New 70D with EF 24-105 L IS USM or EF-S 18-135 IS STM?

Finally it's time for me to step up from my current 350D with Sigma 18-200 3.5-5-6.

Regarding the body it was quick pretty clear I would become a very happy chappy with the 70D. Then I spent lots of time in reviewing what decent walk-around lens I wanted to buy. I was convinced this time I had to spend a more serious amount on the glass. So after two weeks of investigation I decided to opt for the Canon EF 24-105 L IS USM. Again a compromise of course, but for what it offers not bad at all. And currently for sale for about 690 euro. It suffers severely less distortion, CA and softness compared to my current Sigma so ok what the heck... Today I went to my local camera specialist to feel and touch both. The sales dude agreed with my 70D choice, a severe step up from my old body. But the big surprise for me was his comment on my lens of choice... To old, not optimised for the 70D, not that suitable for movies because of the noise (??)... According to him the L was not that superb. Of course, it's quality was ok but he had seen lots of them come back for repairs and re-adjustments.

His suggestion was a EF-S 18-135 IS STM lens. At that point I was unfamiliar with the STM motor and because of my severe doubts I decided not to buy today and head home. Still puzzled I now read some reviews and frankly I don't understand why the guy pushed me towards a cheaper lens with this body.

As an owner of 24-105 and 18-135, I concur with the specialist's recommendation not to buy the 24-105.

The biggest problem with using 24-105 with 70D is simply that it is not wide enough for a general purpose zoom. You will feel awfully constrained by not having 18-24mm. The image quality on APS-C is OK, but not so special that I'd want to spend money over 18-135, which is already OK and definitely much more convenient.

24-105 is ultimately a good standard zoom, but only for full frame. You should get one as a kit with a full frame camera; I see little point in getting it standalone.

There are a bunch of alternatives you should weigh instead:

1) EF-S 18-135 STM zoom kit. Great convenience lens, decent image quality. very cheap.

2) EF-S 18-55 STM and 55-250 STM double zoom kit. Very good image quality (especially the 55-250 STM). very cheap.

3) EF-S 15-85 USM. Comparable in price to 24-105 and much better suited for APS-C cameras.

4) EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 USM. Best APS-C standard zoom from Canon, and priced like it.

5) Sigma 18-35 f/1.8. Great image quality; learn to live with the range.

6) EF 17-40mm f/4 L. Possibly worth considering if you plan to move up to full frame in the next few years. Otherwise, don't bother.

Personally I'd recommend 1) or 2), and spending the difference on another lens. YMMV.

Are you wedded to a single lens? Have you considered two lenses instead of one?

quiquae wrote:

As an owner of 24-105 and 18-135, I concur with the specialist's recommendation not to buy the 24-105.

The biggest problem with using 24-105 with 70D is simply that it is not wide enough for a general purpose zoom. You will feel awfully constrained by not having 18-24mm. The image quality on APS-C is OK, but not so special that I'd want to spend money over 18-135, which is already OK and definitely much more convenient.

24-105 is ultimately a good standard zoom, but only for full frame. You should get one as a kit with a full frame camera; I see little point in getting it standalone.

There are a bunch of alternatives you should weigh instead:

1) EF-S 18-135 STM zoom kit. Great convenience lens, decent image quality. very cheap.

2) EF-S 18-55 STM and 55-250 STM double zoom kit. Very good image quality (especially the 55-250 STM). very cheap.

3) EF-S 15-85 USM. Comparable in price to 24-105 and much better suited for APS-C cameras.

4) EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 USM. Best APS-C standard zoom from Canon, and priced like it.

5) Sigma 18-35 f/1.8. Great image quality; learn to live with the range.

6) EF 17-40mm f/4 L. Possibly worth considering if you plan to move up to full frame in the next few years. Otherwise, don't bother.

Personally I'd recommend 1) or 2), and spending the difference on another lens. YMMV.

Given the IQ and their price, option 2 is quite compelling. Very good value. If I didn't already have the Sigma 18-35 I think I would complement the 55-250STM in my light-and-small-for-travel-kit with the Canon 18-55 STM.

Odiebla wrote:

His suggestion was a EF-S 18-135 IS STM lens. At that point I was unfamiliar with the STM motor and because of my severe doubts I decided not to buy today and head home. Still puzzled I now read some reviews and frankly I don't understand why the guy pushed me towards a cheaper lens with this body.

+1 to what Quiquae said.

Myself, I'd recommend everyone buy the 18-135 STM with the 70D if at all possible (for starters).  Add specific lenses from there.  It has decent IQ and is quite versatile.  It's unmatched for video.

Add the 10-22 if you want ultra-wide.

15-85 if you want wide + versatile.

17-55 if you want faster.

40 STM if you want carefree.

55-250 STM if you want mid to longish.  (pair this with the 18-135 STM, as you'll be swapping lenses less often than with an 18-55 STM)

A fast prime for low light/ DOF control.

Any "L" lens.  (even the aforementioned 24-105 if you have the wide end already covered)

Just my take,

R2

I used 24-105 with my 450D for about 2 years especially on vacations great and sharp lens but not wide enough but i was using another 10mm lens with it

in my last trip i got sigma 17-50 and i liked it more than 24-105 its very fast and great in low light and has great bokeh  with the f2.8 and the 17mm is wide enough for me , its not look sharp as 24-105 but it is a great for its price and both are better than 18-135 for the fixed aperture

I suggest for you chose canon 17-55 its more sharp than sigma as in reviews and wider than 24-105 and there is also sigma 18-35 which be great in low light but the canon 17-55 is better in zoom range and more wide

Odiebla wrote:

Finally it's time for me to step up from my current 350D with Sigma 18-200 3.5-5-6.

Regarding the body it was quick pretty clear I would become a very happy chappy with the 70D. Then I spent lots of time in reviewing what decent walk-around lens I wanted to buy. I was convinced this time I had to spend a more serious amount on the glass. So after two weeks of investigation I decided to opt for the Canon EF 24-105 L IS USM. Again a compromise of course, but for what it offers not bad at all. And currently for sale for about 690 euro. It suffers severely less distortion, CA and softness compared to my current Sigma so ok what the heck... Today I went to my local camera specialist to feel and touch both. The sales dude agreed with my 70D choice, a severe step up from my old body. But the big surprise for me was his comment on my lens of choice... To old, not optimised for the 70D, not that suitable for movies because of the noise (??)... According to him the L was not that superb. Of course, it's quality was ok but he had seen lots of them come back for repairs and re-adjustments.

His suggestion was a EF-S 18-135 IS STM lens. At that point I was unfamiliar with the STM motor and because of my severe doubts I decided not to buy today and head home. Still puzzled I now read some reviews and frankly I don't understand why the guy pushed me towards a cheaper lens with this body.

24-105 - don't go there

when you buy new 1.6 kit, you get 18-55 STM for about $149 and 55-250 STM for $186

then complement these nice light weight zooms with 35 IS ($550 during Holidays) and 24 IS ($499 during Holidays)

The best $1384 for value glass you'll spend in today's market

arty H wrote:

If you want 1 lens to do everything, then the 15-85, 17-55, or the 18-135IS STM will be good depending on your priorities. However, I like the ability to change lenses to suit my wants and needs. I like the 24-105 for the image quality on crop, and the range it offers. I have too many lenses, but this one sits on one of my crop bodies right now. It is great for a trip to the zoo and lots of other purposes.

when I need a fast lens, I use the 35F2 IS. When I need very wide, I have the Tokina 12-24F4. If I want a light lens, I have choices.

things to consider

on the 6d the 24 is wide on the 24-105, but soft in spots unless stopped way down

on the 1.6, 38 fov from the 24 mm isn't wide enough to commit to a rather heavy zoom

the 6d is nice low light but the f4 lens loses 1.3 stops of its 1.5 stop low light ff advantage over crop being f4 versus f2.8 on crop - so it can really negate the advantage that ff had over crop with primes.

at dxo

the 24-105 scores 14 MPix on a 6d

on the 7d, the 24-105 scores only an 8 MPix - yuk

whereas the small primes, 35 IS, 24 IS approach 13 or 14 MPix on latest rebels and 18 MPix on 6d.

With multiple small bodies, one of which is SL1, think outside the box, that the small body is just the weight of another lens and adds backup and allows quick zoom to another FL without moving the feet, and only costs $375 for the body to get low weight f2 IS and f2.8 IS glass onto the bodies (with the 35 IS and 24 IS and 100 L) in the mix on multiple bodies

a one relatively heavy zoom fits all isn't where I'd go with the small SL1 in the mix with FF

Neither. I would personally not go with either of the two lenses listed on APS-C sensor cameras. If you want to cover that range, I would encourage you to look at two lenses, rather than just one.

MAC wrote:

arty H wrote:

If you want 1 lens to do everything, then the 15-85, 17-55, or the 18-135IS STM will be good depending on your priorities. However, I like the ability to change lenses to suit my wants and needs. I like the 24-105 for the image quality on crop, and the range it offers. I have too many lenses, but this one sits on one of my crop bodies right now. It is great for a trip to the zoo and lots of other purposes.

when I need a fast lens, I use the 35F2 IS. When I need very wide, I have the Tokina 12-24F4. If I want a light lens, I have choices.

things to consider

on the 6d the 24 is wide on the 24-105, but soft in spots unless stopped way down

on the 1.6, 38 fov from the 24 mm isn't wide enough to commit to a rather heavy zoom

the 6d is nice low light but the f4 lens loses 1.3 stops of its 1.5 stop low light ff advantage over crop being f4 versus f2.8 on crop - so it can really negate the advantage that ff had over crop with primes.

at dxo

the 24-105 scores 14 MPix on a 6d

on the 7d, the 24-105 scores only an 8 MPix - yuk

whereas the small primes, 35 IS, 24 IS approach 13 or 14 MPix on latest rebels and 18 MPix on 6d.

With multiple small bodies, one of which is SL1, think outside the box, that the small body is just the weight of another lens and adds backup and allows quick zoom to another FL without moving the feet, and only costs $375 for the body to get low weight f2 IS and f2.8 IS glass onto the bodies (with the 35 IS and 24 IS and 100 L) in the mix on multiple bodies

a one relatively heavy zoom fits all isn't where I'd go with the small SL1 in the mix with FF

you said in many thread the sl1 body  costs $375!

where can i find it at this price online ?

thamer08 wrote:

MAC wrote:

arty H wrote:

If you want 1 lens to do everything, then the 15-85, 17-55, or the 18-135IS STM will be good depending on your priorities. However, I like the ability to change lenses to suit my wants and needs. I like the 24-105 for the image quality on crop, and the range it offers. I have too many lenses, but this one sits on one of my crop bodies right now. It is great for a trip to the zoo and lots of other purposes.

when I need a fast lens, I use the 35F2 IS. When I need very wide, I have the Tokina 12-24F4. If I want a light lens, I have choices.

things to consider

on the 6d the 24 is wide on the 24-105, but soft in spots unless stopped way down

on the 1.6, 38 fov from the 24 mm isn't wide enough to commit to a rather heavy zoom

the 6d is nice low light but the f4 lens loses 1.3 stops of its 1.5 stop low light ff advantage over crop being f4 versus f2.8 on crop - so it can really negate the advantage that ff had over crop with primes.

at dxo

the 24-105 scores 14 MPix on a 6d

on the 7d, the 24-105 scores only an 8 MPix - yuk

whereas the small primes, 35 IS, 24 IS approach 13 or 14 MPix on latest rebels and 18 MPix on 6d.

With multiple small bodies, one of which is SL1, think outside the box, that the small body is just the weight of another lens and adds backup and allows quick zoom to another FL without moving the feet, and only costs $375 for the body to get low weight f2 IS and f2.8 IS glass onto the bodies (with the 35 IS and 24 IS and 100 L) in the mix on multiple bodies

a one relatively heavy zoom fits all isn't where I'd go with the small SL1 in the mix with FF

you said in many thread the sl1 body costs $375!

where can i find it at this price online ?

patience  -  holiday pricing

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52937569

quiquae wrote:

As an owner of 24-105 and 18-135, I concur with the specialist's recommendation not to buy the 24-105.

The biggest problem with using 24-105 with 70D is simply that it is not wide enough for a general purpose zoom. You will feel awfully constrained by not having 18-24mm. The image quality on APS-C is OK, but not so special that I'd want to spend money over 18-135, which is already OK and definitely much more convenient. 24-105 is ultimately a good standard zoom, but only for full frame. You should get one as a kit with a full frame camera; I see little point in getting it standalone.

The 24-105 is fine for general purpose on a crop sensor. I shot a whole ceremony with a 24-105 on a 70D and used the 24mm once. If you need the wider range get a 10-22. The F4 throughout the range is super nice.

There are a bunch of alternatives you should weigh instead:

1) EF-S 18-135 STM zoom kit. Great convenience lens, decent image quality. very cheap.

2) EF-S 18-55 STM and 55-250 STM double zoom kit. Very good image quality (especially the 55-250 STM). very cheap.

3) EF-S 15-85 USM. Comparable in price to 24-105 and much better suited for APS-C cameras.

4) EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 USM. Best APS-C standard zoom from Canon, and priced like it.

5) Sigma 18-35 f/1.8. Great image quality; learn to live with the range.

6) EF 17-40mm f/4 L. Possibly worth considering if you plan to move up to full frame in the next few years. Otherwise, don't bother.

Personally I'd recommend 1) or 2), and spending the difference on another lens. YMMV.

Robert CameraTOP wrote:

Hi there!
In my store, I would consider the 24-105 to be a decent fit for the 70D. If anything, I would suggest the 17-55 2.8, because it's generally a sharper lens with a wider aperture.
For portraiture however, the 55-70mm range is very pleasing on a crop sensor body, so there's no clear favorite even between these two, with the 17-55 being slightly more expensive.
I see no reason for recommending the 18-135 over the 24-105 on a 70D unless the customer specifically mentions wanting a cheaper piece of glass with more wide angle range and/or zoom range.
Although, for the difference in price you could just about get a 50mm 1.8 II and a Metz 44 AF flash. That would certainly net you more versatility than just the 24-105.
There's always a choice, but the choice between the two lenses you mentioned comes down to opportunity cost.
Good luck figuring it out!

In my area a 24-105 goes for about $650.