Age Old Topic - Canon 24-70 or 24-105

Logsi

Logsi

Logsi

Soldato
Joined
19 Oct 2005
Posts
10,508
Location
Kernow
I've been wanting to get serious about my photography again and i feel if i bought one of these lenses it'll help my setup, as my current lens, Sigma 17-70, while good, is the weakest link.

I have always had my heart set on the 24-70 but i am coming to the realisation that it's just too expensive for me to afford at the moment. I then started to look at the, what i considered, the next best option.

Has anyone had any real life experience of the 24-70 and 24-105? I would be mainly using it as a daily lens and for portraiture. My portfolio is lacking in portraiture and would like to start dabbling in this area. I have never really been serious about doing portraits or model photography before as i felt my lens wasn't good enough.

My list of equipment is;

Canon 30D and 40D (Battery gripped)
Canon 70-200 F/4
Canon 10-22
Canon 50 f/1.8
Sigma 17-70
Canon 580EXII

I have some other bits and bobs but they're not worth mentioning.

My last question is, is the 24-70 worth the £200-300 premium over the 24-105? Lenses are a great investment and if it was worth it i'd definitely stretch towards the 24-70.
 
I have Canon the 24-105 and think it's a fantastic walkabout lens but seeing you already have the 70-200 at F/4 I would opt for the 24-70 and sell the Sigma 17-70 to help offset the difference.
 
I owned a 24-70 and tamron 28-75 previously and am currently using a 24-105. Landscapes are my primary concern and I am no expert on portraiture.

However, IMO the 24-105 is probably not the best choice for certain styles of portraits where you want to isolate your subject from his/her background and have a nice creamy bokeh.

If you're going to be using flash and shooting at f/8 then it will serve a useful purpose, the colours, contrast and sharpness are all rather nice.

Personally if it were me, I'd ditch the idea of a zoom altogether and choose a fast prime. Your nifty 50 is a good focal length on a crop body, however the bokeh is just horrible. The Canon 50 1.4 is a nice step up in terms of quality but if I were in the market for a fast prime on a crop body I would be considering either:

Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM (buying new in case you don't get a good one first time)
or
Canon EF 85mm f1.8 USM

and also pick up a Tammy 28-75 to use as your 'daily lens'
 
Another vote for the 24-105. Mine stays on one of my bodies most of the time and I have been very impressed with the results.

The pro shooters will tell you that you need the extra stop and to get the 24-70 but I find the IS very useful in low light and its nice to have the reach of 105mm.
 
It wouldn't be just for portraits, i'd use it as my daily walkabout lens. I really want to replace the 17-70 with some L glass. The Sigma is getting on a bit and i have recently noticed some "mould" inside the lens. Not sure if it's mould but it's crystal like.

I do like the idea of a 50mm F/1.4 solely for portraits, I've never really understood the fuss over the 50mm F/1.8...

If I'm out and about or on a shoot i usually have the Sigma on one camera and either of my either canon lenses on the other cam.
 
24-70, especially if you have the 70-200 already. I enjoyed my 24-105 but I get far more out of the 24-70, and 2.8 is very useful.
 
24mm at the wide end may not be wide enough for some shots on a crop body - especially for landscapes or group shots etc. That said, the 24-70L would get my vote if you were on a full frame body for sure. As recently pointed out on this forum, if you have a moving subject then IS won't help a great deal - but a faster shutter speed achievable with the extra stop on the aperture will.

On a crop body, I'd go for the 17-55 f/2.8 IS - unless you have strong intentions on upgrading to a full frame body, in which case the 24-70L would get my vote.
 
I have the Canon 10-22 for the wide angle shots. I doubt i'd go for full frame any time soon, it would make my EFS 10.22mm obsolete also. Been eyeing up a 7D though.

I want to buy a lens that will basically last me a lifetime. In my opinion it's better to get the best you can at the time as it saves money in the long run. If i bought the 17-55mm i would end up selling it and buying the 24-70mm in the future anyway! :p The 55mm maximum focal length is a bit too short also. 70mm is a minimum.
 
Last edited:
ichabod crane said:
If you can afford it then go for the 24-70, you will only end up replacing any other lens with it anyway.
Click to expand...

So the 24-70 is the ultimate non prime lens then?

I think i need to try both and see if the 24-105 is satisfactory. If i got the 24-105 i would get a 4GB stick of RAM for my laptop also i think...Decisions decisions.
 
Logsi said:
Just had a quick google for this lens. One question though, if i was to spend £740 on that lens what makes it better than the 24-105 at £770?
Click to expand...

2.8 glass for starters. 1 stop extra light, but further more, 1 stop less DoF when you need to throw the background.

Secondly, 17mm for most people is much more useful on a crop body as a walk around lens.


The 24-70/24-105 range is great on full frame, and for some uses like portraits it can be good on crop or full frame. If you want a 24-xxx mm lens for portraiture then you want to also have the 2.8 aperture for DoF effects.

Of course you can have a 2 lens combo like 10-24 + 24-70 but on a crop body you will be swapping between the wide angle and the normal-telephoto lenses the whole time.
If you continuously swap between lenses then this is not a walk about do everything lens.And indeed, why bother with a zoom, why not a set of primes....


Ergo, 24-xx makes little sense as a primary walk-about lens on a crop body. It does make sense as a specific tool under some types of photography (in a wedding, great, get a 24-70 2.8)

In the end f/4 is pretty slow and the difference between f/4 and f/5.6 is not as important as between f/2.8 and f/4 despite both being a stop. 2.8 serves as the maximum for zoom lenses and an optimal between good optical performance and a DoF which is both shallow enough to throw out the background but deep enough to have most of the subject in acceptable focus.


You need to decide on the purpose of the lens. Personally I see no need for a 24-105 f/4 on a crop body. Too slow glass (f/4) and not wide enough. On Full frame then it serves as a high quality walkabout that is considerably cheaper than the 24-70 2.8. I would rather have my Nikon 16-85 3.5-5.6 than the Canon 24-104 f/4 on a crop body.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the replies all!

It's given me some food for thought. I'm planning for the future also with this buy so down the line i may end up with a full frame camera. I'll do a little noising about and actually try and get a hands on with these lenses.

I may be showing my ignorance here but when i shoot a F/2.8 portrait i find it to be too shallow and the not all of the subjects face in focus. I usually shoot a portrait at F/4 just to make sure.
 
Logsi said:
I may be showing my ignorance here but when i shoot a F/2.8 portrait i find it to be too shallow and the not all of the subjects face in focus. I usually shoot a portrait at F/4 just to make sure.
Click to expand...

I guess that depends partly on focal length, and partly on composition. For a portrait with the subject facing the camera, you can get away with a smaller DoF and a better background. For an angled portrait, it may be beneficial to have deeper DoF to get the majority of the subject in focus.

At least with the 24-70L you have the option to use f/2.8, which may be crucial in low light to achieve the required shutter speed for a sharp image.
 
Simply put, the 24-105 is the cheaper convenience lens, the 24-70 is the more expensive quality lens. You choose which you prefer to have, higher quality or greater convenience. In my opinion, IS doesn't make up for the speed deficiency, and obviously if you want longer than 70mm you already have a 70-200.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom