Age-old debate: EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM or EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM

[Feanor]

Honestly, I just don't see how another mid-range zoom will serve your needs. You don't really need to cover the 55-70mm range. The gap is just not that big. You may also find that your image quality is not really going to improve with the 24-70/2.8L or the 24-105/4L IS compared to what you already have in those ranges.

I have the 24-70 and I completely agree.


When I was starting out I was really worried about ensuring that I had no gaps in my zoom range and I was also really keen on avoiding overlap as I felt it was a waste. I realise now that I was wrong.


55-70mm isn't much. Most of the time you can move to compensate, the rest of the time you can crop to compensate. IMO it's definitely not worth a £900 lens - that money will be much better spend on other accessories or a different lens IMO. Furthermore, the 24-70 isn't a light lens so you'd also be lugging around that extra weight for not much reason.


I bought the 24-70 when I had a 400D/XTi and was unsure whether I would eventually upgrade to full frame. I did make that upgrade but partly because I had the 24-70; I now think that had I never had the benefits of full frame I really wouldn't have missed them. Had I known then what we all know now about the existence & specs of the 5DII and the 7D, I hope that I would have stuck with crop sensors and gone for the 17-55.


If you do go full frame or APS-H then I would save your cash for then and buy both the body and lens at the same time. In this case, if you're finding that the 17-55 isn't long enough now, you'll probably find the same with the 24-70; I have sometimes found that my subject was moving constantly between the range of my 24-70 and 70-200 which can be annoying. But then again I have no experience of the 24-105 and the consensus when I asked your question was that the 24-70 edges out the 24-105 for IQ and low light use.

[Mark Elberson]

I now think that had I never had the benefits of full frame I really wouldn't have missed them. Had I known then what we all know now about the existence & specs of the 5DII and the 7D, I hope that I would have stuck with crop sensors and gone for the 17-55.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

What do you mean by this? You're not happy with your 5D?

[Fast Glass]

What shutter speeds are you using? If you are using 1/120th of a second and faster to stop subject motion than you don't need IS. You will need a wider apeture or a higher ISO to compensate for subject motion. I found that it takes at least this fast of a shutter speed to stop peoples movements.


John.

[ShutterbugJohan]

With the equipment that you already have, I wouldn't buy either. However, if you really want one, I would buy the 24-105, since it is more "walk-around" and you already have the low-light zooms covered.

[Daniel Browning]

I would use a lower ISO
with the f/2.8 and stop more indoor action, how much would I miss the IS?

A lot, IMHO

Conversely, if I am not
stopping action, would I be better off with the extra reach and the IS?

Yes.

How important is IS on a
1.6 crop body using the 24-70mm?

Medium important. (Not vital like a pure telephoto, but still important, IMHO, especially at large-ish print sizes.).

Is 24-70 too close to my
17-55?

Imho yes.

[wycrich]

If I were you, I would try to sell the EF 28-135 and keep the others. Either save the money for a FF body (one lens on each body) or get the EF 24-105. You already have f2.8 pretty well covered in most ranges, why notexplore something different with a f4 when you have extra money to spend and that is what youhave planned to do?

[Feanor]

I now think that had I never had the benefits of full frame I really wouldn't have missed them. Had I known then what we all know now about the existence &amp; specs of the 5DII and the 7D, I hope that I would have stuck with crop sensors and gone for the 17-55.

<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

What do you mean by this? You're not happy with your 5D?
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Yes, and no - but for the same reasons many other people aren't entirely happy with it.


Reach is important to me and I don't have money to burn on a 500 f4 and anyway this is just a hobby for me. Fast and flexible AF is also important. So the 7D - had it been released when I bought my 5DII - would have suited me better. But I've read that the IQ of the 7D can't compete; had I never had the 5DII, I doubt I would ever have missed its IQ but I think, now, that I would. (Also, my thread on this forum about considering switching to the 7D attracted much bemusment! ) All this might all sound rather confusing, but anyway I'm going to see how I get on with my new 400 f/5.6 for now.


Sorry for going completely OT there!

[Keith B]

I think the 5DmkII is good enough to keep some of the people happy and bad enough to make most of the people crave a 1Ds mk 3 or 4.


My latest 5DmkII gripe:


Do not under expose even a little, the banding is horrible in the shadows when you bump up the exposure in RAW. Definitely over expose your shot and then darken in RAW.

[Daniel Browning]

My latest 5DmkII gripe:


Do not under expose even a little, the banding is horrible in the shadows when you bump up the exposure in RAW. Definitely over expose your shot and then darken in RAW.

Agreed. For what it's worth, it looks like Canon is making some progress on this issue. The 7D has much less pattern noise (banding) at high ISO than the 5D2. (The pattern noise at low ISO is still just as bad, though. Here's hoping for the 60D.)

[Mark Elberson]

You're not happy with your 5D?

Yes, and no - but for the same reasons many other people aren't entirely happy with it.

I think the 5DmkII is good enough to keep some of the people happy and bad enough to make most of the people crave a 1Ds mk 3 or 4.


My latest 5DmkII gripe:


Do not under expose even a little, the banding is horrible in the shadows when you bump up the exposure in RAW. Definitely over expose your shot and then darken in RAW.

I know I'm probably being silly, but being someone who is currently saving upfor a 5D Mark II, your comments make me nervous [:^)]. Now we're really off topic!