24-70 or 24-105 walkaround lens?

[OiCecil]

Hi guys.


I'm looking for a new walkaround zoom lens, which I've narrowed down to either the 24-70 f/2.8 Lor24-105 f/4 L IS.


Comparing these two lenses, am I right to assume the wider aperture to be more valuable than the IS, even in low light?


I do have a tripod but, like I said, this will mainly be a walkaround lens for me. So day/night, indoors/outdoors, etc. Anything goes. []


After this I'm hoping to purchase a 70-200 f/2.8 L IS. Considering this, it would make sense to get the 24-70, although getting the better lens is more important to me than a little overlap.


----------


I currently own

• Canon 450D (XSi)
• EF-S 18-55 IS (kit lens, soon to be sold)
• EF 100mm Macro f/2.8
• EF 50mm f/1.4
• Speedlite 430EXII
• Manfrotto Tripod

[Maleko]

For my preference I went for the 105, down to the focal length, I wanted a lens that would stay on my camera more, and i felt with 70mm I would be changing lenses more so than with 105mm, that little bit more from 70-105 does a lot for me!
I would struggle to say which one was better, as they are both brilliant lenses (have used both), but both quite different. My opinion anyway!


Myself and a mate of mine take pictures indoors perfectly with the 24-105 lens (weddings).


My ideal personal situation one day will be 5D with 24-70mm, and say my 50D with 70-200mm, no worry to change lenses then!
Unfortuantely, I didn't have enough money to get all I wanted in one go! So i compromised with the 105.


Hope that makes sense as to why I went for the 105.

[Bob]

Here is what Bryan has to say


..."The Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens quickly became one of my favorites. If I had only one lens, this would be the one. " ....


... "For my personal uses in this focal length range, the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens is on my camera more than the 24-70 L. If your needs are for wider focal lengths and you are using a 1.6x FOVCF body, you should also consider the [url="http://community.the-digital-picture.com/forums/Canon-EF-S-17-55mm-f-2.8-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx]Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens[/url]. It is another excellent choice.
<script language="javascript"]</script>
"

[peety3]

You say you have the 17-55 kit lens...do you mean 18-55?


Take a look at your pictures and the EXIF data in them. Analyze what's blurry. If the whole picture is blurry, you MIGHT want to aim for IS, as your shutter speeds are likely too slow. If the subject is blurry but the background is crisp, your shutter speeds are high enough to eliminate shake but not high enough to stop action, so aperture is more likely what you want.

[OiCecil]

For my preference I went for the 105, down to the focal length, I wanted a lens that would stay on my camera more, and i felt with 70mm I would be changing lenses more so than with 105mm, that little bit more from 70-105 does a lot for me!
I would struggle to say which one was better, as they are both brilliant lenses (have used both), but both quite different. My opinion anyway!
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

The extra focal length is another small reason I'm looking at the 24-105. Although to be honest, i can't imagine switching between the 24-70 and 70-200 to bother me too much. I guess this is mostly down to a photographers style of shooting.


I've also heard the quality/sharpness to be better in the 24-70.

Here is what Bryan has to say


..."The Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens quickly became one of my favorites. If I had only one lens, this would be the one. " ....


... "For my personal uses in this focal length range, the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens is on my camera
more than the 24-70 L. If your needs are for wider focal lengths and
you are using a 1.6x FOVCF body, you should also consider the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens. It is another excellent choice.
"

I'm staying away from EF-S lenses, as further down the line I plan on moving to a full frame camera. Possibly a 5D MKII - or equivalent at the time - though this will be some time.

You say you have the 17-55 kit lens...do you mean 18-55?


Take a look at your pictures and the EXIF data in them. Analyze
what's blurry. If the whole picture is blurry, you MIGHT want to aim
for IS, as your shutter speeds are likely too slow. If the subject is
blurry but the background is crisp, your shutter speeds are high enough
to eliminate shake but not high enough to stop action, so aperture is
more likely what you want.

That's right, the 18-55. I've corrected my original post.


I've never used the 18-55 without IS, so I haven't much to base this on. Although your explanation has helped and from seeing subject blurriness with crisp backgrounds from a 70-200 f/4 I borrowed briefly, I think the higher aperture may be what I need.

[TheRoff]

My $.02


I found the 24-105 to be a bit too long for walking around with a 1.6 body, a 30D in my case. I found myself always changing to my 10-22.


It is a completely different story on my 5Dmk2. The 24-105 screams. Perfect.


Larry

[adam]

I'm going through the same decision-making process right now...I've got a bunch of other lenses up for sale that will hopefully result in me having enough money for either of these.


The 24-70 and 24-105 lenses seem to be more similar than different, in a lot of ways. The 24-105 is sharper wide-open, but it's also a stop slower...so at f/4 it's even. The 24-105 has more distortion at the wide end, which is not surprising due to the increased range. The build quality is excellent for both. The 24-105 is more compact, but they're both a bigger than anything you currently have. For most people, the wider aperture is more generically useful than the image stabilizer, but it depends on what you shoot.


I'm leaning towards the 24-105...I generally don't shoot moving subjects in low light, so alI other things being equal I'd rather have an image stabilizer than a wider aperture (unless the aperture is three stops wider...). And my telephoto lens is a Sigma 100-300, so I wouldn't have the overlap you're planning to have.


But I'm sure you'll be happy with either lens...

[Scott]

I bought the 24 - 105 and couldn't be happier. I did a wedding last Saturday after only havinghours to get used to it. I was more then impressed with the results. I used fill flash for most of my shots on the day so the f/4 was more then fine and the IS just topped it off. I know a lot of people LOVE the f/2.8 and talk about light and speed, but I have looked back on a majority of my work and f/4 and above covers it for me.


I have a 50D body. Hope this helps.


Scott


[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/400x600/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.26.38/IMG_5F00_3948-web.JPG[/img]


[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/400x600/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.26.38/IMG_5F00_7464-web.JPG[/img]


[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/400x600/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.26.38/IMG_5F00_7489-web.JPG[/img]

[Fouad]

I am leaning towards the 24-105 myself. I personally feel that the advantage of the IS is greater than the disadvantage of the f/4 vs the f/2.8 . Thanks for the pics.

[Tony Printezis]

Adding my two cents to this thread:

although getting the better lens is more important to me than a little overlap.

I'm curious: why are folks obssessed with not having overlap on their lenses? I think overlap is helpful. In some cases, it allows you not to have to change lenses, which can only be a good thing.

Here is what Bryan has to say

Actually the most important part of Bryan's review is the following, which basically summarizes the differences between the two:


Indoor event photographers will *probably* select the 24-70 L
while landscape/outdoor, travel and portrait photographers might prefer the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens.

I found the 24-105 to be a bit too long for walking around with a 1.6
body, a 30D in my case. I found myself always changing to my 10-22.

And this is an excellent point. As I've said in other threads, even though I like my 24-105, I wouldn't use it as my sole walkaround lens (on my 40D / XTi). I generally couple it with the 10-22, and sometimes with the 17-40. In fact, in many situations, the 17-40 is a better walkaround lens than the 24-105 (for my taste at least).

I personally feel that the advantage of the IS is greater than the disadvantage of the f/4 vs the f/2.8.

In my case (and I'm more of a landscape / cityscape photographer), this is definitely the case.


Tony