The Great 24-70 vs 24-105 Debate

[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.

[MikeG2012]

IS isn't that big a deal to me either with such a short focal zoom range. I also have pretty steady hands and good shooting technique, so I'm confident in my abilities to get that sharp shot handheld. The f/2.8 just helps because it allows more light into the lens thus allowing better focusing in low light conditions when I do photojournalism type stuff. Depending on what you shoot mostly will help you decide which features are more important and not so needed.

[iso79]

I love my 24-70 on my 5DmkII. I think it's a better lens than 24-105mm especially indoors and low light. I found the images sharper and extra stop very helpful. I picked up the 24-105mm for 800 bucks during a Midwest Photo twitter special and didn't like it as much. I felt the extra reach wasn't that significant and IS didn't help much at all. I ended up selling it to a friend.