24 - 70 or 24 -105 Lens creep

[alfie]

Hi Everyone


For my first post I have a question concerning the the above lens' in comparison to the 28 - 135. I have been reading with interest the thoughts and opinions regarding the two lens'. I currently own a 28 - 135 which I use mainly with a 40D. It's a fine lens and I've been happy with it excepting one very annoying characteristic. Lens creep. I find that virtually any movement of the camera up or down will cause lens creep.


How do the 24 - 70 and 24 - 105 behave?


Whilst the final choice may be determined by other factors, not to mention the over inflated prices here in the UK, I'd be interested in any opinions.

[peety3]

I have a 24-105, and my girlfriend has a 28-135. The 24-105 creeps much less than the 28-135, almost exclusively when the camera is being carried and not while in use. I've rented the 24-70, and I think it crept even less, though by no means was creep absent.


For what it's worth, she used my 24-105 on her 40D a lot over the past four weeks (three big gigs), and REALLY liked it. Admittedly, that was also with a 10-22 EF-S and a 70-200/4IS on a Rebel and a rented 50D, so she didn't have to change lenses. Meanwhile, I was using the rented 24-70 on a 5D and later a 1D Mark III, and found that I really liked the 24-70. I didn't miss IS much, and I didn't miss the 70-105 range, but the aperture came in handy.


I suspect I'll be buying a 24-70 soon, and letting her use the 24-105 most of the time.

[Keith B]

I have the 24-105 and have owned the 28-135. The lens creep is substantially worse on the 28-135.


I don't know about the 24-70, but if it does creep at least it does it within confines of it's hood and won't be subject to damage.

[TheRoff]

I have not noticed any creep on my 24 - 105. Its a great lens. Very sharp.


Larry

[Colin]

There may be some blurry copies out there, but my experience with the 24-105, is that it's STUPIDLY sharp for a zoom.


I wouldn't mind the 24-70 for the better performance at the very wide end and faster potential aperture, but I've got what I've got, and right now, it just doesn't make economic sense to own both []

[alfie]

Thanks everyone but it seems pretty clear that I'm favouring the 24 - 105 to replace the 28 - 135. []

[Colin]

That's exactly what I did, with my XT at the time, and I was happy with it.


I still have my 24-105 [] I think it's great, though it's now almost exclusively on a 5D.

[Benjamin]

I have the 24-70L and it does not creep no matter which angle I hold it. I used it hard over almost two years I had it, hanging on the camera all over the places outdoor when I'm travelling and shooting. Now it has a slight potential to creep just a little bit when positioned up right and zoomed out to 24mm, this happens when I initiate the movement. But overall I think the 24-70L is a quality lens which should not creep at all when used lightly with care.


Plus, the 24-70L is optically superior to the 24-105L IMO.

[joback]

I have both the 24-105L and the 28-135. They're both fine when you play to their strengths. I often use the former on my 5D MkII forits excellentsharpness (big help withextreme crops &/or enlargements). The latter Ikeep onan old 20D for all-around snapshot/candid photography. Creep really isn'ta bigissueif you keep your left hand on the zoom ring (it's a good &steady way to hold the camera). Compose a little wide, then crop if necessaryfor the final product.My biggest issue in a lens will always be relativeimage quality. The L-series lens is worth every penny, but overkill if you only want toprint 4x6 or view on a monitor. I like having both. After all, isn't the ultimate goal to die with the most equipment?

[Colin]

The L-series lens is worth every penny, but overkill if you only want toprint 4x6 or view on a monitor. I like having both. After all, isn't the ultimate goal to die with the most equipment?

I forgot about that.


You're so right!


That's still not enough to get me into a 400 f/2.8, but......


I'll remember that when a 50mm f/1.2L mkII finally comes out.