Canon EF 24-70mm f2.8L...vs... 24-105mm f4L IS
Discussion
I am leaning towards the latter. It's a bit lighter, a bit cheaper, and a bit longer. For low light it also has the IS which is apparently worth about 3 stops of hand-hold-ability, added to which the high ISO performance these days should make it OK in low light. I probably take 99% of my photos outside.
However, I like the idea of the F2.8 to allow separation of foreground and background. Losing that is the main downside as I see it.
It would be going on a 600D.
Any thoughts?
Cheers,
FT.
However, I like the idea of the F2.8 to allow separation of foreground and background. Losing that is the main downside as I see it.
It would be going on a 600D.
Any thoughts?
Cheers,
FT.
I went for the 24-105 for the IS, I use it mainly for landscapes and am rarely shooting wide open so don't really miss the extra stop but find with the IS I can handhold down to 1/4 or 1/2 a second which means a grabbed shot in low light is possible where otherwise it might not have been.
I've just bought myself the 24-70mm, as it suited my needs over the 24-105mm. I don't shoot alot of landscapes and I'm a sucker for shallow DoF and nice bokeh.
Just a couple of things to remember - on the 600D your 24-70 becomes a 38.4-112mm and the 24-105 becomes a 38.4-168mm due to the APS-C sensor's 1.6x crop factor. The AF on the 24-70 will be "superior" to the 24-105 as it will always use it's maxium aperture (f/2.8 vs f/4) for AF, regardless of what you have it stopped down to for your actual shot.
Finally, IS is a handy thing to have, but it depends on what you are shooting. If you are shooting landscapes handheld then you will certainly see the benefit. However, if you are shooting moving objects (particilarly in low light) it's a slightly different kettle of fish.
It's also worth noting that the 24-105mm, unlike some Canon lenses, doesn't have a "panning" IS mode. It also doesn't have a "tripod sensing" function which disables the IS, which when using on a tripod can actually produce a blurred image as the lens "floats". Neither of these are real problems, and I've heard good things regarding it's performance and seen some great shots from it - but worth being aware of.
Just a couple of things to remember - on the 600D your 24-70 becomes a 38.4-112mm and the 24-105 becomes a 38.4-168mm due to the APS-C sensor's 1.6x crop factor. The AF on the 24-70 will be "superior" to the 24-105 as it will always use it's maxium aperture (f/2.8 vs f/4) for AF, regardless of what you have it stopped down to for your actual shot.
Finally, IS is a handy thing to have, but it depends on what you are shooting. If you are shooting landscapes handheld then you will certainly see the benefit. However, if you are shooting moving objects (particilarly in low light) it's a slightly different kettle of fish.
It's also worth noting that the 24-105mm, unlike some Canon lenses, doesn't have a "panning" IS mode. It also doesn't have a "tripod sensing" function which disables the IS, which when using on a tripod can actually produce a blurred image as the lens "floats". Neither of these are real problems, and I've heard good things regarding it's performance and seen some great shots from it - but worth being aware of.
Edited by Rinko on Tuesday 28th June 17:38
These two lenses have been compared a number of times on different forums for fairly obvious reasons. Ultimately it comes down to what is most important to you, IS and a slightly longer reach vs f/2.8?
I think I read somewhere that the 24-70 performs slightly better with regard to distortion at the wide end than the 24-105.
I think I read somewhere that the 24-70 performs slightly better with regard to distortion at the wide end than the 24-105.
Fume troll said:
However, I like the idea of the F2.8 to allow separation of foreground and background. Losing that is the main downside as I see it.
Remember that the DoF is shallower at 105mm@f4 than 70mm@f2.8. 
I did have the same (and a very difficult one!) choice before and I went for 24-105 and I don't regret it at all. It's just perfect for my use.
I had the same dilemma when I bought my 5D and went for the 24-105mm for the weight and size benefits.
However when I used to have an APSC 40D I had the similar priced EF-S 17-55 f2.8 which was roughly the same size and weight as the 24-105 and was truly an absolute cracker of a lens due to its sharpness, IS, reasonable reach and aperture.
However when I used to have an APSC 40D I had the similar priced EF-S 17-55 f2.8 which was roughly the same size and weight as the 24-105 and was truly an absolute cracker of a lens due to its sharpness, IS, reasonable reach and aperture.
Gemm said:
Remember that the DoF is shallower at 105mm@f4 than 70mm@f2.8.
True but no use whatsoever if you need to frame at 70mm!24-105f4L is a workhorse lens on full frame. Its 'downside' is relatively poor bokeh.
The 24-70L is large, heavy and has absolutely fantastic bokeh for a zoom.
24-105, or indeed my 17-5 cant do this anywhere near as well.
Sometimes I look at the trial shots I had with that lens and regret buying the 17-55, but then thats also a great lens and has put out some cracking shots.
..and now I have the sigmalux anyhow...
I forgot to mention in my post that I asked a similar question last year (albeit for a full frame camera). I still ended up with the 24-105 despite the general opinion being for the 24-70!
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
I had the 24-105 for several years, but knew I'd bought the wrong lens pretty quickly. Yeah it's "very good" at being a general lens but well, it's F4 isn't it! It's kind of the Volvo in my camera bag; it's good, reliable, safe, but not once have I taken a shot with it that's got me properly excited.
Compare that to it's neighbours in the camera bag and it's really rather boring. Frankly most 'general' zooms are boring tbh, and in fact when i got the 24-70 i put it straight in my bag and didn't use it until my next wedding - it was a pretty dull way of spending a grand. Conversely, when I got my 24 1.4, I knew it was a bit special so stuck it straight on the camera and started using it, and I love it.
Of course it depends what you're shooting, but I'd take aperture over zoom any day of the week. After all, you can zoom with your feet or take advantage of those 20+ million pixels and crop a shot, safe in the knowledge that you were able to take it in the first place because you had some extra light hitting the sensor. IS is largely irrelevant at weddings - fine with landscapes, but not much benefit at weddings if the subject is blurred due to movement.
Compare that to it's neighbours in the camera bag and it's really rather boring. Frankly most 'general' zooms are boring tbh, and in fact when i got the 24-70 i put it straight in my bag and didn't use it until my next wedding - it was a pretty dull way of spending a grand. Conversely, when I got my 24 1.4, I knew it was a bit special so stuck it straight on the camera and started using it, and I love it.
Of course it depends what you're shooting, but I'd take aperture over zoom any day of the week. After all, you can zoom with your feet or take advantage of those 20+ million pixels and crop a shot, safe in the knowledge that you were able to take it in the first place because you had some extra light hitting the sensor. IS is largely irrelevant at weddings - fine with landscapes, but not much benefit at weddings if the subject is blurred due to movement.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff