Canon L Series Lens Query

[puckrup]

What lens would you choose between Canon EF 24-105mm f4 L IS or EF 24-70mm f2.8 L IS as a general lens to compliment Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8 L IS Lens.

I have an existing 17-85 kit lens. Had settled on the 24-105mm until I found the option of the 24-70.... now I am confused!

Thanks

N

[bramley]

I bought the 24-105 (packaged with a 5D) and I often wish I'd bought the 24-70.

If you can afford the 24-70 go for it I say.

[flat-planedCrank]

puckrup said:

What lens would you choose between Canon EF 24-105mm f4 L IS or EF 24-70mm f2.8 L IS as a general lens to compliment Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8 L IS Lens.

I have an existing 17-85 kit lens. Had settled on the 24-105mm until I found the option of the 24-70.... now I am confused!

Thanks

N

Personally i'd go for the 24-70 as its f2.8 (there was a recent rumour of an IS version being released - just a rumour though).

I hear it weighs a ton (well 950g..)

Cheers.

Edited by flat-planedCrank on Friday 16th May 15:34

[Byker28i]

I had this choice and went for the 24-105. It's much lighter than the other lens and so makes it better for a walkabout lens. Plus F4 with IS works fine over the 2.8 non is. Depth of field difference is minimal.

[Andy M]

I've owned both; first the 24-105 and now the 24-70.

The 24-70 is undoubtedly the better lens for pure image quality, the 24-105 is more convenient (less weight, longer focal length, IS).

Whichever you choose you'll not have made a bad decision

[mcgus]

i own the 24-105 and think it is a great walkabout lens. I also have the 70-200 2.8 IS. I think they do complement each other. there are times when I'll be happy to be just taking the 5D and one lens and the 24-105 gives just that extra bit of reach.

[Famous Graham]

I had a similar quandry a few months ago. Had the 24-105 for a couple of years and was getting a 70-200 (albeit f/4 IS, not the 2.8) - I was considering part-exing the 105 for the 70. Decided I couldn't justify the extra cost in the end and I've been perfectly happy with the 24-105 & 70-200 pairing.

However, if I was starting with neither, I probably would go for the 24-70 simply because it's 2.8.

There, that was helpful wasn't it

[puckrup]

That was actually very helpful. I have decided to go for the 24-105 due to weight and useability, this will be my main lens and should be great for general use and portrait work. There is also a cost consideration too.

Also plan to get the 1.4x extender.

N

[agent006]

Having made that choice last year and gone for the 24-105, i'd go for the 24-70 if i had to choose again. Not been particlarly blown away with the quality on the 105, and the IS is almost unnoticeable.

[JohnS]

I've got the 24-105 and it's barely off my camera. Very versatile for most shots.

[Ordinary Bloke]

IMHO, any lens with 3x or more zoom is quite compromised somewhere in it's range, so 28-105 is unlikely to be great. 24-70 and 28-70 'L' are both great lenses, from what I've read.

If you're not an 'L' snob and are careful with your lenses, have a look at the Tamron 28-75 f2.8, it get's good reviews, it's lightweight and very sharp. For me, the f2.8 does make a difference, especially for portraits. I hardly take it off my camera anymore, it's a perfect std lens.

(But if you need the ruggedness, forget it, you'll need to spend the extra £500 or whatever...)

[Thunderace]

I had this choice at Christmas and went for the 24-70, preferring F2.8 over IS and longer reach. It's a great lens and now almost a permanent fixture on one body. Never found the weight a problem, it feels well balanced with a battery grip on the camera.

[RobDickinson]

Its a common comparison, and some people have switched between the two (or own both).


IMO on pure image quality the 24-70f2.8 cant be beat as a zoom. Friend has one (on a 5D) and its pure quality. Its also huge and heavy and doesnt have IS.

The 24-105f4IS is a cracking lens (in some areas better than the 24-70) Its lighter and has IS. You loose a stop - but more importantly (to me) the Bokeh it produces isnt a patch on the 24-70, depends on how important that is to you.

[Piers_K]

I looked at both..
The upshot was that FOR ME the bit of extra reach and IS was worth more than the extra stop and better IQ (but then the 105 isn't exactly bad!) for what Id be shooting with the lens.

Edited by Piers_K on Saturday 17th May 23:23

[puckrup]

I'm going to ask a real newbie question so apologies in advance, what is Bokeh?

N

[flat-planedCrank]

puckrup said:

I'm going to ask a real newbie question so apologies in advance, what is Bokeh?

N

Bokeh it the name given to the 'look' and 'quality' of the out-of-focus areas in a photo.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh

Cheers.

[andyparrott]

puckrup said:

That was actually very helpful. I have decided to go for the 24-105 due to weight and useability, this will be my main lens and should be great for general use and portrait work. There is also a cost consideration too.

Also plan to get the 1.4x extender.

N

I have both and find I use the 24-105 more.

The extender won't work with the 24-105 by the way

[puckrup]

Bokeh - got it now, only limited Internet access, on dreaded Blackberry

1.4x extender, had only planned to use this on 70-200 but didn't realise it would not work on 24-105.

Another dilema though, life is full of them! - I spun the Sagaris into the kitty litter at Knockhill today, bad enough but met Flat Planned Crank in the Paddock afterwords and saw and tried his f1.4 50mm lens on some detail shots - superb! Might call for a trip to Jessops - now do I fix the front splitter or buy another lens........!?

[RobDickinson]

Sigma are releasing a 50mm F1.4 HSM which should blow the canon version out of the water.

[puckrup]

RobDickinson said:

Sigma are releasing a 50mm F1.4 HSM which should blow the canon version out of the water.

Is there a date for this? Tks N