Member of the Month

KilaTsunami
October, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

EF 24-70 f2.8L vs. EF 24-105 f4L IS

profile picture
niels043
Posts: 814 - Karma: 184
the 24-70 is faster but the 24-105 is image stabilized and has a little more broad zoom range, it's also cheaper... what do you guys think?
Feb 28 2009 9:50AM
0 0
profile picture
*Fujative*
Posts: 8554 - Karma: 183
I was in the same boat. Although I have not bought one yet, I'm saving. I'm going with the 24-70. Big deal with IS, its nice to have, but on a lens that doesnt go over 70, its not really needed. Just dont shoot under a 1/80th @ 70mm to be safe, however that 2.8 will be better then the IS for two reasons.
1. IS works for 1.5-2 stops. f/4->f/2.8 is only one full stop, so you technically lose a but there but 2.8 does bring in a lot of light.
2. 2.8=fun. At such a small aperture, there is not a lot of depth of field, the range is quite small, which can be great for a lot of things and fun to mess around with.
granted the 105 is a bit cheaper, typical you only need to buy a lens once. go with the more expensive one.
Btw, what camera are you using?
Hope this helped and good luck.
Feb 28 2009 10:20AM
0 0
profile picture
a_pla5tic_bag
Posts: 9215 - Karma: 5,398
Yeah, if you've got a crop then that will give you some funny focal lengths with both i guess. But the f2.8 is always better than the IS. IS isn't going to help you with say a blurred skier due to a slow shutter, f/2.8 would probably help though.
Feb 28 2009 5:21PM
0 0
profile picture
Jordan
Posts: 4079 - Karma: 2,122
Yeah go with the 24-70 for sure. Its a better all around lens. Its the pro's middle. You have the Wide angle (12-24 etc..)  the 24-70 and the 70-200. With those three you're set. Of course you can never have enough lenses haha but the 50 1.8 is great for the price. 10.5 fisheye is so sick. It never ends.
Feb 28 2009 6:52PM
0 0
profile picture
chipkalback
Posts: 2255 - Karma: 30
50 f/1.8 is such a banger lens for portraits. they're so cheap too, i found mine on ebay for $70 in like new condition haha
Mar 1 2009 2:20AM
0 0
profile picture
foodisfun
Posts: 5427 - Karma: 287
i found mine for $27 haha. haven't been able to really play around with it yet though
Mar 1 2009 2:37PM
0 0
profile picture
*Fujative*
Posts: 8554 - Karma: 183
where?! lucky you!!
Mar 1 2009 3:18PM
0 0
profile picture
niels043
Posts: 814 - Karma: 184
yeah you can never have a fast enough lens but has anyone used both?
Mar 1 2009 5:32PM
0 0
profile picture
chipkalback
Posts: 2255 - Karma: 30
i've only seen them for 90-100 at the cheapest so i figured 70 shipped was a decent deal
Mar 1 2009 11:28PM
0 0
profile picture
Tbrody
Posts: 1597 - Karma: 685
link pls
Mar 1 2009 11:58PM
0 0
profile picture
*Fujative*
Posts: 8554 - Karma: 183
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12142-GREY/Canon_2514A002BA_Normal_EF_50mm_f_1_8.html
Mar 2 2009 12:01AM
0 0
profile picture
chipkalback
Posts: 2255 - Karma: 30
do you usually buy the imported stuff off of b&h? i've heard varying opinions on buying the imported vs. 'usa' listed products
Mar 2 2009 11:22AM
0 0
profile picture
mammothpunks
Posts: 5724 - Karma: 372
one more thing to consider is weight - i have to 24-70 and its a solid chunk of glass. the 24-70 is over 2 pounds while the 24-105 is around 1.4 pounds. As someone else stated, the IS wont help you with skiing or any action shots in low light so the 2.8 has the advantage there. If you are a real serious photographer looking for the best glass possible, i would get the 24-70, but if photography is more of a hobby and you do a bunch of photography while traveling, i would get the 24-105
Mar 2 2009 2:56PM
0 0
profile picture
*Fujative*
Posts: 8554 - Karma: 183
I tend to buy USA rather then import (Japan). I just posted this one cause it was cheaper. But I would spend the extra $5 for USA.
Mar 2 2009 3:17PM
0 0
profile picture
niels043
Posts: 814 - Karma: 184
i'm by no means the authority on this but i'm pretty sure the difference on b and h between the import and usa is that the usa is imported and warrantied by canon usa and the import is imported and warrantied by b and h...
Mar 3 2009 9:52AM
0 0
profile picture
*Fujative*
Posts: 8554 - Karma: 183
I was wrong too
http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00Jnfs
Mar 3 2009 10:31AM
0 0
profile picture
chipkalback
Posts: 2255 - Karma: 30
hm interesting, thanks for posting this, still sketched out about buying imported stuff vs. 'usa' listed items tho haha.

i've heard really good things about keh.com if anyone is looking for good used gear
Mar 3 2009 6:21PM
0 0
profile picture
*Fujative*
Posts: 8554 - Karma: 183
keh.com is really good and better prices then BandH for new stuff
Mar 3 2009 11:42PM
0 0
profile picture
whistlerdan
Posts: 90 - Karma: 299
24-105 is far more useful IMO
Mar 4 2009 1:28PM
0 0
profile picture
chipkalback
Posts: 2255 - Karma: 30
completely unrelated to this thread, but love your work dan

Mar 4 2009 2:51PM
0 0
profile picture
*Fujative*
Posts: 8554 - Karma: 183
not quite, the original question is which one should he get. so it is related.
we just took it off on other tangents :)
Mar 4 2009 3:32PM
0 0
profile picture
chipkalback
Posts: 2255 - Karma: 30
yah that reads differently on a screen than it sounded in my head haha.

i meant MY post about loving dan's work was unrelated to the thread!

that 24-105 is also the kit lens for the 5d mkII kit i think, correct? talk about a sweet setup right out of the box.. jesus
Mar 4 2009 3:35PM
0 0
profile picture
*Fujative*
Posts: 8554 - Karma: 183
bahaha! nice work on that. I gotcha.

That is correct. I didnt get the kit, I only got the body. Working on getting that 24-70... I just need $$$$!!
Mar 4 2009 4:40PM
0 0
profile picture
whistlerdan
Posts: 90 - Karma: 299
Thanks man
Mar 4 2009 7:03PM
0 0
profile picture
whistlerdan
Posts: 90 - Karma: 299
Now I have a bit more time i'll elaborate on my earlier reply , I was on my way out to shoot this morning!

So yeah I have the 24-105.  Couple of things I was thinking when i chose that over the 24-70.  Firstly weight, its lighter and I have a lot of stuff in my bag so lighter lenses score major points for me.  Secondly I find that I never shoot action stuff at f2.8 anyway, the depth of field is just too thin for my liking.  In fact i'm in the process of trying to find a new home for my 70-200 2.8 for the same reason.  I'm going to swap it for a 70-200 4.0 to save some weight as I never use the wider apertures anyway.

Thirdly I just love this lens for a walk around lens.  I have my 5dMKII and 24-105 with me all the time and if you are looking for a good lens for traveling it is awesome.
Mar 4 2009 7:09PM
0 0
profile picture
*Fujative*
Posts: 8554 - Karma: 183
Hell ya for the 5dMKII!!
Is your 70-200 2.8 have IS?
Mar 4 2009 8:09PM
0 0
profile picture
chipkalback
Posts: 2255 - Karma: 30
now you have me thinking about doing the exact same thing ...
Mar 4 2009 8:42PM
0 0
profile picture
Aenigma
Posts: 11256 - Karma: 424
I was in the same predicament, and just ordered the 24-70 about two minutes ago.  My reasons for it were that I am more of a portrait/space shooter, and don't do much action stuff.  So f/2.8 is really, really useful to me, and my 70-200 f/4 already covers the longer end (that will change to 2.8 at some point...)  Weight wasn't an issue for me either, I really don't mind a 2 lb piece of glass at all.  Either way you'll end up with a super nice lens, it's just a matter of prioritizing your needs and picking what you need accordingly.
Mar 4 2009 11:12PM
0 0
profile picture
whistlerdan
Posts: 90 - Karma: 299
yep
Mar 5 2009 2:38AM
0 0
profile picture
*Fujative*
Posts: 8554 - Karma: 183
I might be interested in buying it...
Mar 5 2009 11:03AM
0 0
profile picture
niels043
Posts: 814 - Karma: 184
i was watching some stuff on the eos digital learning center about some staff photographers and they all (in more words) said they were over the 2.8 because they are just too heavy. the difference is almost a full pound in the 70-200. and if you look at some of the camera bags of the canon guys they comment on how they carry the f4 in the 70-200 because it is so much smaller and lighter...
Mar 5 2009 10:22PM
0 0
profile picture
chipkalback
Posts: 2255 - Karma: 30
yah, i've heard and read both sides of the story of 2.8 vs 4. personally i shoot concerts pretty often on top of snow stuff, and so i thought having the fastest telephoto possible would be the best choice given what i typically shoot. i'm sure i would miss the lens here and there if i went with the 4, but after holding the 2.8 shooting all day sometimes, i probably won't miss it toooo much. haha.
Mar 6 2009 12:58AM
0 0
profile picture
niels043
Posts: 814 - Karma: 184

yeah for sure man, i mean 2.8 is nice to have in a good wide angle but when you think about it how much are we actually shooting below 4? i also read about some of the canon guys being able to hand hold their cameras with the f4 IS at shutter speeds down to like 1/10 of a second with a crystal clear result...  it's a valid argument i mean with concerts i'm sure you spend quite a bit of time under f4 in which case the 2.8 is probably for you but when you. but for someone who primarily shoots skiing and what not it's really just an extra pound in your camera bag, not to mention another 600 bones, which could be a whole other lens!

Mar 6 2009 7:26AM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)