Yet Another Lens Thread: 24-105L versus 24-70L?

[andrewbw]

Hello smart folks...

I'm considering my next lens purchase, and among my choices are the Canon 24-105 f/4.0L IS versus the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L. It would be used with a Rebel XTi.

I've seen universally rave reviews for both, and both are around $1000 from the usual sources, so I'm more interested if people have discovered any limitations or regrets with the 24-105. To me, the reduced weight and increased range at the top end seem to make it a more versatile choice, and everything I've read suggests the image stabilizer really makes a difference when trying to shoot in lower light -- although I've never owned or used an IS lens before, so I don't know how much I can realistically expect. Am I setting myself up for disappointment with the 4.0 f-stop limit? I would primarily shoot outdoors with this lens.

Can anyone help steer me one way or another in this decision?

The other lenses in my kit so far are a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and a Canon 50 f/1.4. In general, I've found I like to overlay lens ranges so I'm not forced to swap glass as often, so I'm not concerned about the duplication from 24-50 with the Tamron and either of the Canon zooms.

Thanks!

[cdifoto]

Maybe you should check out photography-on-the.net where that topic has been hashed out a bazillion times.

OR

Make one decision:

Do you want IS or do you want f/2.8? It's YOUR decision and no one elses. It boils down to what you shoot. Still life, get the IS. Action/portraits, get the f/2.8.

[JMWallace]

Better yet, get the best of both worlds. Hoewever, you would sacrifce a little at the long end BUT would get a nice gain on the wide side. Take a close look at the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS.

[D Thompson]

Maybe you should check out photography-on-the.net where that topic has been hashed out a bazillion times.

OR

Make one decision:

Do you want IS or do you want f/2.8? It's YOUR decision and no one elses. It boils down to what you shoot. Still life, get the IS. Action/portraits, get the f/2.8.

ditto to what Don said!

[aparmley]

Hello smart folks...

I'm considering my next lens purchase, and among my choices are the Canon 24-105 f/4.0L IS versus the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L. It would be used with a Rebel XTi.

I've seen universally rave reviews for both, and both are around $1000 from the usual sources, so I'm more interested if people have discovered any limitations or regrets with the 24-105. To me, the reduced weight and increased range at the top end seem to make it a more versatile choice, and everything I've read suggests the image stabilizer really makes a difference when trying to shoot in lower light -- although I've never owned or used an IS lens before, so I don't know how much I can realistically expect. Am I setting myself up for disappointment with the 4.0 f-stop limit? I would primarily shoot outdoors with this lens.

Can anyone help steer me one way or another in this decision?

The other lenses in my kit so far are a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and a Canon 50 f/1.4. In general, I've found I like to overlay lens ranges so I'm not forced to swap glass as often, so I'm not concerned about the duplication from 24-50 with the Tamron and either of the Canon zooms.

Thanks!

What do you plan on shooting most with this lens?

[andrewbw]

Maybe you should check out photography-on-the.net where that topic has been hashed out a bazillion times.

OR

Make one decision:

Do you want IS or do you want f/2.8? It's YOUR decision and no one elses. It boils down to what you shoot. Still life, get the IS. Action/portraits, get the f/2.8.

Great advice, thank you. I checked out that forum; how I had missed it in my trawling on the 'net over the years is beyond me. Some obnoxious opinions in threads there. I prefer the congenial atmosphere here. :) But an interesting resource, thanks for the link.

Primarily I'm looking for a lens with good outdoor shooting utility. The wide end of the Tamron, and the speed of the f/1.4 50, make them all I need for most indoor shooting (mostly intimate, close-quarters). By outdoor shooting, I primarily mean still subjects -- nature, candid people, "scenes", and the like. I don't do sports or action shooting. Perhaps someday.

If it isn't obvious, I'm clearly learning toward the 24-105, and was looking mostly to have my thinking picked apart a bit, or to be educated on any problems that are non-obvious or that someone may have noticed with experience. I appreciate all the responses so far! Thank you.

[timmciglobal]

Do you want it for depth of field "Blured background" effects? If yes then don't buy the lens, if no then buy it.

It's very sharp, good color, IS works. The background blur has a monet feeling to it (very broken up) so if you don't intend to use it for narrow DOF things it's fantastic. It's softer @ 105 but very sharp a hair off that end and "acceptable" at 105.

Tim

[Forced Perfect]

Personally I would go with te 24-70 in a heartbeat.

The question of IS over the f/2.8 is to me not even a question. Yes the IS helps. Yes it works very well on non-moving objects. Sure the IS can make it act like an f/2.8 or whatever, but you can never get the background blur you can from a real f/2.8 lens. To me that matters as you can make photos come alive by drawing the eye to whatever your subject is. Although I can't say I've really found it to be a problem on my non-IS 70-200mm f/4.0. (Mostly because the longer the focal length the better your blur, so I can get away with f/4.0) But it's not like I'd really be using a 70-200mm on a 1.6x crop camera in my house so the lack of light gathering power doesn't bug me.

How much power does the IS suck? My wife has said her 75-300 IS had an impact on battery life. But that might be a non-issue on newer bodies/lenses.

[adam75south]

for what you are talking about needing, i'd say 70-200 f/2.8 non IS. bout the same price and you aren't gonna have that redundancy or the 24-55 you will with the 24-70 or 24-105.

[aparmley]

Its hard man, lens advice needs to be really personal. we need to know you, we need to know your style to determine what would serve you better. So without that info I'd say 24-70 its a classic for a reason. Best of luck, one drew to another.

[24Peter]

I haven't used the 24-70 myself but I'm leaning towards the 24-105 once I settle on a new body.

[cdifoto]

I haven't used the 24-70 myself but I'm leaning towards the 24-105 once I settle on a new body.

Since I know what you shoot, I would recommend the 24-70 so you have f/2.8 for background separation. You can "pop" with f/4 but IMHO sometimes it's just not enough.

[timmciglobal]

Something to keep in mind is the 24-70 is HEAVY and big. Much more so then 24-105L so factor that in, I found one handed shooting on 30D with 24-70 to be painfull after about 30 minutes, needed to support it more on lifting.

Tim

[24Peter]

Since I know what you shoot, I would recommend the 24-70 so you have f/2.8 for background separation. You can "pop" with f/4 but IMHO sometimes it's just not enough.
I don't know how I could live without 105mm on the long end. I get more separation shooting at the long end of my zoom than I would going F2.8 v F4. And the idea of being able to shoot 105mm @ 1/15th is very appealing.

[cdifoto]

Something to keep in mind is the 24-70 is HEAVY and big. Much more so then 24-105L so factor that in, I found one handed shooting on 30D with 24-70 to be painfull after about 30 minutes, needed to support it more on lifting.

Tim

Ya wimp! :p But why the need to shoot 1 handed for half an hour anyway?

[cdifoto]

I don't know how I could live without 105mm on the long end. I get more separation shooting at the long end of my zoom than I would going F2.8 v F4. And the idea of being able to shoot 105mm @ 1/15th is very appealing.

True enough. Assuming 8 feet to subject, f/2.8 70mm provides .42 feet of DOF and f/4 105mm gives you .26 feet of DOF. I don't really feel the need for 105mm but I'm sure I wouldn't mind if I had it.

These 2 lenses are kind of a toss-up really. You could probably blindfold yourself and eeny meeny miney moe your way into a decision and be happy with either one. You'd be irritated by the shortcomings of the f/4 IS but no less/more so than those of the f/2.8 non-IS.

[cwphoto]

I'm leaning 24-105/4 IS - dunno why. :confused:

[forno]

I'm leaning 24-105/4 IS - dunno why. :confused:

^^Under the thumb, everything in focus please:D :D :D

[andrewbw]

Thanks for everyone's replies! Listening to people's opinions on this has really helped my own thinking. Having spent a lot of time this weekend reading hundreds of opinions on these two lenses, I've decided this may be the most vigorously debated Canon lens choice ever, and the only people who seemed absolutely happy with their decision are those who own both. :eek: But I think we all know people like that have a sickness. :D

For those who may be interested, some universal opinions I discovered in my reading:

1. Both are excellent glass with great color and contrast. Other than some minor light drop-off issues with full-frame bodies using the 24-105, and a design flaw that caused an undesirable flare artifact in early copies of the 24-70, both are among the finest zoom lenses available. The 24-105 also has some softness at both ends, but not unpleasantly so.

2. The 24-70 is treated with a level of respect approaching royalty. This is one of the most coveted lenses in Canon's arsenal from a pure performance standpoint by pros and prosumers alike (in so much as I could tell who was who from message board posts :) ) Bokeh, low-light performance, etc. are all superb.

3. The 24-70 forces a lot on the user: It is big and very heavy. It reverse-extends (barrel gets longer as you approach 24, not as you approach 70) and has an odd hood configuration (hood is huge and fixed, the lens zooms within it). Much like a sports car that provides uncompromising performance when used on the right road, it's not the best choice for everyday driving.

4. People who were lucky/crazy enough to own both, did comment that they found themselves using the 24-105 more often due to the extra 35mm at the top. The IS was a nice bonus, but not necessarily an influence in which lens came out first when their hand went into their equipment bag.

5. As a result, in general, I observed: Those who seek to have the absolute best among a given set of choices, and are willing to adapt their own style or needs to that choice, will take the 24-70. Those who are more casual, and are looking for the right balance of equipment performance and practicality, choose the 24-105.

Hope this helps anyone else pondering the same decision. I've got a few weeks yet before my piggy bank is full enough to pull the trigger, but I continue to lean towards the 24-105 based on my own sense of what would be useful to me, and what would make this lens more attractive for me to use on a frequent basis.