lens, 24-70 f2.8 or 24-105 f4 IS ??????

[wazonthehill2]

G'day
What thoughts from the group on what lense is preferred?

looking at these two and have had a loan play with each.
Which is "better"
Using on a 40d for the usual "anything" shooting

My thoughts so far are that I am not sure about which lens is best
the 24-70 f2.8 (no IS)
takes nice pics,
is heavy, zoom is 3 times

the 24-105 f4 IS
takes nice pics
feels light
is a 4 times zoom, so has that longer reach
is easier to hold, has is, has one stop less

a couple of friends say that the 24-70 is a definitely better (sharper) lens, but to be honest I can not pick the results difference
I need to do a swap and shoot test I think.
But I do find the 24-105 lighter and easier to wield, and that extra reach sometimes is nice, and may be just an easier general on camera lense.

What thoughts from the group on what lense is preferred?

The other pieces in the kit are
10-22, 50 1.4, 100-400, 100 macro 2.8 & 17-85 IS

[PiroStitch]

Low light, the 24-70 will be more beneficial as the 2.8 will allow you to use a faster shutter speed to freeze the action. IS will allow you to gain more ambient light, however you will need to use a slower shutter speed to gain this exposure due to the aperture - which means it won't help you capture the action, unless you plan on panning a lot

I had the 24-105 for about 3 months, then sold it off and bought a 24-70. The 24-70 is heavier, however it's worth it. I felt there was more contrast from the 24-70 than the 24-105.

[photohiker]

Happy 24-105'r here.

I've carted it all over the place, and the only times I didn't take it was to save weight. I've not tried the other lens though, but the 24-105 is a nice range and weight for general walk-around. I think the 24-70 would have to be a lot better to make me consider it.

Looking at your photos, I'm not seeing you need to use your lenses wide open in low light much, so I'd have to ask how much benefit 2.8 would be worth over 4.0 for you.

You should try both lenses yourself before you decide.

Michael

[Wocka]

I am in the same boat. I have the $$$ to spend, but trying to decide what is best.

I have worked out through my LR library that my main focal length used is 30mm ( probably from heavy use if my Sigma 1.4 ) but I was heading towards the 24-70 as everyone says this is THE lens. But when you read POTN and other reviews, just like here and people love both.

I would say I have read a lot of people move from the 24-105 to the 24-70, I can't say I have read of people going the other way, if so not as much. I haven't held or used either of these lenses so I don't have any experience.

I don't know why I'm in favour of the 24-70, 2.8 would be nice. I now use my flash quite a bit indoors ( bounced ) at least 90% of the time, that the F4 would be more than capable of the shots I take. Especially since I'm using the 18-55 Kit lens @ 3.5+.

Cheers.

[PiroStitch]

24-70 stopped down to f4 will be sharper than the 24-105 wide open.

Having said that, my lens of choice at the moment is the 50 1.4

[aim54x]

OMG a nikon user voting on a Canon issue!! (me that is)

I voet 24-70mm f/2.8L over the 24-105 f/4L IS (I have used the 24-105 and it is a nice lens) the f/2.8 will make a big difference and you have the 100-400 so you wont have an unmanageable gap in your kit. The extra speed and image quality in the 24-70 will make up for the extra weight and the shorter length, esp on the EOS 40D, you will have the crop factor to help you.

I use the Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8 and it has proven to be a really useful lens on both my film and digital bodies, the focal length covers all the focal lengths that I use normally. I do however carry the 17-50mm Tamron a lot of the time when I am going light, but that is a different story.

[dviv]

Rumour has it there will be a new 24-70 announced soon with IS

Might be worth waiting for it either for the IS or to push down the price of version 1

[aim54x]

If that is true, then it may well be worth waiting. You may be able to pick up a good 2nd hand copy of the non IS 24-70 for cheap as well. But then again you cant wiat forever.

[PiroStitch]

Yeah I heard about the IS version erm about 9 months ago, just before I bought the non-IS version...good thing I didn't wait

[Matt. K]

Go the F2.8. One good lens is much better than a compromised lens. F4 will end up being very unsatisfactory after awhile.

[DaveB]

With the Photokina show coming up in Germany later this month, I won't be surprised if said 24-70/2.8 IS appears this month.
Then again, if it doesn't I won't be completely shocked anyway, but it does seem like an appropriate time for new announcements (possibly to go along with the new DSLRs that have to be coming).

Of course when I say "appear", I mean "be announced". But with Canon the time between announcement and availability is usually not too bad.

[stetner]

I have been pondering over these lens for the last year. I had a 24-70 ordered, but a little birdy flew away with my money, so I have been trying to get the savings up again. I am leaning to the 24-70, as I can always use a tripod, but I can't open the 24-105 up any bigger no matter what I do....

My biggest fear is the 24-70 (or similar) f 2.8 IS coming out after I buy the standard one. Then again, would I want to buy version 1 of the new lens?? Probably not.....

sigh.

[wazonthehill2]

two weeks ago Canon dropped the price of the 24-70...............
could it really mean that there is a new one coming

Ahh bugger it, I have the 24-70 on the body now..........

And my mate hase the 24-105......

and maybe it will stay that way

[Grev]

There is somehow a quality control problem with the 24-70, which the 24-105 isn't as prone to.

[Chaase]

I was seriously looking at the 24-70 a few weeks ago but got turned off with the weight at almost 1KG (actual 950 grams) thats a lot to hang around the neck etc, ended up taking a different approach with what I purchased.

Bruce

[PiroStitch]

That's why you don't hang the camera around your neck Also you'll be more prone to someone choking you if they try and yank the camera away from you.

[ozimax]

I have the 50mm 1.4, but one of my best mates has the F4 IS version and swears by it. I have used it on several occasions and was very impressed. However, another wedding pro friend of mine swears by the F2.8, especially for indoor shots without flash. It is a brick, and will last a long long time. Personally if I had the cash, I would buy the F2.8 version as I don't own a flash.

[stetner]

Broke down and bought the 24-70 today.

Heavy, longer than I seem to remember it (new small camera bag I think...)

Have not had a play yet, tomorrow... I will try to find a duck.

[Wink]

Ah ha! I knew there had to be a thread about the 'never ending question' on here somewhere...

I'm heading to Europe in April and i'm looking to get another lens before i go.
I can't afford to be carrying heaps of gear around, including a tripod. So my plan is to take 50mm f1.8, 10-22mm and i'm thinking about buying the 24-105L.
My reasoning for this over the 24-70L is the reduction is weight, the extra focal length and the IS. To me this makes it a better walk around/general purpose lens.

I've read a million posts about the 24-70's 2.8 letting in more light than the 24-105's f4, but i don't see this being an issue with the subject matter i'll be looking at.

I've read a few interesting articles lately that point out that with the high ISO performance of newer cameras the 1 stop of light is fast becoming a non issue. Although i don't have a camera capable of this yet, i will upgrade to one one day.

Obviously DOF is another difference. Where again, i don't see it being much of an issue. At this point i should probably mention the next lens (after this one) i plan to buy is the 70-200mm f2.8 IS, so i'll have a reasonable amount of that range covered.

Do you think i'm on the right track here?

[muzz]

Rumours on the Canon rumours sites are talking about the release of a 24-70 f/2.8L II IS - you may want to keep your eyes on those with supposed Canon announcements in February.

[Wink]

Yeah, i've seen that. I'm disregarding it because it will fall outside my time frame the more than likely price range.
Not to mention that rumour has been around for ages!

I still think IS being equal the extra focal length would still be a benefit.
No doubt the 24-70 IS will be even heavier than the current non IS version.
Remember, this is for travel/walk around.

[muzz]

I had a similar decision to make between the 70-200 2.8L (no IS) and the 70-200 4L IS. After some input from this board I decided to go for the 2.8. I received good advice that I would learn to handle it and cope with the extra weight and a larger f-stop is not only more desirable for lower light but that also the sweet spot of a lens tends to be 1 or 2 stops away from it's widest aperture, which means the choice for DOF will be different for each lens at it's sharpest - IS won't account for that. I haven't regretted it so far. There are also a variety of straps and carrying solutions now that make a heavier lens less work than just having a strap around the neck.

Coincidentally I just had an email from a blog post with a 24-70 for sale - haven't checked prices but it may be something to consider.

[Wink]

I would (and will) get the f2.8 version of the 70-200. The comparison there is purely the aperture. Everything else is the same.
It's not so clear cut in the 24-70 vs 24-105 debate.

The price on that blog isn't anything special when compared to forum pricing. Thanks for the link though!

[zafra52]

I don't have either lens, but the 24-70 f2.8 will have to produce far better images than the 24-105 f4 IS specially with a full sensor camera. My experience is that the less zooming a lens has the sharper the images and hence my 50mm f1.4 and my 100mm f.28 are the sharpest lenses I've got in my arsenal. Of course, as mentioned above you might not see this in smaller prints or using a smaller sensor (not 35mm equivalent) but wait till you need to print a A3 +. Besides, sharpeness should be the only criteria for a lens, how accurate is it with the colours, distorsion, bokeh, etc.,etc.
So, there... my two cents worth.

[kocheng]

Hi Everyone

This is my first post after registered to this forum for a very long time. Recently found a few review which is very useful so decided to come back to this forum as regular participants.

I owned a 24-105mm for a good 2 years and I found this lens is very sharp and the range is extremely good (especially when you use a full frame camera). It is a very convenient lens if you want to just carry 1 or 2 lens for a day out.

I recently borrowed a 24-70 F/2.8 for an overseas trip so I have good experience to compare both lens. I found that 24-70 2.8 is a very great lens but same as everyone's concern, it is also a very heavy lens. If you drive and can drop your bag in the car all the time, then it is surely a better choice. If you need to carry your bag and with lots of walking, I suggest you go for the lighter 24-105 F/4. I found both lens produce great images. If you worry F/4 is not as fast as F/2.8, just turn your ISO to slightly higher level. With the help of IS, at F5.6 it will take extremely sharp images. When I was in overseas using the 24-70 F/2.8, I started to miss my 24-105mm because it covers up to 105mm. Most of the daylight shots you don't really shoot at F2.8 anyway. Even if money is not a concern, I personally recommend 24-105mm F/4.... or change to lighter but sharper prime lens such as 35mm F1.4 + 135mm F/2

David

[robert]

I upgraded to FF a few months ago and decided to go the 24-70 over the 24-105. I am surpised how much i take shots at 2.8- particulalry portraits/ family kandids. It is a slightly heavier (about 300g) and I would like it a bit longer but having 2.8 has opened some more creative options.

I thought a little differently to David re ISO- Iso can take the place of Image stabilsation but not Depth of field- ie f4 vs f2.8.

Similarly, I ended up with the f4 over the 2.8 for 70-200 because i thought the 2.8 at 1.6kg was just too heavy versus 760g for f4 (and cheaper!)

[padey]

Largely depends on your shooting style. I mostly shoot around f2.8. If shallow DOF isn't a big deal for yourself, then get the f4.

The 24-70 is an old style lens and due for replacement this year. I'm keen to get this lens myself, but am holding off until the new one arrives. I gather will be announced in a few months and will hit the streets at the end of the year.

[DaveB]

The 24-70 is an old style lens and due for replacement this year. I'm keen to get this lens myself, but am holding off until the new one arrives. I gather will be announced in a few months and will hit the streets at the end of the year.

I've been hearing this for years (almost as soon as the 24-70 replaced the old 28-70). Not saying it won't happen, but I'll believe it when I see it, and am not going to hold my breath!

Scroll up to dviv's comment in September 2008:

Rumour has it there will be a new 24-70 announced soon with IS

Might be worth waiting for it either for the IS or to push down the price of version 1

Could have been waiting for a while...