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

[Benjamin]

<span style="font-size: small; font-family: Arial;"]
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"]I am a very happy ownerof my 24-70/2.8L lens. I chose the 24-70L for the following five reasons:
<p style="margin: auto 0cm auto 36pt; text-indent: -18pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;" class="MsoListParagraph"]<span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol;"]<span style="mso-list: Ignore;"]&middot;<span style="font: 7pt 'Times New Roman';"] <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';"]It has the great f2.8 aperture (!!!)<o></o>
<p style="margin: auto 0cm auto 36pt; text-indent: -18pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;" class="MsoListParagraph"]<span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol;"]<span style="mso-list: Ignore;"]&middot;<span style="font: 7pt 'Times New Roman';"] <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';"]It produces less distortion<o></o>
<p style="margin: auto 0cm auto 36pt; text-indent: -18pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;" class="MsoListParagraph"]<span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol;"]<span style="mso-list: Ignore;"]&middot;<span style="font: 7pt 'Times New Roman';"] <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';"]It has about one full stop vignette advantage<o></o>
<p style="margin: auto 0cm auto 36pt; text-indent: -18pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;" class="MsoListParagraph"]<span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol;"]<span style="mso-list: Ignore;"]&middot;<span style="font: 7pt 'Times New Roman';"] <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';"]It&rsquo;s easier to zoom precisely at wide angle<o></o>
<p style="margin: auto 0cm auto 36pt; text-indent: -18pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;" class="MsoListParagraph"]<span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol;"]<span style="mso-list: Ignore;"]&middot;<span style="font: 7pt 'Times New Roman';"] <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';"]The hood provides more effective protection to the lens barrel<o></o>
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"]However, quite a lot of people will disagree with me and go for 24-105/4L IS for its image stabilization and the extra 35mm of reach (the main two reasons I&rsquo;ve been hearing). I personally will be tremendously reluctant totrade my f2.8 with the IS and extra 35mm. The IS and more reach plus light weight are the only aspects that the 24-105L surpasses the 24-70L in my mind,but they are sort of trivial to me as I don&rsquo;t find I beg IS for help in this range and I have a 70-200L to take care of the rest of focal length needed.
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"]I would love to know what you guys think, that will surely help me to be more objective about these two lenses. (I&rsquo;m also prepared to get flamed by angry fire&hellip;[])
<font size="3" face="Arial" style="font-size: small;"]



<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"]Thanks guys,
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"]Benjamin

</font>

[airfang]

I like the 24-70 better (though I don't have one), the only thing it is lacking maybe the 3- or 4- stop IS


But I seriously suspect that there will be an IS verison coming out either this year or next year.


The 24-70 was introduced in 2002, as a comparison, the 70-200 2.8L came out in 1995 and its IS version came out in 2001, so if the cycle holds to some extent I'd expect to see the IS version of 24-70 soon...


But again, it'd be $500 more expensive I would estimate...


For me I am currently using 16-35 II and 70-200 2.8IS on a 30D, so I can probably fill the gap with some standard prime and wait a bit long to see if there's anything coming out this year

[MVers]

Owned the 24-105 and while its a great lens it didn't offer enough to be kept around for my style of shooting. Aperture is a main factor and while IS is nice its no substitution when it comes to moving subjects and the ability to blow out backgrounds. However, if you're into back packing, hiking or one lens solutions its hard to beat the 24-105 on a FF body. It's relatively light and small, range is outstanding, IS is nice and IQ is exceptional. It paired with a 100-400 and a macro makes for a great hiking/wildlife kit. Then again if you find yourself shooting in low light or portraits the 24-70 is the better bet.


-Matt

[Keith B]

I have the 24-105 It is on my camera most of the time. I'd probably recommend it over the 24-70 due to it's longer range. Even in low light because of the IS. At f/4 has a decent bokeh. IS = 3 stops, the difference between 2.8 and 4 is only one.


If a 24-70 IS is on the horizon, I'd get that though.

[MVers]

IS doesnt stop action and unless your going for a time elapse, motion blur effect it certainly is no substitution for aperture.However, if your shooting inanimate objects, IS is very helpful.

[Tony Printezis]

Ah, the "eternal" IS vs. wide aparture question!!! :-)


I have the 24-105 and I never regretted getting it. I mainly shoot stationary objects, therefore a 3-stop IS is more helpful to me than a one-step wider aperture (especially given that a lot of the time I want to maintain some depth-of-field). For me, the choice was a no-brainer.


Tony

[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

[Colin]

I'd like both, but between the two I went with the 24-105 f/4 because it served a wider range of purposes. I like the bokeh quality, though the quantity doesn't match a 2.8, and if you want to get much blur, you need to get in close. Up close, less depth of field would be dangerous... Below was at f/4, 93mm, and I kind of screwed it up by nailing his snout with the focus, so that the eyes are behind the focal plane...


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.24.92/20070910_5F00_WocketDog_2800_800x1200_29005F00_003 .JPG[/img]