Which 1 Better 24-105 f4L or 24-70 f2.8L

[xunjas]

unless u haven buy the 17-55mm, i may recommend 24-105mm as it could be used on FF body. but 17-55mm on a 1.6x sensor makes a gd general purpose lens with its focal length range and f/2.8 aperture. =)

 

[khtee]

24-105L is the choice. New light and sharp. Can be use for FF next time if you intend to upgrade to FF camera. No regret at all. Lens can be "reuse". very versatile in term of ROI.

 

[frostyfrostysnowman]

hi bunbun,

I was given the opportunity to use both L-lenses you mentioned, namely the 24-105 F4L, and the 24-70 F2.8L.

I have also done extensive reading up on the 17-55 F2.8 as I believe in doing a fair amount of homework before finally putting the dough down for an expensive lens, so please do allow me to share with you my opinions regarding this.

I currently own the 24-105 F4L, and I made this decision based on several factors.

1. Reach. This lens has far better reach than all three lenses. I am more of a street photography person and this reach is good for me. I do sneaky shots of people sometimes haha.

2. Aperture. The down part of the 24-105 would certainly would be the F4 part. One stop would make quite a difference, but unless you're shooting in low light conditions ALL the time, the difference would not be LIFE CHANGING. Outdoors, F4 is MORE than enough really.

3. Bokeh. I choose to seperate this section from the aperture part because if you don't already know, allow me to tell you more about how bokeh comes about. There are 3 factors to bokeh, they are namely:
a) Focal Length
b) Aperture
c) Distance from object

Based on these 3 criteria, to attain the most bokeh, you would want to use a lens at its widest aperture, longest focal length, and get really really close to your object. In that respect, the 24-70 and 17-55 certainly have the aperture bit, and the 24-105 has the focal length bit. So really, the aperture is not EVERYTHING when bokeh is concerned.

4. Image Stabiliser (IS). Last but not least, I would like to talk about the IS system on the 17-55 and the 24-105, is to DIE FOR. Old school photographers will go on and on about how they dislike IS and all that, but really, I say harness technology . The IS system gives you 3-STOPS worth of handholdability. The difference between the 24-70 and 24-105, 1-STOP difference. Handholdability between the two? You do the math.

But I would like to remind you that IS does NOT freeze motion. In other words, in low light conditions, you're more likely to get sharp blurry shots. Sharp because you're able to handhold at insanely low shutter speeds (my personal longest was 0.6 seconds) but blurry because non-stationary objects (i.e. people) will most likely MOVE in that time.

Conclusion

If you haven't already guessed it, I'm in full support of the 24-105, because I was in your situation half a year ago. I laid out the cards, and decided what I really needed. Before everything, I would like to point out that the 17-55 F2.8, is constructed using L GRADE ultra dispersion lenses. Just know that it's what makes the L lenses legendary. Which is also why it's so expensive and incredibly SHARP for a non-L designated lens.

That being said, it all boils down to your needs, to your comfort and most importantly, your style. Don't worry about image sharpness. You're not going to be printing poster sized images, so that wouldn't matter. When you're doing like 4R prints, seriously, you can't tell the difference between these lenses. They are all good.

Just my many many cents worth. It was long, but I hope I helped in your decision.

 

[calebk]

hi bunbun,

I was given the opportunity to use both L-lenses you mentioned, namely the 24-105 F4L, and the 24-70 F2.8L.

I have also done extensive reading up on the 17-55 F2.8 as I believe in doing a fair amount of homework before finally putting the dough down for an expensive lens, so please do allow me to share with you my opinions regarding this.
.
.
.

Well-written bro. Good stuff.

 

[xunjas]

hi bunbun,

I was given the opportunity to use both L-lenses you mentioned, namely the 24-105 F4L, and the 24-70 F2.8L.

I have also done extensive reading up on the 17-55 F2.8 as I believe in doing a fair amount of homework before finally putting the dough down for an expensive lens, so please do allow me to share with you my opinions regarding this.

I currently own the 24-105 F4L, and I made this decision based on several factors.

1. Reach. This lens has far better reach than all three lenses. I am more of a street photography person and this reach is good for me. I do sneaky shots of people sometimes haha.

2. Aperture. The down part of the 24-105 would certainly would be the F4 part. One stop would make quite a difference, but unless you're shooting in low light conditions ALL the time, the difference would not be LIFE CHANGING. Outdoors, F4 is MORE than enough really.

3. Bokeh. I choose to seperate this section from the aperture part because if you don't already know, allow me to tell you more about how bokeh comes about. There are 3 factors to bokeh, they are namely:
a) Focal Length
b) Aperture
c) Distance from object

Based on these 3 criteria, to attain the most bokeh, you would want to use a lens at its widest aperture, longest focal length, and get really really close to your object. In that respect, the 24-70 and 17-55 certainly have the aperture bit, and the 24-105 has the focal length bit. So really, the aperture is not EVERYTHING when bokeh is concerned.

4. Image Stabiliser (IS). Last but not least, I would like to talk about the IS system on the 17-55 and the 24-105, is to DIE FOR. Old school photographers will go on and on about how they dislike IS and all that, but really, I say harness technology . The IS system gives you 3-STOPS worth of handholdability. The difference between the 24-70 and 24-105, 1-STOP difference. Handholdability between the two? You do the math.

But I would like to remind you that IS does NOT freeze motion. In other words, in low light conditions, you're more likely to get sharp blurry shots. Sharp because you're able to handhold at insanely low shutter speeds (my personal longest was 0.6 seconds) but blurry because non-stationary objects (i.e. people) will most likely MOVE in that time.

Conclusion

If you haven't already guessed it, I'm in full support of the 24-105, because I was in your situation half a year ago. I laid out the cards, and decided what I really needed. Before everything, I would like to point out that the 17-55 F2.8, is constructed using L GRADE ultra dispersion lenses. Just know that it's what makes the L lenses legendary. Which is also why it's so expensive and incredibly SHARP for a non-L designated lens.

That being said, it all boils down to your needs, to your comfort and most importantly, your style. Don't worry about image sharpness. You're not going to be printing poster sized images, so that wouldn't matter. When you're doing like 4R prints, seriously, you can't tell the difference between these lenses. They are all good.

Just my many many cents worth. It was long, but I hope I helped in your decision.

very comprehensively written. I choose the 24-105mm because i want the longer focal length and the IS, plus this lens can be used on a FF sensor. Value for money L lens for general purposes. =)

 

[10-Dee-Q]

i own 450D and used to be in your position before
in the end i get

Sigma 18-200mm DC OS (quite cheap and good) cause i'm still not sure in what focal lenght i shoot more,

and af ter i found out i need certain focal length more, i get primes,
right now i have Sigma 30mm F/1.4 and Canon 50mm f/1.8 mkII

and i'm buying tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 for night or indoor travelling.

anyway the most lens i use is the sigma 18-200mm, sure it's wasn't the best in terms of IQ but it's the best in terms of focal lenghts and also OS does helps a lot shooting at 200mm

 

[frostyfrostysnowman]

Well-written bro. Good stuff.

very comprehensively written. I choose the 24-105mm because i want the longer focal length and the IS, plus this lens can be used on a FF sensor. Value for money L lens for general purposes. =)

thanks guys for your kind compliments.

I would like to re-emphasize the fact that you'll need to feel comfortable with whatever you've got. It's true when it comes to good pictures, it's the photographer, not the camera. However, if good equipment can bring out the best in the photographer, WHY NOT?

i agree with xunjas wholeheartedly. Value for money L lens. It can't get better than this.

 

[mismis]

I actually own a 24-70 and Ive decided to trade it for a 24-105. The 24-70's sheer size puts me off and I find myself carrying my 50 f1.4 much more often

 

[charlesleong]

as many posters have pointed out, there's no *correct* answer. However, there's a *best* answer for each individual, with regards to:

budget (24-70 2.8 is more expensive)
strength (24-70 is a brick, just like 70-200 F4 vs F2.8IS)
shooting style (the range of focal lengths you need)

Can also consider the EFS 17-55 f2.8 which gives you the approximate 24-70 range on the APS-C sensor. However, the drawback is that it's not FF compatible, and various attempts by others to modify the lens to EF mount have resulted in unacceptable vignetting.

Personally, I have a 24-105L. I weighed up the extra 35mm on the long end and the IS and the extra weight and decided that it was to me more worth than the extra stop. Of course YMMV. I also have the 17-55 2.8 for low(er) light shots.

Why not rent/borrow and try?

 

[mismis]

Dont forget to consider the weight as well. I dont mind the 24-70's weight, but it is very big and attracts alot of attention

 

[renzero]

I personally ditch 24-70 f/2.8 and bought 24-105 f/4 a year ago.
ever since, this lens serve me through my travels and business trip.
Few reasons why i choose 24-105
- Light
- Reach (i seldom bring my 70-200 out anymore)
- IS (this is a god sent)

 

[itchyfingers]

Hi, This is not 100% related, but I will be getting a 40D soon. I currently have a 28-135 and i was wondering what are the pros and cons of this lens vs the 24-105?

What would make me upgrade to the 24-105 besides
1) 4mm wider
2) 'L' lens

The 28-135 is a good walk-around as well, just that its not as wide as i would have liked it to be. Should i just save the money and stick to me 28-135?

Thanks.

 

[mismis]

24mm really isnt wide at all on a crop body, depending on what you shoot, you might consider a 10-22.

You'll def see a IQ improvement if you do go with the 24-105 though

 

[flyer]

What would make me upgrade to the 24-105 besides
1) 4mm wider
2) 'L' lens

Let's not forget that 4mm wider on a crop body is actually works out to 6.4mm wider. Another advantage of the 24-105 is the constant f/4. If you value these 3 advantages of the 24-105 over your 28-135 and can live with 30mm*1.6 shorter on the tele end, then upgrade to the 24-105. Else save your money to get other lenses like a 10-22 if you need WA.

 

[itchyfingers]

Let's not forget that 4mm wider on a crop body is actually works out to 6.4mm wider. Another advantage of the 24-105 is the constant f/4. If you value these 3 advantages of the 24-105 over your 28-135 and can live with 30mm*1.6 shorter on the tele end, then upgrade to the 24-105. Else save your money to get other lenses like a 10-22 if you need WA.

Well, i don't want to carry 2 lenses. i just want 1. What is your opinion of the 28-135? It was very popular previuosly an not so much now. Why was that the case? What are the reasons you would not use one?

 

[flyer]

What is your opinion of the 28-135? It was very popular previuosly an not so much now. Why was that the case? What are the reasons you would not use one?

28-135 is about 10 years old, guess it was popular back then until the 24-105 came about which offered all the points previously stated above. 24-105 also has a 3-stop IS instead of 2-stop on the 28-135. Vignetting and sharpness (especially off-center) are my main concerns for not using the 28-135 because of FF. But for crop body, it's probably less of an issue.

 

[sohzai]

I also do own the 24-70. Basically speaking, one more important factor is you need to take it's weight into consideration. As it is heavier rather significantly, you may find yourself lazy to bring it out sometimes. Then it defeats the purpose of buying it. Go with what you are most comfortable with.

I bought the 24-70 regardless of it's higher price, heavier weight, bigger size but I was prepared for it. I have seen countless people switching after they use it, don't waste your money there. Best method: go rent or test both lenses (i mean the 24-105 and 24-70) before you decide. (I presume you are not considering 17-55 cause you only want 1 lens and that is not enough reach for this lens and also 28-135 is not wide enough to be your only lens on a 1.6Xcrop)

hope this helps!

 

[itchyfingers]

I also do own the 24-70. Basically speaking, one more important factor is you need to take it's weight into consideration. As it is heavier rather significantly, you may find yourself lazy to bring it out sometimes. Then it defeats the purpose of buying it. Go with what you are most comfortable with.

I bought the 24-70 regardless of it's higher price, heavier weight, bigger size but I was prepared for it. I have seen countless people switching after they use it, don't waste your money there. Best method: go rent or test both lenses (i mean the 24-105 and 24-70) before you decide. (I presume you are not considering 17-55 cause you only want 1 lens and that is not enough reach for this lens and also 28-135 is not wide enough to be your only lens on a 1.6Xcrop)

hope this helps!

Yes, i will not consider the 24-70 and 17-55 due to reasons you have stated. Its either the 24-105 or i will stick to the 28-135. OR if i switch systems? :devil: a D300 with the 18-200. But i've heard that the lens isn't that great and vignetting is quite obvious, so i'm not so keen on that for that reason. i still like the Canon DSLRs though..

 

[Kenji]

Sorry to dig this thread up. Does anyone know how much 24-70L lens selling now?

 

[charlesleong]

check the lens prices thread?