Canon 24-70 2.8 v 24-105 IS

mr tommo · 4 Mar 2012 at 14:59

I'm sure it's been asked before but just picked up a 5d mk iii. How do you guys get On with the 24-70 in low light situation without the I ? thinking about wedding use specifically.

Vertigo · 4 Mar 2012 at 15:09

Switched from the 17-55 to the 24-70 and don't miss the IS at all tbh.

Rojin · 4 Mar 2012 at 15:15

Where did you get a 5D3 from?! IS doesn't help when you are shooting subjects that move. 1/60 is the slowest I'd shoot people, and even then the smallest movements cause blur. I'd rather have the extra stop for a faster shutter myself, and even f2.8 will have you working the ISO hard indoors.

I liked the 24—70 I had, the 24—105 I struggle to get excited about.

Clown · 4 Mar 2012 at 15:23

Rojin said:
Where did you get a 5D3 from?!

I picked him up on that already

Rojin · 4 Mar 2012 at 15:46

Ah, typo?

mr tommo · 4 Mar 2012 at 15:54

God damn predictive text! Its a mark 2 guys sorry. Steering towards the 24-70 but I've only had experience of the 24-105 in a studio where the IS makes little difference.

Vertigo · 4 Mar 2012 at 15:58

If you often shoot static subjects in low light conditions then the IS would probably help but otherwise don't worry about it. Aside from IS and the obvious extra stop, the 24-70 suffers from less barrel distortion at the wide end compared to the 24-105.

Nexus · 4 Mar 2012 at 19:31

Also depends what you intend to do with it. The 24-105 is a great walkabout lens, as it weighs a lot less than the brick.

I'm intending to get the new 24-70, but don't think I'll be getting rid of the 24-105.

theheyes · 4 Mar 2012 at 20:03

After considering the 24-105, I'm keeping an eye for a second hand 24-70 because I need that extra stop. The 24-70 seems to be the more popular choice amongst wedding photographers.

Although having said that, the insane ISO of the 5DIII would bring the 24-105 back into contention (for me).

edit - just seen your correction. For what it's worth, I think f/4 lenses are just a bit too slow for indoors/no flash/moving subject and you might regret not having the 2.8

SDK^ · 4 Mar 2012 at 20:21

I've used both for weddings and would choose the 24-70 everytime. Link it up with a 70-200 on your 2nd body and you'll be covered for anything.

Vertigo · 4 Mar 2012 at 21:10

The extra stop isn't just about low-light use, it's also about shallower DoF.

Nexus · 4 Mar 2012 at 22:28

Vertigo1 said:
The extra stop isn't just about low-light use, it's also about shallower DoF.

f/4 and the number of the aperture blades still produces pleasing shallow depth of field, enough to separate the subject from the background. I wouldn't write it off as if it can't.

2Thumbs · 4 Mar 2012 at 23:14

You have to remember that IS will only help with the shake that you cause, it won't stop motion.

If you're shooting weddings in low light, F4 will be more likely to come out with blurry subjects.

Vertigo · 5 Mar 2012 at 08:22

Nexus said:
f/4 and the number of the aperture blades still produces pleasing shallow depth of field, enough to separate the subject from the background. I wouldn't write it off as if it can't.

Oh I know, that's why I said 'shallower'. For portrait and wedding stuff, you often want the shallowest DoF possible. Very fast primes are obviously best for this, but f/2.8 can often produce that extra bit of isolation that you want.

Jase · 5 Mar 2012 at 09:54

I looked and both of these last month and went for the 24-70 2.8 in the end, great lens and I'm happy I went that route.