24-105 F4L IS versus 24-70 F 2.8L advice

I want to buy the 30D and am trying to deceide between these two lenses. The longer focal length lense is slower but has IS than the 24-70L. Is it better to get the lense with the IS and not worry about the speed of the faster lens?

I am mostly taking pictures of my kids ages 10 and 7 and other family stuff plus travel.

Also why wouldn't Canon makethe 24-70L 2.8 with IS? I would assume it is helpful even with the faster lens.

Bob

I considered both and chose the 24-105. I love the extra reach & performance is great. I did get a 2nd copy; 1st seemed to soft.

Just remember as good as IS is it will not help if your subject is moving.
For lowlight and moving subjects even 2.8 is border line. I would
go for the 24-105 + fast prime i.e 50 1.4 etc.

Cheers
David.

I have had them both for a while and still can't figure out which one I like better. The good news is , which ever lens you get, you'll love.

Indoors, you'll still need the flash on most occasions with the 24-70L if you're trying to capture your kids in action, so I'd lean toward the extra reach and IS 24-105L with a fast prime like one of the 50's to supplement as someone said earlier.

The lighter weight of the 24-105 feels more balanced and comfortale on my 20D as well. But I still can't give up my 24-70L either, because it's taken so many fabulous pictures for me.
Get a good external flash too! Good Luck!

At one time, I had both the 24-105 and 24-70. It's a trade off between bulk and 1 extra f stop (24-70) vs. length and IS (24-105). There has been quite a bit of debate but it really depends on your ultimate requirements and needs as a photographer. However with the announcement of the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS, many people are leaning away from both of the EF lense in favor of the new one.
--
Randy

I'd agree with the above even though I love my 5D/24-105. I'd jump all over that 17-55 or the 17-85(again) if I was shooting a 1.6X body. 24mm just isn't wide enough.

Another vote for the 24-105. For indoor shots I use my 580EX with it. Very happy with the lens.

But 17-55 on 1.6 is 28-88mm. 28 is not nearly as wide as 24mm. And 70,88,105 is all much of a muchness IMHO. The only difference on the long end is the ability to control DoF better, and with a 55mm true focal length, it's not going to be great doing that! No, for me the 17-55 is not in the same ball park. If you are a devote to 1.6x crop, then it fills a void for sure, but the better solution is a FF 5D with one of the other 2 lenses.

Excal

Rich Dykmans said:

I'd agree with the above even though I love my 5D/24-105. I'd jump
all over that 17-55 or the 17-85(again) if I was shooting a 1.6X
body. 24mm just isn't wide enough.

Click to expand...

Robert Wiener said:

I am mostly taking pictures of my kids ages 10 and 7 and other
family stuff plus travel.

Click to expand...

Personally, I would go with the 24-70. Seems to me that the speed will come in handy for that type of shooting.
And I noticed this in the 30D brochure:

"The 30D’s AF also features a dual-precision cross-type center AF point. When lenses f/2.8 or faster are used, an extra pair of line sensors are activated for greater precision and accuracy."

--
Scott A.

I own both 24-70 and 24-105. The long end is really not much to write home about, so don't let the extra reach play too much in your decision. The bulk and weight are also much closer than I expected. Picking one up blind, I think I'd have a hard time to tell which lens it was.

The real play here is IS. But the f2.8 can do more DoF control on the like-for-like range, better AF, brighter viewfinder, one-stop brighter movement stopping, etc. But with natural light, the IS is very handy, even on the wider angles.

I've used the 24-70 with bounce flash in an event type environment, and it really is almost perfect on the 20D for this. The IS here wouldn't have helped at all here I don't think, but the 105 would have given better separation, although it's all a trade off because you want more than just eye-lashes in focus. The 24-70 I think is the better optic.

On a 20D, 24mm isn't very wide. It's good for events like a typical round dinner table in a hotel conference hall, but not for super wide-angle... until you go FF.

It's a tricky one. Eventually, I'm sure Canon will launch a 24-70/2.8 IS L, and that would certainly be the one I would choose and sell the other 2 lenses!

For me, I'm about to get a 5D and that's where 2 things will happen. First, I'll see how good/bad the corner performance really is! And second, those lenses will become WIDE! As a general walk about, a 24-105 IS L and 70-300 IS / 100-400 IS L become a very strong pair that cover almost everything in 2 lenses with IS.

Robert Wiener said:

I want to buy the 30D and am trying to deceide between these two
lenses. The longer focal length lense is slower but has IS than
the 24-70L. Is it better to get the lense with the IS and not
worry about the speed of the faster lens?

I am mostly taking pictures of my kids ages 10 and 7 and other
family stuff plus travel.

Also why wouldn't Canon makethe 24-70L 2.8 with IS? I would assume
it is helpful even with the faster lens.

Bob

Click to expand...

--
Excal

I switched over from the 24-70 to a 24-105. No regrets, since my 24-105 is noticeably sharper than my 24-70 and I do notice and appreciate the lesser weight. The 24-105 is imo the far better all around lens, while the 24-70 wins it when it comes to shooting fast moving subjects without a flash in dim light circumstances.

Which one is best for you depends on the usage of the lens.

IS is no doubt useful on all lenses but particularly at longer focal lengths, such as the 105mm end of the new 24-105. Thsi lens is also f4.0, so hence another reason for the IS: 1/60th second @ f2.8 on the 24-70 is 1/30th second @ f4.0 on the 24-105. With a slower max aperture, the IS is going to be more useful. Optically, I fear the 24-70 is better.
--
Gary White, MPhil
Geographical and Geological Photography

There was a problem with the early lenses. I have one for the later 'corrected' batches. The IS is excellent and the lens is very welll made but having spent countless hours analysing the results, I am not convinced it is up to usual 'L' standards optically.
--
Gary White, MPhil
Geographical and Geological Photography

except for more distortion at long and short ends, my 24-105 is better optically than my 24-70. i think that if you go over the many reports this has been the usual opinion.
--
max

Imagine someone with a 20D, faced with these two choices:

1. Upgrade to 5D, add on 24-105 lens
Total estimated cost: $3200 + $1100 = $4300

You can sell the 20D at a large loss over the purchase price, but this is beside the point. You're forced to buy an all-new very expensive body PLUS an expensive lens, and it's going to cost around $3000-4000. Also, if the user has other EF-S lenses, they will be sold at a loss unless the 20D is kept as a second body.

2. Buy the 17-55 IS.
Total estimated cost before price drops: $1200

So there you have it. Is it worth $3000 to a 20D user to get a camera with 4 more megapixels and achieve otherwise similar results? It's not worth it to me, or I would have already bought a 5D. If I decide to spend around $3000 this year on camera gear (which could happen), I will probably buy the 17-55 IS, 70-200 IS, and 100mm f/2.8 macro.

... buyer's remorse and other psychological drivers. Few are eager to admit that what they've bought is less than perfect on this site. The 24-105 seems good to me, but I have seen reports of people sorry they bought it as well as people who think it's the best lens ever made. Take everything with a grain of salt.

I didn't realize the 24-70L took the pictures for you. That would save a lot of time and effort. That closes the deal. Definately the 24-70L.

Lots of good advice above. They are both good lenses. I opted for the 24-70 and am quite happy but that is because it meets my needs better. Your needs may vary.

Pros of 24-70

• faster f2.8
• improved focus on certain cameras due to f2.8

Cons of 24-70

• No IS
• shorter reach
• slightly larger and heaver

I purposely left out image quality, CA, vignetting, etc. There are many conflicting reports and ultimately, I think nit picking pixel peeping. They are both L lenses and I'm sure both excellent in terms of image quality. I would proabably rate them equal in IQ terms.

Jeff Varszegi said:

Imagine someone with a 20D, faced with these two choices:

1. Upgrade to 5D, add on 24-105 lens
Total estimated cost: $3200 + $1100 = $4300

You can sell the 20D at a large loss over the purchase price, but
this is beside the point. You're forced to buy an all-new very
expensive body PLUS an expensive lens, and it's going to cost
around $3000-4000. Also, if the user has other EF-S lenses, they
will be sold at a loss unless the 20D is kept as a second body.

2. Buy the 17-55 IS.
Total estimated cost before price drops: $1200

So there you have it. Is it worth $3000 to a 20D user to get a
camera with 4 more megapixels and achieve otherwise similar
results? It's not worth it to me, or I would have already bought a
5D. If I decide to spend around $3000 this year on camera gear
(which could happen), I will probably buy the 17-55 IS, 70-200 IS,
and 100mm f/2.8 macro.

Click to expand...

Well that's you, me... I'm going FF. It's not the 4mp, it's the 1.6x larger area and greater DoF control. I would go to a 5D from the 20D even if it had 8mp still... infact, that would be a plus in some respects for low-light shooting. DR of the bigger photosites of the 5D is also nice.

--
Excal

Jeff Varszegi said:

... buyer's remorse and other psychological drivers. Few are eager
to admit that what they've bought is less than perfect on this
site. The 24-105 seems good to me, but I have seen reports of
people sorry they bought it as well as people who think it's the
best lens ever made. Take everything with a grain of salt.

Click to expand...

So I got the 24-70/2.8L. I immediately had buyers remorse as I found it rather soft next to say my 50/1.4 or 85/1.8. And it was only a hair sharper than the Sigma 28-70/2.8 EX that I already had at that time. The new Canon went on ebay within 2 weeks, but I had no takers (remember, there was no 5D back then, so not such a desirable lens). After a while I thought to meyself, I will go FF eventually and the corners maybe much better on the Canon than the Sigma, plus it's wider and better AF drive. So I thought, I'll keep the Canon and sell the Sigma, which I did. The 24-70/2.8 L hasn't had much use since then, but I've been pleased enough with it and it does seem very sharp in real-world use ... ie. perhaps my test method was off? (maybe mis-focus?)

Later the 24-105/4 IS L comes out. Oh the dilema, but in my mind I knew that it was a more useful lens to me. Last week, I bought one. I fully expected to ebay the 24-70/2.8 L now. But now I have them, my tests so far show to me that at > f4.5, they're a pretty equal match. But

I'm currently 60% in favour of selling the 24-70/2.8 L, but... if it's (1) a better optic and (2) in the overlap range gives 1 stop more DoF separation, then it would be the lens to use on a bounce-flash indoor event. True, I could use my primes and be even better and sharper, but I wonder how much the zoom is useful in these situations. Swapping lenses while someone waits to have their picture taken is not ideal. Plus the hassle! The 24-70/2.8 with bounce flash is basically all you need for these events, especially on FF. I have yet to get the 5D - my local dealer is out of stock. But when I do, I'll be checking corner sharpness of the two lenses. This may be the deciding factor. In an ideal world, I would keep both... but I really can't justify that to myself... or can I?!

--
Excal