Yes I know it's been done to death, but after missing out on a good priced 24-70 again and people pricing various aged 24-70's for £100 less than a new one due to the demand I'm sick of chasing them as I know I'll be outbid with a higher offer. Now using a 5dII so I'm not afraid to push the iso a bit or use external flash, so am I best just settling for a 24-105 saving £200 but losing the extra stop, or is f2.8 really worth that much?
24-70 or 24-105
- Thread starter Steeps
- Start date
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 77,340
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
In short, yes.
When you really need that extra stop of light, you'd give your left arm for it.
When you really need that extra stop of light, you'd give your left arm for it.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 77,340
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
That's like 3 stop faster 
No, the 24-70 cost more not because of the aperture, it is sharper (ask RG-tom
), it is built in another league, it weight 40% heavier for some reason!
No, the 24-70 cost more not because of the aperture, it is sharper (ask RG-tom
), it is built in another league, it weight 40% heavier for some reason!
Took me ages to convince myself not to get the sigma/tamron type (was always happy with them on 40d, and love the telephoto now) but I hate thinking about paying £800+ for one just because so many people are after them.
Only wanted it for a wedding or two, but I'm not the sort of person that wants to rent either, it would only cost £100 to buy a new one, use it for a month then sell on.
Only wanted it for a wedding or two, but I'm not the sort of person that wants to rent either, it would only cost £100 to buy a new one, use it for a month then sell on.
I'll come from a different angle here. From memory I've seen quite a few of your shots being predominantly city scapes with your 10 - 20. From that point of view both lenses fit the bill to a certain degree being at the 24 mm range which wont help your decision
As Raymond suggests the f2.8 is great when you need it.....but do you need it with what you shoot just now? Is there a big demand for low light wide open shots or shots where you wish to have a narrow DoF a la Raymond Lin
Can you compensate with the higher f-stop and a bit of flash instead of using natural light?
Also there is the difference at the top end of the zooms.....70 or 105....do you need that extra reach or do you have another lens which takes over from either of these choices?
From my perspective I'm of the mind that I only want to be using 3 lenses 16 - 35 (landscapes and next purchase), 24 - 70 (potraits / general walk about lens (still not used since bought it!)) and the 70 - 200 (footy and candid shots) with the extender (possibly get the 2x extender at some point). I also have a macro lens but haven't had much use out of it lately, sold my 50 and will be selling my 70 - 300 shortly as well. I know the lenses that i use and what i shoot, if a situation arises where i want / lust after a new lens for a different use then i could probably go down the hiring route.
Hope thats maybe given you something to think about / confuse the issue even more
As Raymond suggests the f2.8 is great when you need it.....but do you need it with what you shoot just now? Is there a big demand for low light wide open shots or shots where you wish to have a narrow DoF a la Raymond Lin
Can you compensate with the higher f-stop and a bit of flash instead of using natural light?
Also there is the difference at the top end of the zooms.....70 or 105....do you need that extra reach or do you have another lens which takes over from either of these choices?
From my perspective I'm of the mind that I only want to be using 3 lenses 16 - 35 (landscapes and next purchase), 24 - 70 (potraits / general walk about lens (still not used since bought it!)) and the 70 - 200 (footy and candid shots) with the extender (possibly get the 2x extender at some point). I also have a macro lens but haven't had much use out of it lately, sold my 50 and will be selling my 70 - 300 shortly as well. I know the lenses that i use and what i shoot, if a situation arises where i want / lust after a new lens for a different use then i could probably go down the hiring route.
Hope thats maybe given you something to think about / confuse the issue even more
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 30 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 9,515
- Location
- London Town!
I'll likely start a holy war here, but it isn't. It isn't as sharp (not to say it isn't sharp but it's not as sharp as the Nikon) and it doesn't handle as well. The Nikon is big and heavy but even on a D300 or D700 it just disappears in your hands.
Conversely the Canon is big and heavy and feels like it. I've used both quite a lot and on Nikon I'd take the 24-70 every time, not because of the aperture but because it's such an optically good lens, on Canon I'd take the 24-105, it's nicer to use the 90%+ of the time you don't need the extra stop. This may be influenced by Nikon's lack of a serious 24-105 equivalent (the 24-120 VR isn't, it's just not that good).
I'd take the 24-105 and save your money for primes on Canon.
I'm still kicking myself for selling my sigma, nearly put a bid on a 16-35mk1 just to satisfy that wide feeling and I probably will get one once the bank balance is flowing better but right now I need my sensible hat on as I've got 2 weddings this month. 70+ is already covered with a sigma which I'm more than happy with, took it on holiday as my only lens just to shoot friends and I definitely need something wider, found myself running down the beach for a few seconds just to get ahead to get the whole group in.
While having a bit of overlap would be nice (last wedding had a 20mm gap between lenses which made things difficult) the cropping ability due to the amount of megapixels should be more than enough to cover any extra reach I feel a photo would need. I usually try to shoot stopped down for sharpness and if the 24-70 is even sharper still I should really aim for it.
I'd love to rent, but using S/H equipment for so long and seeing the value I get out of it I don't feel like I'd be getting great value just hiring for a week or two, even though I don't go out shooting by myself much. As funny as my views are against renting I'm tempted to set up a small rental business just so there's more availability of lenses.
While having a bit of overlap would be nice (last wedding had a 20mm gap between lenses which made things difficult) the cropping ability due to the amount of megapixels should be more than enough to cover any extra reach I feel a photo would need. I usually try to shoot stopped down for sharpness and if the 24-70 is even sharper still I should really aim for it.
I'd love to rent, but using S/H equipment for so long and seeing the value I get out of it I don't feel like I'd be getting great value just hiring for a week or two, even though I don't go out shooting by myself much. As funny as my views are against renting I'm tempted to set up a small rental business just so there's more availability of lenses.
I moved from the 24-105 to the 24-70 and don't regret it. I had a very good copy of the 24-105, and I thought it was incredibly sharp, but the 24-70 takes it to another level. Also with F2.8 the focusing is a lot faster as it takes advantage of the cross type focusings sensors, and of course f2.8 is f2.8, and f4 is f4!
Would not switch back.
Would not switch back.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 77,340
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
Do you remember when you were trying to convince me that the 24-105 was the "better" lens?
I went through this whole argument some time ago. I ended up with a 24-70 because:
1) Aperture gives you a better shutter speed - IS only works on stationary objects
2) Aperture gives you DOF/Bokeh which just adds so much to the right photograph
3) 70-105 is not a huge gap and is one that I have covered with a 85mm prime and a 70-200 lens
For me the answer was (in the end) simple.
1) Aperture gives you a better shutter speed - IS only works on stationary objects
2) Aperture gives you DOF/Bokeh which just adds so much to the right photograph
3) 70-105 is not a huge gap and is one that I have covered with a 85mm prime and a 70-200 lens
For me the answer was (in the end) simple.
I have both and need to sell one
i find that i use and prefer the 24-105
lighter
longer reach
i use flash so not too worried about light (though the extra bokeh would be nice)
having said that i am going to force myself to use the 24-70 a few times before deciding
i find that i use and prefer the 24-105
lighter
longer reach
i use flash so not too worried about light (though the extra bokeh would be nice)
having said that i am going to force myself to use the 24-70 a few times before deciding
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 77,340
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
Longer reach argument. You can always step forward, and 35mm is nothing in reach, plus you can crop easily these days.
Weight wise, hmmmm, may be but then you get used to it fairly quickly. Use one non stop for a day and jobs a goodun.
Weight wise, hmmmm, may be but then you get used to it fairly quickly. Use one non stop for a day and jobs a goodun.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 30 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 9,515
- Location
- London Town!
While I see your point that you'll get roughly the same in the shot, it's not exactly the same, you don't get the same field of view and that's important to note because I know an awful lot of people who think you do somehow.
For me, 24-70 mainly due to f/2.8. I don't think I could ever go back to slow glass. Just hacks me off too much as I always end up needing more light. There's only one thing more annoying than f/4 lenses ....f/5.6 
, or the ones that are variable 3.5 - 5.6. Nah I'm being OTT, but for me apeture is king.
There's only one thing more annoying than f/4 lenses ....f/5.6 , or the ones that are variable 3.5 - 5.6. Nah I'm being OTT, but for me apeture is king.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 77,340
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
Of couse. It is all a balance of what you value most.
I put the 2.8 element above all else. 2.8 give you more versitility in lighting situation and better bokeh.
What it comes down to is the question - can you get that shot with the lens you got.
The answer is I can get more shots with the 24-70 in more situations than i can with the 24-105.
It is that simple.