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

[jomartin]

bro, now is not a suituation of how much money to match wat lens but rather what you wanna shoot and uses the correct lens. You want an all versatile lens for walk ard plus a little more reach? 24-105 is the one. Planning to just stay indoors to shoot only? 24-70 is all u need. just my 2 cents

 

[sprewell]

Ok i think i am in good position to discuss about the 3 lenses mentioned here because i have used all three before.

I really really really like the 17-55 f2.8 and i miss it a lot. In fact, i somehow feel that my copy of the 17-55 is sharper than my present 24-70. but that is just personal.

If not because i'm moving in FF soon, i will continue to have the 17-55 with me..

 

[simplicitee]

was told that 24-105 is still prone to dust (despite being L and weather seal-ed) entering the lens because its focus barrel will extend out.

You guys think so? Thinking of getting one actually.

 

[vinwin]

To thread starter: It seems that you'll need to add in 17-55IS to your discussion:bsmilie:

Anyway, which of these 3 lens you choose, will depend on what you shoot. Mainly.

24-105L - I've one, and can tell you that it is the best WALKAROUND lens ON FF CAMERAs. Why I capitalize the words? Because if you don't have FF camera, and not intending to use as street lens taking landscape and cityscapes, then forget about this lens. Anyway I use this lens and can get usable 4R night shots of cityscapes at ISO 1000-1250.

24-70L - This lens IS HEAVY. DO NOT GET IT if you are looking for a WALKAROUND LENS. Normally people use this for portraits or indoors, and no need lug around their neck for long hours. If you travel, eg climb up and down the Great Wall of China, 24-70L is not an ideal lens.

17-55IS - Used to have it, and love it, until I switched to FF camera. Some CS-ers might say this lens is not L, too ex for a non-L, dust sucker etc. I tell you, ignore these comments. This 17-55 is VERY SHARP, is on par or might be better than the 24-105(70)L. The reason it is non-L is due to marketing reasons. If you are not a Luster, got for this 17-55, and it is perfect for 1.6x cameras. Plus the 2.8 aperture and IS, what more can one ask for?

2cents

Absolutely agree.

Just to add on, to complete the 24-105L. u can get a ultra wide lens.

 

[Wordlife]

was told that 24-105 is still prone to dust (despite being L and weather seal-ed) entering the lens because its focus barrel will extend out.

You guys think so? Thinking of getting one actually.

Who told you?

 

[simplicitee]

Who told you?

Another CS-er. When i was buying something from him.

 

[mismis]

Everything is prone to dust if youre in a dusty environment.

 

[Yappy]

Because i really dun have enough fund for another lens
now my budget only 1700
after buy the lens i will stick to the lens quite long

Cosider 18-125mm... not too big but with a good range.

 

[engrmariano]

Cosider 18-125mm... not too big but with a good range.

i 2nd this one. but wait for the OS version.

 

[xunjas]

was told that 24-105 is still prone to dust (despite being L and weather seal-ed) entering the lens because its focus barrel will extend out.

You guys think so? Thinking of getting one actually.

dust is everywhere, put on a filter and most of the dust go the filter.. clean before use everytime..

 

[shenjie]

Hi,
for thread creator. I have 24-70mm/F2.8 one but found it too heavy. I suggest you get
24-105mm F4 one because of reason: ligher(less 300g), IS(in house veryvery useful) and extra 35mm.

 

[JohnnyW]

Because i really dun have enough fund for another lens
now my budget only 1700
after buy the lens i will stick to the lens quite long

Why not get a 70-200mm f/4 is usm? It fits ur bill perfectly. It is the best quality and sharpness of the four 70-200. U will love the lens

 

[xunjas]

Why not get a 70-200mm f/4 is usm? It fits ur bill perfectly. It is the best quality and sharpness of the four 70-200. U will love the lens

i tink ts want a general purpose lens and not shoot from 1.2m onwards.. 24-xx would suit the bill better for ts..

 

[shenjie]

Its a hard decision. last time I struggle on this for couple of months also.

 

[xunjas]

rent to try n find out your requirments.

 

[Pinoy]

Looks like I'm suffering from self-inflicted dilemma. Or just plain curiosity...

What I have Currently:
Canon 40D. EFS 17-55mm f2.8 IS. Speedlight 580EX II. EF 70-200mm f4L.

What I'm Being Tempted to Switch To:
Canon 40D. EF 24-105mm f4L IS. Speedlight 580EX II. EF 70-200mm f4L.

What I Shoot:
- Group photos. Some portraits. Landscapes.
- I'd say 50% of the time, I am/will be shooting indoors
- Occasional night shots (usually with tripod)

I'm generally happy/satisfied with my 17-55mm f2.8 IS lens but find it quite cumbersome to change lenses for tele shots. Apart from that, I'm also finding 55mm to be on the short end in several instances. Having used a friend's 28-135mm lens before, I'm sure the 24mm end of the 24-105mm won't be an issue for me.

From the looks of it, I guess what I really am looking for is a good walkaround lens. That's why I am considering the 24-105mm as replacement for the 17-55mm. Question is, is it really worth spending the money for?

:Later,

 

[muvouser]

Once you have f2.8, you cant live with f4 when object isolation is impt.

I have the 24-105 and sold it in 2 weeks time for the 24-70.

Why?

I shoot portrait and always between 30-50mm focal length region.

At this focal length, f4 may not give you enough isolation (background too clear), f2.8 will just give you a more...that little bit more can make or break your picture. Of course a stop faster freezes motion better too.

 

[DingDongBell]

From the looks of it, I guess what I really am looking for is a good walkaround lens. That's why I am considering the 24-105mm as replacement for the 17-55mm. Question is, is it really worth spending the money for?

:Later,

Keep your 17-55, since you already have the 70-200. It's a much better match on a 1.6x crop camera than the 24-105/4.

Once you have f2.8, you cant live with f4 when object isolation is impt.

I have the 24-105 and sold it in 2 weeks time for the 24-70.

Why?

I shoot portrait and always between 30-50mm focal length region.

At this focal length, f4 may not give you enough isolation (background too clear), f2.8 will just give you a more...that little bit more can make or break your picture. Of course a stop faster freezes motion better too.

Hmm... "object isolation" this is a new term to me. I learnt something new today. You should use a prime 50mm lens then.

was told that 24-105 is still prone to dust (despite being L and weather seal-ed) entering the lens because its focus barrel will extend out.

You guys think so? Thinking of getting one actually.

When the lens is on the camera, it's pretty well sealed. When it's off the camera, dust could easily get in from the lens mount side. In any case, don't be overly concerned about dust, it doesn't affect image quality.

 

[xunjas]

Looks like I'm suffering from self-inflicted dilemma. Or just plain curiosity...

What I have Currently:
Canon 40D. EFS 17-55mm f2.8 IS. Speedlight 580EX II. EF 70-200mm f4L.

What I'm Being Tempted to Switch To:
Canon 40D. EF 24-105mm f4L IS. Speedlight 580EX II. EF 70-200mm f4L.

What I Shoot:
- Group photos. Some portraits. Landscapes.
- I'd say 50% of the time, I am/will be shooting indoors
- Occasional night shots (usually with tripod)

I'm generally happy/satisfied with my 17-55mm f2.8 IS lens but find it quite cumbersome to change lenses for tele shots. Apart from that, I'm also finding 55mm to be on the short end in several instances. Having used a friend's 28-135mm lens before, I'm sure the 24mm end of the 24-105mm won't be an issue for me.

From the looks of it, I guess what I really am looking for is a good walkaround lens. That's why I am considering the 24-105mm as replacement for the 17-55mm. Question is, is it really worth spending the money for?

:Later,

keep your 17-55mm, it is just as good as the 24-105mm and u have f/2.8 edge over the L. =)

 

[elixir]

Get the 24-105L for the flexibility. The IS in my opinion, is indispensable! For portrait and low-light work, get a 50mm f1.8 or f1.4. If you are ok with the 50mm range, it offers even better bokeh and low-light capability.You get the best of both worlds!