-200/2.8. Wow. Having an all-2.8 kit was oh-so-nice, and the 24-70 turned out some mighty fine results. The 24-70 was a natural drop-in for me. Interestingly, she got to use my 24-105 on her 40D (instead of her usual 28-135) and really liked it.


I will say that the 16-35/24-70/70-200 combo was a little rough with a 5D/1D3 combo, as I felt it was best to keep the widest lens on the 5D, so lens changes were often double changes. I'll also add that I'm more of a technical photographer, and can easily "do the math" in my head to manage shutter speed for anti-shake. On my 1D3, I've mapped ISO onto the big rear dial and usually have aperture on the finger wheel, so I manage the trade-offs on the fly quickly. Using the 5D was major culture shock, so dealing with the 24-70 especially on the long end was tougher on that camera.


Long story short, I told her that I really want the 24-70, and she may be "getting" the 24-105 as a hand-me-down. Probably doesn't make your decision easier. If I had to summarize, I'd say it this way (unfortunately): if I had only one lens, it'd be the 24-105. Once I had a telephoto (and ideally a second body for that tele), I'd trade the 24-105 for a 24-70. (And since I carry the 70-200/2.8 regularly, the weight of the 24-70 wasn't a factor for me.)

[Dallasphotog]

I would tend to agree with the 24-105 sentiment. I own the EF24-70 f/2.8L and it is a wonderful portrait lens...which sounds like the last use you would have. I think you'll get great results with either.


As for that 5DMKII you're thinking about for Christmas, I'll just say that I've never had a better camera body. I am absolutely in love with mine.

[TheRoff]

Most of my recent photos have been with the 24-105 on a 30D and I have no complaints. Its a very versitle lens. Now it lives on my brand new 5DMKII and it just screams. Love that camera and lens.


Larry