24-70L or 24-105L

growse

growse

growse

Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
7,139
Location
Ironing
What are people's opinions about the difference between these two canon L lenses. I'm going to be saving up for one or the other over the next few months (really really need usm :)) and want to know what people think. On the one hand, the 24-105 is only F4, but has a longer reach. I've heard many people describe it as really versatile because of this.

On the other hand, the 24-70 is what range I have now, and that feels ok. Also, I really like the smaller DOF you get at 2.8 over 4, and the 24-70 is slightly cheaper.

So, what'll it be? I'm leaning toward the 24-70, and then saving up (over years!) to get a 70-200....
 
If your going to end up getting the 70 - 200 then I would highly recomend the 24 - 70 L 2.8.

This lens is extreamly well built and is optically gorgeous.
It really does depend if you need the extra length. I would sacrifice it but this is me personally.
The IS makes the choice hard for most people.
 
Last edited:
For me the decision would be based on whether:

1) I need that f2.8 or will F4 be sufficient?
2) I need to save a bit of cash in which case I'll have the 24-105?
3) I can get the blinking lens from stock for when I actually need to use it or do I have to wait 6 months because no-one can get it (24-105)? Which saves me even more money. ;)
4) the extra bulk of the f2.8 going to be a problem?

Maybe by the time you save up more stores will have the 24-105 available. :)
 
we seem to be forgetting something here...the 24-105 has IS!

To be fair it really depends on what you need - i own a 350D and the 105 is 99% of the time plenty long enough for me, and the IS more than makes up for the F4 low end.
 
I'm in the US, so I'm looking at a $100 difference between the two. The 24-105 has IS, but isn't that countered by the 24-70 being faster? My current sigma 24-70 is 2.8, so I'm just worried I'll miss this.

Also, I've heard about viginetting on the 24-105 at 24mm. Anyone got any experience of this?

From all the stuff I've read, it seems that the 24-70 is the benchmark of mid-range zoom and that the (newer) 24-105 is compared against it. Some people seem to think it's as good as the 24-70, some think it's worse. In which case, if it's a split between "as good as" and "not as good as", I'm still leaning toward the 24-70. I've picked up a 24-70 before, but not a 24-105. Will have to go to B&H to have a feel :)
 
growse said:
Also, I've heard about viginetting on the 24-105 at 24mm. Anyone got any experience of this?
Click to expand...

All lenses suffer vignetting or light fall off of some sort. It's just that so many people use crop cameras that some are shocked the first time they see it in action. Maybe on their new 5d for instance then flood the forums of the world with horror stories. ;)

If you go here you'll find the tested vignetting expected for the 24-105 lens on full frame and crop.
Here shows it at f4 24mm. The rectangle shows the area on a 1.6 crop so light fall off is obviously less.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...5mm-f/4-L-IS-USM-Lens-Vignetting-Test-Results

They also have loads of other lenses tested. :)

24-70

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...=Canon-EF-24-70mm-f/2.8-L-USM-Lens-Vignetting

And a nice article on vignetting (light fall off)

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Canon-Lens-Vignetting.aspx
 
Last edited:
You're more likely to suffer to vignetting on the 24-70 at F2.8 than the 24-105 at F4. What camera will they be used on ? If it's a 1.6x crop factor camera then vignetting won't be a problem anyway.

As for my recommendation - I would get that one < > :p
 
350D.

I was thinking that seeing as I tend to take more shots of still things at low light than fast things, the IS on the 24-105 would be better. But the bokeh won't be as good.

ARGH!!!!!!!!! :( Don't know which one to get :(
 
growse said:
350D.

I was thinking that seeing as I tend to take more shots of still things at low light than fast things, the IS on the 24-105 would be better. But the bokeh won't be as good.

ARGH!!!!!!!!! :( Don't know which one to get :(
Click to expand...

It's tough, deciding between f2.8 and IS/VR will never be easy. Both will help in low light (arguable, the IS/VR might help more, I was trying to get handheld shots of the house of commons at night a few weeks ago and my 17-55 f2.8 was struggling (you can't shoot handheld at 1/10 and expect good results without IS/VR))

I've used the Nikon 24-120VR, which is even slower still but is a great walk about lens (or would be if it wasn't so damn soft), it was a big improvment over the 18-70. I've since ditched it in favour of the 17-55 f2.8 though.

My opinion (ad bare in mind I'm not a canon user) is if the 24-105 is sharp then it'll be a better choice.

If you need to shoot in *really* low light buy a 50mm f1.4/1.8 to go with it!
 
I'd say go for the 24-70L, 70mm is plenty long enough for a walk around lens (for me) and remember IS is absolutely amazing for taking pics of static subjects but it isn't so effective when you have something moving. The 2.8 allows you more freedom with DOF too.

One thing i will say is that it is a monster of a lens especially with the hood and it weighs a fair bit too, i don't really find this a problem but i appreciate some people could :)
 
i use the 24-105 with a 350D and there is no vignetting. Don't know where you heard that but it's rubbish. I might point out the Canon sells the 5D with the 24-105 as standard and so i highly doubt they would do that if it vignetted on a FF camera, let alone a 1.6 crop one!

Just buy the 105 and get the 10-24 for low end, which I got from Adorama on 17th and Park South for $700
 
Last edited:
Already got the 10-22 :)

Because it's a saturday, B&H is closed, but I'll be heading down there tomorrow to pick both of them up and have a play :) Won't be buying yet, but at least it'll give me something to put in the top spot on my wish list :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom