Canon 24-70/2.8L & 24-105/4L IS, which one would you prefer?

[Bob]

Colin,


<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black; font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif';"]The Geometric Distortion is about .75% at 24 mm for the 24-70 and about 1.5% for the 24-105. You should view the results after using Canon's DPP lens correctionbefore you make a final judgment.<o></o>


<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black; font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif';"]The Pincushion / Barrel crossover is about 40mm for the 24-70- and about 35mm for the 24-105. <o></o>


<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black; font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif';"]Bob<o></o>

[Bob]

Benjamin,
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small; font-family: Calibri;"]I have used both lenses on a FF body.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] The problem with fast lenses (1.2 to 2.8) is their depth of field is less and their corner to corner sharpness, on FF bodies, is not razor sharp until they are stopped down.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] Therefore, you will be shooting at f4 to f5.6 anyway on the 24 &ndash;70 if you require razor sharp images corner to corner. This is true for 24 mm and 70mm, whereas, the lens is very sharp wide open corner to corner at 35mm and 50mm.
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small; font-family: Calibri;"]Since newer digital camera bodies have lower noise at higher ISO settings, let your body provide you with faster shutter speeds.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] The final choice is what kind of photography do you do - hi speed action requiring &gt;1/2000 shutter speeds or landscapes?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"]
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small; font-family: Calibri;"]<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"]I own the 24 105 and use it 80% of the time and the IS is a big deal for razor sharp images.
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small; font-family: Calibri;"]
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small; font-family: Calibri;"]Bob

[Thom Deevers]

I own both and owned the 24-70 first. The 24-105 came with a camera I purchased for my wife.


Now, I shoot weddings where a necessarily low f-stop isn't required but appreciated but also I shoot indoor sports where every f-stop counts


Overall- 24-105 due to price and additional 35mm reach.


I find more and more that my wife and I prefer to use it. In fact, when I purchase additional 5D MKII's in a few weeks I am ordering another 24-105.


It is much lighter to use for wedding and has been my 'goto' lens in that situation.


Now when I shoot indoor sports I am finding that I am using a different lens - the 70-200 f 2.8 IS or my 85 1.2. (basketball, gymnastics, etc)


I am finding the 24-70 lens is more and more being either left in the bag or at home.


I'm currently using the Mark III D with the lenses.


Will I sell the 24-70? Probably not but the thought has crossed my mind.

[Benjamin]

airfang: I'm also looking for the updated version of the 24-70L, possibly with IS and hopefully with some more reach. If such a lens comes out that's a MUST BUY for me![] I have the 16-35L II too, it was a great lens! I found this lens to be on my 1V more and more often. Skip the 24-70L and fill the gap with something like a 35/1.4L and a 50/1.4 will make sense too, the image quality will be better but the combo's lack of convenience.


Matt: Thanks for mentioning the "1 lens solution" thing. That's exactly right. If I can only have one lens with me on FF body the 24-70L will be the one, however, I do feel that it's a bit too heavy especially when there're lots of other stuff in my bag and sometime I indeed would feel better if i had more reach on the single lens.


Keith: The 24-70L is sold $10 more expensive than the 24-105L in Canada... If there is a greater price difference I think the choice between these two will become less confusing.


Bob:

<p class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small; font-family: Calibri;"]Since newer digital camera bodies have lower noise at higher ISO settings, let your body provide you with faster shutter speeds.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"] The final choice is what kind of photography do you do - hi speed action requiring &gt;1/2000 shutter speeds or landscapes?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"]
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

That was a great point. I should have realized earlier that it indeed is the difference about how such a lens is used. I like the background blur @f2.8 and I do shoot portraiture quite often on 1.6x body, in this regard the f2.8 makes a lot of sense for me to have. If I'm going to choose a lens to walk around or mainly do landscape, the 24-105L will certainly be on the top of my choices. However, there're just two things that I cannot stand for the 24-105L. 1. the distortion at 24mm is quite significant. 2. Vignette is certainly stronger throughout f4-5.6. But anyway, I do wish to own both of the lenses, if there's a updated 24-105L coming along, with a big chance I'll bag it home!


Thom Deevers: True, if pair the 24-70 with primes for IQ or pair it with 70-200/2.8 for sport, it will lose its shininess quick...


Well, thank you all guys![]


Ben

[Bob]

Ben,





WIDE angles distort, but with Canon's DPP software the distorton is remove quite well. Try it.


Bob

[Keith B]

"Keith: The 24-70L is sold $10 more expensive than the 24-105L in Canada... If there is a greater price difference I think the choice between these two will become less confusing."





If a new IS version of the 24-70 comes out expect to be at least $600 more than the original too.

[MVers]

"Keith: The 24-70L is sold $10 more expensive than the 24-105L in Canada... If there is a greater price difference I think the choice between these two will become less confusing."





If a new IS version of the 24-70 comes out expect to be at least $600 more than the original too.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Well worth it IMO. In fact, Im banking on it...it's the reason I do not already own a 24-70.

[Benjamin]

Well worth it IMO. In fact, Im banking on it...it's the reason I do not already own a 24-70.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

The IS 24-70Lwill totally beworth it! I'll make the moveimmidiately if this comes true.


On the other hand, I'm really not very confidentabout ifthe 24-70L is going to be replaced with IS version fairly soon or not. Nowadays Nikon &amp; Sony both have excellent 24-70/2.8 lens but both w/oVR or anything similar, in this case Canon's not pushed that much. Second, the IS issure to add weight and size more or less, would Canon really do this to an already very fat lens, I don't know how those experts will think. So my point is, it makes sense for Canon (actually a lot sense) to introduce an IS 24-70L; but it is also seems to be not that urgent if they just leavethe current 24-70Lfor some years. So I will not bet on that.


I can't read Canon's mind, but I will enjoy my 24-70L[] Happy shooting!


Ben

[Keith B]

"Keith: The 24-70L is sold $10 more expensive than the 24-105L in Canada... If there is a greater price difference I think the choice between these two will become less confusing."





If a new IS version of the 24-70 comes out expect to be at least $600 more than the original too.

Well worth it IMO. In fact, Im banking on it...it's the reason I do not already own a 24-70.

Not questioning the value just wasn't sure I understood Benjamin's point.


I wouldn't be surprised if Canon didn't add IS to that model. That range is already pretty hand holdable at some slow shutter speeds and with the sensitivity of sensors these days they may not see it necessary.

[MVers]

Benjamin,
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small; font-family: Calibri;"]I have used both lenses on a FF body.<span> The problem with fast lenses (1.2 to 2.8) is their depth of field is less and their corner to corner sharpness, on FF bodies, is not razor sharp until they are stopped down.<span> Therefore, you will be shooting at f4 to f5.6 anyway on the 24 &ndash;70 if you require razor sharp images corner to corner. This is true for 24 mm and 70mm, whereas, the lens is very sharp wide open corner to corner at 35mm and 50mm.
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small; font-family: Calibri;"]Since newer digital camera bodies have lower noise at higher ISO settings, let your body provide you with faster shutter speeds.<span> The final choice is what kind of photography do you do - hi speed action requiring &gt;1/2000 shutter speeds or landscapes?<span>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small; font-family: Calibri;"]<span>I own the 24 105 and use it 80% of the time and the IS is a big deal for razor sharp images.
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small; font-family: Calibri;"]
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small; font-family: Calibri;"]Bob
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

I found the 24-70 (and all of my 1.4-2.8 lenses) very acceptable using wide open. They are not as sharp as when stopped down a few stops, but plenty sharp. Saying that he will need to use the 24-70 stopped down past f/4 is crazy talk. As for the high ISO thing--yea, you can bump the ISO--but keep in mind when you do so your losing quality and that ISO only takes you so far. If you're using a 40D you can shoot a moving subject at ISO800 instead of ISO1600, and god forbid matters got worse ISO1600 instead of ISO3200. The same even applies to the 5D, 5DII and the 1DsIII. Like IS, ISO is no substitution for a wider aperture.


To the OP, why not buy/rent the 24-105 and shoot with it along side your 24-70 that way you get a good idea of what each one offers pertaining to your shooting style.