Still can't decide between the 24-105 L and the 24-70 L

Hartmanstorfer · Oct 9, 2005

I thought I had my mind made up to get the 24-105 but then today while shooting on a shady road f/4 wasnt enough but f/2.8 was perfect. I am just so torn, had the 24-105 been an f/2.8 I would have had it by now. I just don't know, 1200 US dollars is a lot to me and I just dont want to make the wrong decision. Can anyone help me?

amtberg · Oct 9, 2005

Get the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX Macro for $365.

Travis · Oct 9, 2005

What kind of shot were you taking on that shady road? If there wasn't a moving subject, then the 24-105 IS would have actually been better because you could use IS and gain 3 stops as well as increase your DOF (presuming it wasn't a portrait, of course). And unless you were already at a high ISO, you could have also just bumped up the ISO a notch.

Admittedly, there are certainly times when F2.8 would be better (sports and moving subjects come to mind). It really comes down to a combination of lens speed and focal length, doesn't it? With the 24-105, you can better range and IS. With the 24-70, you get a larger aperture. Which would you take more advantage of?

Travis
--
http://travisimo.smugmug.com/

peteb · Oct 10, 2005

If $1200 is a really big deal to you - spend it in other ways.

Why not compromise a little and get a travel zoom, backed up with a couple of fast primes?

The 17-85 EF-S is a respectable little operator. Not the fastest lens in the world but it is surprising what that IS will let you get away with.

Add to that a 50/1.8, 85/1.8 and say a Sigma 20/1.8 (focal lengths vary by what you shoot).

'Consumer' primes are very good, fast and easy - did I mention cheap yet? That whole bundle shouldn't cost more than either the 24-70 or 24-105 - and I doubt you need it all anyway.

Don't get suckered. L lenses are great, I have them and love them, but for me I'm happy to pay the money for multiple L lenses. Don't lock yourself into 1 lens if thats all you can afford if it won't do everything you want. And if it does everything you want, then the quality is probably not all that ;o)

Hartmanstorfer said:
I thought I had my mind made up to get the 24-105 but then today
while shooting on a shady road f/4 wasnt enough but f/2.8 was
perfect. I am just so torn, had the 24-105 been an f/2.8 I would
have had it by now. I just don't know, 1200 US dollars is a lot to
me and I just dont want to make the wrong decision. Can anyone
help me?

--
http://public.fotki.com/wibble/public_display/

Jeffrey L Bennett · Oct 10, 2005

I know a couple photographers who prefer Tamron's 28-75 f/2.8, and it's $400!!!
You could get that and a Fisheye for Less than $1000.

Me? I think the tamron's soft compaired to my 24-70 L, which is the lens most often on my camera. Honestly though, my FAVORITE lens is Canon's 85mm f/1.8.

--
http://www.jlbwedding.com

Hartmanstorfer · Oct 10, 2005

I was photographing a 10-mile trail run

Hartmanstorfer · Oct 10, 2005

I think I am going to go for the 24-105, it is an expensive lens to me, but its not like I expect this one lens to do everything. The reach and IS are just too irresistable. Thanks for all the help.

rjconklin · Oct 10, 2005

if you have a ff camera, go with 24-70 because the 24-105 doesn't really have a tellie effect on ff. you want 2.8 and even at 70 with a ff you really don't need is.

carlk · Oct 10, 2005

Totally agree with you. We wish there is a perfect lens that can do everything but it's not going to happen. Whatever we choose is a compromise one way or the other. I think your choice can do more thing for you better than anything else. It is a winner then.

Hartmanstorfer said:
I think I am going to go for the 24-105, it is an expensive lens to
me, but its not like I expect this one lens to do everything. The
reach and IS are just too irresistable. Thanks for all the help.

José B · Oct 10, 2005

new 24-105 L IS. I've been patting my back ever since for a wise decision

This lens is pretty sharp and love the colours. My main two concerns were bokeh as I prefer a f/2.8 for a standard zoom in this regard and AF speed. However, I think my new L passes these tests in flying colours.

This focal length is just perfect for me in case I upgrade to a full-frame DSLR in the future---the new L will be great for portraiture and walkabout lens as it is right now.

One last thing, coming from the KM AS crowd, I am huge on the advantages of image stabilization.

Here are some samples from the new L----love its versatility.

Cheers,

José

Hartmanstorfer said:
I thought I had my mind made up to get the 24-105 but then today
while shooting on a shady road f/4 wasnt enough but f/2.8 was
perfect. I am just so torn, had the 24-105 been an f/2.8 I would
have had it by now. I just don't know, 1200 US dollars is a lot to
me and I just dont want to make the wrong decision. Can anyone
help me?

--
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/canon_20d
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/maxxum_7d

mike bustad · Oct 10, 2005

--regrets at all. I love this lens great colors, contrast and I love the range. I had reservations about doing this because the 24-70 is such a nice lens. But after a little shooting around the house I knew the 24-105 is a real winner.

Tanglefoot47
Tulalip Wa.

mike bustad · Oct 10, 2005

amtberg said:
Get the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX Macro for $365.

--I tried three of these Sigma lenses and sent everyone of them back. The first two were the older version and the last one was the new all three imo were not good.

Tanglefoot47
Tulalip Wa.

egilsrud · Oct 10, 2005

Mike -

How did you sell your 24-70, and how much did you get for it? I'm in the same boat - have the 24-70, want the 24-105.

By the way, I just a bit south of you in Everett.

Regards,

Jeff

Searching · Oct 10, 2005

In Canada with tax it's almost $2000 Canadian. I find it very expensive.

lx200 · Oct 10, 2005

I NEVER buy Tamron or Sigma. But at the insistence of my dealer, I test shot a Tamron 28-75 F2.8. It's performance blew me away. The dealer showed me several comparison shots of the Tamron vs. the Canon 24-70. The Tamron was just as sharp, wide open and at tele, compared to the Canon. Does this mean all Tamrons match all Canons? Nope. Individual lenses vary, BUT... the Tamron is DARN GOOD. And, best of all, it's only $379 with a $30 rebate. At that price I am going to take a chance on it. If I don't like it, I sell it on Ebay for $300.

You owe it to yourself to look at this lense, especially if money does not grow on trees for you. For 4x6 and 5x7 shooting, no doubt the Tamron is as good.

AND... the 2.8 is one stop faster than the 24-105. Yes, Tamron does not have IS, but it is already one stop faster, and it's better to have the stop faster, and run at higher shutter speed if your subjects are moving...

--
http://dogluver.smugmug.com

QL · Oct 10, 2005

These are among the best and most useful zooms, why not just trying to get both?

José B · Oct 10, 2005

how about either Tamron or the 'souped-up' Konica-Minolta version (Maxxum 28-75/2.8) on the 7D with built in image stabilizer (Anti-Shake). I have this combo too but I prefer the 20D and 24-105 L IS-----faster AF plus more useful focal range. Also, like I said in earlier thread, the L will bode well if I decide to go full frame in the future.

Good luck with whatever decision you make.

José

lx200 said:
I NEVER buy Tamron or Sigma. But at the insistence of my dealer, I
test shot a Tamron 28-75 F2.8. It's performance blew me away. The
dealer showed me several comparison shots of the Tamron vs. the
Canon 24-70. The Tamron was just as sharp, wide open and at tele,
compared to the Canon. Does this mean all Tamrons match all
Canons? Nope. Individual lenses vary, BUT... the Tamron is DARN
GOOD. And, best of all, it's only $379 with a $30 rebate. At that
price I am going to take a chance on it. If I don't like it, I
sell it on Ebay for $300.

You owe it to yourself to look at this lense, especially if money
does not grow on trees for you. For 4x6 and 5x7 shooting, no doubt
the Tamron is as good.

AND... the 2.8 is one stop faster than the 24-105. Yes, Tamron
does not have IS, but it is already one stop faster, and it's
better to have the stop faster, and run at higher shutter speed if
your subjects are moving...

--
http://dogluver.smugmug.com

--
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/canon_20d
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/maxxum_7d

MitchAlsup · Oct 10, 2005

Hartmanstorfer said:
I thought I had my mind made up to get the 24-105 but then today
while shooting on a shady road f/4 wasnt enough but f/2.8 was
perfect.

What ISO were you shooting? Don't be afraif to dial it up to at least 800 and more likely 1600.

Hartmanstorfer said:
I am just so torn, had the 24-105 been an f/2.8 I would
have had it by now. I just don't know, 1200 US dollars is a lot to
me and I just dont want to make the wrong decision. Can anyone
help me?

This sort of depends upon what other lenses you may already have, and what other lenses you are thinking of collecting. The 24-70 and 24-105 are the center points of your (zoom) lens collection; highly versitile, and around which you build the rest of you collection.

If you already have or highly desire a 70-200 mm zoom (any of the 3) then the reach of the 24-105 might not be as good a tradeoff as with the 24-70. On the other hand if you want to skip the 70-200s and get a 100-400 then the hole in the 70-100 mm range with the 24-70 might tip the balance to the 24-105.

So which 24-xx lens does it for you is dependent on a lot of things beyone the capabilities of that lens itself.
--
Mitch

ChrisDM · Oct 10, 2005

I am buying the 24-105 very soon, and can't wait. For a fast lens, I have the Tamron 28-75 2.8. I bought it used for about $325, and it's performance blows me away. I'ts image quality surpasses my Canon 70-200L 2.8IS. So when I get my 24-105, my package will be complete.

Therefore, I recommend the Canon 24-105L, simply because there is nothing else like it. Later you can add an inexpensive Canon 24-70 alternative from Tamron (28-75 2.8) or Sigma (24-70 2.8) to round out your lens collection. At under $400 for either, you can't go wrong. And in the meantime, you will have the supersweet Canon 24-105L to play with.

Hartmanstorfer said:
I thought I had my mind made up to get the 24-105 but then today
while shooting on a shady road f/4 wasnt enough but f/2.8 was
perfect. I am just so torn, had the 24-105 been an f/2.8 I would
have had it by now. I just don't know, 1200 US dollars is a lot to
me and I just dont want to make the wrong decision. Can anyone
help me?

--

Chris
http://www.imagineimagery.com

Donald Cooper · Oct 10, 2005

These decisions remind me of that old song by the Lovin Spoonful titled "Did you ever have to make up your mind". But it may not apply here. Unless you have to buy something why not wait? If you do then one morning you will wake up and say: "that's the one I want."

It is a lot of money so why not let it percolate and be comfortable with the decision. Eventually we sort these things out.

Still can't decide between the 24-105 L and the 24-70 L

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Active member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Donald Cooper

Guest

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts