24-70 vs 24-105 (Great Debate!?)

[Tony Printezis]

also thinking that the 16-35 might be an option

Also consider the 17-40 which is a great lens for the price.

Plus if I get the 24-105 I feel there's a lot of overlap.. decisions, decisions!

So, I keep asking this question and I've never got an answer: what's the problem with focal length overlap? If anything else, having some overlap might decrease the number of times you change lenses and maybe keep your sensor a bit cleaner.

[/b]Eksmaan]it depends on your budget

No budget issue here! Both lenses cost roughly the same... and the 24-105 will be cheaper if bought as the 5DmkII kit.

and I don't think IS is that important at the lower end

Oh, but it is! Consider the following shot I recently got accepted on a.net, taken with my 40D + 24-105 (sorry for the shameless plug):


http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA---Air/Lockheed-SR-71A-Blackbird/1574849/L


It was shot at ISO 500, 35mm (I'd call that low end!), f/7.1, and 1/4 sec handheld. I couldn't have used a tripod (not allowed in museums). The only advantage that the 24-70 would have offered me over the 24-105 in this situation would have been the ability to shoot at 2.8. But, it would have ruined the large depth-of-field that I wanted (and even f/7.1 is marginal here, notice the OOF pitot tube). So, I just couldn't have taken this shot with the 24-70 (at least I personally cannot handhold at 1/4 sec without IS).


Of course, you might shoot different types of subjects where 2.8 would be more appropriate. But, as Chris White correctly said, IS is very helpful in many, many situations.

Fast Glass[/b]]Also check out the difference between the 24-105mm at 105mm VS the 70-200mm at 100mm.

Sorry, but that's a pointless comparison. I admit that the 24-105 is indeed a bit soft on the longer end. But, first, the 24-70 doesn't reach that focal length anyway. And, second, you're comparing a 4x zoom lens (the 24-105) which goes from wide to moderate telephoto to a 3x zoom lens (the 70-200) which goes from moderate telephoto to longer telephoto. Of course the former is a bigger compromise and of course it cannot compete in sharpness with the latter.

Jon Ruyle[/b]]It's the speed of the 24-70 vs the IS and extra reach of the 24-105.

And don't forget that the 24-70 is almost 300g heavier! One of the reasons I have the f4 L lenses (17-40, 24-105, and 70-200 IS) is that they are lighter and I didn't want to add weight to my shoulders when I carry my camera bag around.


Tony

[MOF_Sydney]

OK, I've got both lenses. I tend to use the 24-70 on the1D much more when I'm doing paid work, but I tend to use the 24-105 on the 5D when I'm just out taking photos for myself. The 5D with 24-105 is much lighter to carry around all day and IS means I can do more without a tripod or flash.


Part of it is just what you get used to but I do think the 24-70 takes better photos, within its shortened range.


Certainly the 24-105 has quite noticeable pin cushion/barrel distortion (especially at the shorter end) and I use lens correction software on most of the wider angle shots. I find this much less of an issue with the 24-70.


Also, the 24-70 is an f2.8 lens and this helps with the auto focus. I do a lot of my paid work in low light conditions and the extra stop is worth it and IS doesn't help if you are photographing people nearly as much as double the shutter speed (when you can't use flash).


On balance though, assuming you need to choose one or the other in a limited selection of lenses, I believe I'd opt for the more flexible 24-105 solution. In most situations the extra reach is more useful than the extra f stop. (This is especially true on a full frame camera that "feels" like it has less reach anyway).


FWIW


Michael

[hotsecretary]

Well, I'm going to see if it's possible to rent both lens with a 5D if it's not too expensive I might do that.


Heck, if it's cheap enough I might take a 16-35 out for a spin!

[clemmb]

Sounds like a plan.


Let us know how it goes.


Mark

[Fast Glass]

Sorry, but that's a pointless comparison. I admit that the 24-105 is indeed a bit soft on the longer end. But, first, the 24-70 doesn't reach that focal length anyway. And, second, you're comparing a 4x zoom lens (the 24-105) which goes from wide to moderate telephoto to a 3x zoom lens (the 70-200) which goes from moderate telephoto to longer telephoto. Of course the former is a bigger compromise and of course it cannot compete in sharpness with the latter.

Of course it is. Thats why I mentioned it. Use the shorter zoom range with out a overlap and gain the sharpness.

[Mark Elberson]

So, I keep asking this question and I've never got an answer: what's the problem with focal length overlap? If anything else, having some overlap might decrease the number of times you change lenses and maybe keep your sensor a bit cleaner.
<p style="CLEAR: both"]

<p style="CLEAR: both"]You're right Tony...and no one ever seems to complain about the overlap between the EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L and the EF 24-XXmmL's

[hotsecretary]

So, I keep asking this question and I've never got an answer: what's the problem with focal length overlap? If anything else, having some overlap might decrease the number of times you change lenses and maybe keep your sensor a bit cleaner.
<p style="clear: both;"]

<p style="clear: both;"]You're right Tony...and no one ever seems to complain about the overlap between the EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L and the EF 24-XXmmL's
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Most likely due to the fact there's not the options on that end


Heading by the store hopefully today to see if I can rent them for a reasonable price, if not it'll come down to last minute... EENY MEENY MINY MO!?


In the end though, the most important purchase is the camera ... I missed not having my camera this weekend!

[alexniedra]

Think about this in terms of your style. Both lenses, from my experience, are optically and physically great. Given that you mentioned "mainly walk-around" and landscapes, I think the logical choice here is the 24-105 f/4 L. For landscapes, you will most likely be using narrow apertures for the most depth of field in your images, so I think that f/4 will be adequate, along with the advantage of IS. For your walk-around shooting, the obvious winner, in my opinion, is the 24-105 L. You can't beat the versitality of the zoom range, and the IS will keep you shooting sans-flash in low light.



Since you mentioned candids in your main uses, here I would recommend the 24-70 L - I find it's bokeh worth it. But given you aleady own the 70-200 2.8 L IS (which is great for portraits), I don't think the 24-70 is that much more useful for portrait photography than the 24-105 L.



In the end, it all comes down to your own choice. I would suggest getting some time to use both lenses, even if it involves renting them for a little while. Shoot a variety of subjects with both lenses and get some real-world experience with the glass.



Good luck.

[Cory]

For me it comes down to this: Do I need a faster F Stop or more range? That would pretty much make my choice.


While doing a set that stop and start at each others mm's sounds like a cost effective plan most lenses take better picture in their mid ranges, so it's nice to have some overlap.