24-70/2.8 L or 24-105/4 L IS ? Newbie Q

I'm just getting into this hobby and will be purchasing a 20D. I'm looking for guidance on a very nice lens to start out with. Can you recommend between one or the other of the 24-70/2.8 L and the24-105/4 L IS please? They are within about $100 of each other.

Looks like the shorter one has faster lens (2.8 vs 4), but the other one has longer reach (105 vs 70) and IS. (The 70-105 is about $100 more.) Both are L glass. So, what would you recommend for newbie do? (Yeah, I know, depends what I want to take pictures of, doesn't it?! )

Thanks for input.

It all comes down to what your needs are. With the 5D (and my 35mm film cameras) I take a lot of photos in the 35–100mm range. For me the 24–70mm is a no-go because of this...and also because it's a big, heavy lens and I like to travel as light as possible. The 24–105mm is a better option for my needs, though better still would be a 28/35–135mm f/4. (I'm currently using an old 35–135mm f/3.5–4.5 as my main zoom. It performs well from 50mm on up but is rather soft at 35mm. The 28–135mm is too slow at the long end, otherwise I might use it instead.)

Why not try an inexpensive zoom like the 24–85mm first? See if you like the range of coverage. I use this lens on my 5D with very good results. If you find you're not using it much at the long end go for the 24–70mm as an upgrade. Otherwise upgrade to the 24–105mm instead.

-Dave-

David Kieltyka said:

It all comes down to what your needs are.

Click to expand...

Problem is, as a newbie, I'm really too inexperienced to know what my needs are. Gotta start somewhere, though, and that's why I'm looking for help. But it might be something that's really not possible for anyone else to answer for me.

Thanks for your reply.

... and love it. The focusing is perfect, a welcome relief after two poor-focusing Sigma lenses. It is not that big and heavy; it just has a solid feel.

Why did I get this lens instead of the 24-105L?

1) Somewhat more sharpness reported in the corners (low on the list of importance)

2) Somewhat cheaper (also low importance)

3) f/2.8 vs. f/4 (double the light is not nothing!)

4) Don't need longer than 70mm in this lens; I bought it for close to mid-range people shots.

5) I couldn't afford to wait until after the holidays.

1. 5 isn't really a concession; I just don't feel that the 24-70L can actually be considered a WORSE lens, and I wanted it for the holidays. Would I love IS? Yes, especially on the 24-70 2.8. Then it would become a really great museum lens, in addition to its other good qualities.

I would have been happy with either, I'm sure. I take many shots at f/4 or higher, somewhat counteracting the f/2.8 advantage of my lens. On the other hand, the 24-105mm is not at its best past 70mm from all accounts, softening somewhat the advantage of the 70-105mm range. IS is left over, which I consider to be a really useful feature even if you take many fast shots; you can always turn it off if you like.

Any argument about a size or weight advantage is baloney. None of these lenses is really as big as people make them out to be. I got my lens in the mail and said, "Is THIS all???"

Since you don't know exactly what your needs are, I think you should get the 24-105L IS.

I have the 24-70L. It's nice... but I would rather have the 24-105L IS since it is lighter, longer, and has IS. I'm waiting until the price comes down a little first, then I'll get it.

--
Albert

Jeff Varszegi said:

Any argument about a size or weight advantage is baloney. None of
these lenses is really as big as people make them out to be. I got
my lens in the mail and said, "Is THIS all???"

Click to expand...

It's not baloney. It makes a difference.

--
Albert

The 20D is a 1.6 FOV crop camera. That means the 24 whatever is not really a wide angle. The 20D can be purchased with an inexpensive 18-55 lens. I would recommend getting that kit. It's only $100 for that lens. See what you miss out on. Is the 18-55 (29-88mm on FF) not wide enough, not long enough?That's what I did and eventually added a cheap 70-300 Sigma APO II. Found out I hardly used the longer telephoto. I then purchased the 28-135 but is wasn't wide enough on the 1.6 although the tele end is great. I then went to a FF 5D and the picture changed entirely. If I had stayed with the 1.6 camera, I believe that the final good all around lens would have to be the 17-85 IS. I have the 24-105 for the FF camera and it is perfect.

Canon has upgrade lenses that are just perfect for a particular range of cameras. The 28-135 IS was the sweetheart of many, many people. It sold more than any other lens. It was made for Canon's great EOS film cameras. The 17-85 IS is exactly that same range for the 1.6 FOV cameras (20D). 17-85 IS on a crop camera equals the 28-135 on a FF camera. The IS is great to have. The 28-135 IS is a very good lens but not great. When the 5D came out, Canon knew that lens would not be good enough. They also knew many people were buying wide angle lenses. So the 24-105 L IS lens for the 5D. It would have been great to have 24-135, but that was too hard to make happen in a nice tidy package like the 28-135 IS or 17-85 IS. So we have what Canon feels in their opinion is the optimal upgrade lens for each camera. I think the sales figures will show they were correct.

EOS Film – 28-135 IS
EOS 350D – 18-55 (Some will upgrade to the 17-85 IS)
EOS 20D – 17-85 IS
EOS 5D – 24-105L IS

Any other lens will have a specific purpose in mind. On the wide side, on the telephoto. Extreme telephoto and so on. The list above has a low to high price range. They are all good cameras. Where one fits is the question. YMMV

When i first bought my 20D last year. I bought the EF 24-70 f/2.8L and never looked back. I also have the EF 70-200 f/4, EF-S 10-22 ( for my Ultra Wide Angle ) and EF 100 f/2.8L Macro. I still use my "kit' EF-S 18-55 once in a while when I"m panning or need to use a 'lightweight' lens. The EF 24-70 f/2.8L stays in my camera 90 percent of the time. Here's a photo taken from my 24-70 f/2.8L lens + 20D.



--
'You see, but you do not observe' Arthur Conan Doyle

Given that you are using it with a 20D, I'd recommend the 24-70 or maybe the EF-S 17-85. Here are some reasons why:

1.) with the 1.6x crop of the 20D neither are really wide. But the 70 length will provide much better reach on this camera than with FF 5D. The 2.8 speed is very useful in low light and will focus faster and better.

2.) The 24-105 has the best IS. If you plan to shoot mostly stationary objects at slower speeds than this may be a good solution for you. It is lighter and smaller than the 24-70 but not by very much. I was surprised when I got one in person, it was larger and heavier than I had thought it would be.

3.) Since you are starting out, the 17-85 is really a good combo with the 20D, provides IS, is only a little slower than the 24-105 and gives reasonable quality. If you haven't spent much time taking pictures with a SLR or DSLR in the past then it will give you very good results. It's not as good as an L, but far better than an point and shoot camera.

Unless you expect to get a 5D or 1D series soon, or have lots of experience in photography already, the 17-85 is really an excellent start for using the 20D and will give you an excellent range with that camera. I used one several months ago and thought it made a really good combo for the 20D, much like the 24-105 is a good combo for the 5D.

Kengar said:

I'm just getting into this hobby and will be purchasing a 20D. I'm
looking for guidance on a very nice lens to start out with. Can
you recommend between one or the other of the 24-70/2.8 L and
the24-105/4 L IS please? They are within about $100 of each other.

Looks like the shorter one has faster lens (2.8 vs 4), but the
other one has longer reach (105 vs 70) and IS. (The 70-105 is
about $100 more.) Both are L glass. So, what would you recommend
for newbie do? (Yeah, I know, depends what I want to take pictures
of, doesn't it?! )

Thanks for input.

Click to expand...

Great info. Thank you!

I was going to reply to the original point, however the last post regarding size and weight were very important to me.

As a newbie, with no lenses, and just getting into the hobbie, I would have purchased the 20D with the 17-85 IS and upgraded later, however if you are lucky enough to also be able to purchase some L glass, then fantastic and I'm sure you won't look back with either lens.

For me...I have purchased the 24-105 based on weight (still waiting for the lens to arrive), and also it's fit with my other lenses. I have used both the 24-70 and 24-105 and I immediately noticed the weight difference. Noticing the weight difference immediately will mean that I'll really notice it when I've been carring it around for 8 hours.

My other zoom lenses are the 17-40L and the 70-200L F4.0, so this completes a good set of F4.0 lenses. I know and fully understand the limitations of F4.0, but this hasn't been an issue for 99% of the photos I've taken with this camera (around 10,000). If I was planning to upgrade or purchase F2.8 versions of the other lenses, then I would have gone with the 24-70.

In my case I have made the decision that F4.0 is fine for my zoom lenses, and I'm purchasing faster prime lenses to fill the occasions where F4.0 is an issue. I've also found that the occasions where I needed faster than F4.0, one stop would not have been enough to make a difference (either DOF or shutter speed).

For more good info

Albert Wiersch said:

Jeff Varszegi said:

Any argument about a size or weight advantage is baloney. None of
these lenses is really as big as people make them out to be. I got
my lens in the mail and said, "Is THIS all???"

Click to expand...

It's not baloney. It makes a difference.

--
Albert

Click to expand...

An inconsequential difference. The 24-105 is not exactly a tiny or light lens either; there's about half a pound difference in weight. Great photographers of the past lugged around gigantic gear, and today people quibble about half a pound's difference between fairly small lenses.