I was really excited at the prospect of the 24-105 and a mid-range zoom suited for a FF (5D). I've had the 24-70 and older 28-80, but never liked the bulk of it despite the image qualities.

So, despite the specs compared are there any good pictures of a 24-70L and 24-105 side by side? the couple I've seen don't look dramatically different.

Also - bugging me on the 24-105, is the lenshood that travels with the front element while zooming, leaving that un protected when protruding as opposed to the 24-70.

any recommendations for photoshop cs books. I have used Deke McClellend's (sic) "One on One" and found it to be very helpful. I am looking for something with more detail and something I can use as a reference, so I can go back and find info without searching forever.

thanks
Mark

The photoshop CS book for digital Photographers by Scott kelby - very well layed out

Am missing something here? The hood does not travel with the front element on the 24-70L meaning the front element ends up stick out of the hood (or close too sticking out) whereas the hood travels with the front element on the 24-105L. The later case gives more protection to the front element at all focal lengths not the other way around as you suggest.
As to the best lens its a matter of choice - I seem to have a good copy of both and optical they are similar (just a bit more pin cusion and barrel on 24-105 than on the 24-70), the 24-105 is lighter but not as fast, the 24-70 is fast and the 24-105 is lighter and has IS. Which one I carry depends on the job - the 24-70 when shooting low light, from 'fixed' base or when low distortion is needed and the 24-105 when moving around a lot and when distortion is not as important.

The 24-105 is shorter and a little lighter. The size/weight difference does not make much difference in most camera bags, but is more noticeable hanging around one's neck for extended periods. Yes the hood on the 24-105 sucks, being more useful as a bumper guard than to prevent flare. The IS of the 24-105 is uncanny and should be the decisive factor IMO. I prefer the 24-70 when the IS is not needed.

EB

Dear tdefriez,

The hood for the 24-70L is designed that way so that it is works better at all focal length. when you zoom out to 24mm, the front element is extended and you get a "shorter" hood. when you zoom out to 70mm, the front element is deeply recessed and you end up with a "longer" hood.

I have the hoods for both the 24/1.4L and the 70-200/2.8L and what i can tell you is that the hood for the 24-70L at both ends offer the same amount of hood protection. If you did not have the extending front element of the 24-70L, you will end up with a hood that is either too small (imagine a 24/1.4L hood on the 70-200/2.8) or too long (70-200/2.8 hood on a 24/1.4L)

The design for the hood is meant for the best flaring protection NOT for protection against bumps... UV filters are for that...

I've found " Real World" series by Adobe/Peachpit and also "Visual Quickstart Guide" series by Peachpit to be very useful as reference books for PS.

Does this thread have a split personality? Where did the PS books come into this topic?

As a recent new owner of the 24-70L I have to say it was a hard choice to pick between it and the 24-105 f4. Really my decision came about based more on the lenses that I currently owned and the ranges that they cover. I really wanted a fast zoom that was very high quality and covered a good mid focal range. On the 20D I find the 24-70L to be just about ideal. I really love the 70-200f4 for it's lightweight and sharp contrasty images so the extra zoom of the 24-105f4 wan't a big deal for me. The IS is probably the most tempting thing. I wish Canon would make a 70-200 f4 IS. The 2.8 up here in Canada is $2500! The first generation IS on the 100-400L which I'm familiar with works wonders so the new lens and IS must be great. In the end though whether you choose the new f4 or the f2.8 they are both terrific lenses, I think I could be happy with either one. They seem to have similar quality which is really surprising because I always felt the 24-70L was something special when it came to contrast and color saturation in comparison to most other L zooms and 3rd party lenses. As others have mentioned I really like the lens hood on the 24-70L. When the hood is on it is like you have a non-extending zoom - it is all internal. Much less concern for getting grit/water inside the lens.

# 41 wrote:
Does this thread have a split personality? Where did the PS books come into this topic?

I was just thinking that. What's going on?

This thread has two titles. Something is wrong with the DB I guess.

EB

discreet wrote:
The design for the hood is meant for the best flaring protection NOT for protection against bumps... UV filters are for that...

Err..... I thought UV filters were for protection against UV Most people 'just happen' to use them for bump protection as well, but that was not their primary design purpose.

I also found that on some lenses, the UV filter degrades the results significantly, both on focussing (i.e. getting a sharp image) and additional flare coming from the UV filter itself. Even manually focussed shots were not as good.

The hood OTOH enhances things on those same lenses be keeping the flare out and letting the focus circuitry concentrate on what it is suposed to be doing, instead of getting confused by possible flare. This does not seems to effect all lenses, but certainly does effect 'some'.

Too many people (my self included - in the past at least) buy $1,000 lenses and stick cheap UV filters on the front for 'protection'. I took most of them off.

I hate shooting without hoods now though .....

Dear Discrete

I have the hoods for both the 24/1.4L and the 70-200/2.8L and what i can tell you is that the hood for the 24-70L at both ends offer the same amount of hood protection. If you did not have the extending front element of the 24-70L, you will end up with a hood that is either too small (imagine a 24/1.4L hood on the 70-200/2.8) or too long (70-200/2.8 hood on a 24/1.4L)

Are we talking the same lens here 24-70L f2.8

What it is 2"+ to about 0.5"! I have both 24-105L f4 and 24-70L f2.8 and would never put the hood from one on the other - they are designed for the lens regardless of whether front element moves or not. Actually I find the hood on the 24-105 (which moves with the front element) supresses flare more across the zooms range than the hood for the 24 -70 does - on 24-70 the hood is at is shortest at 24mm where flare is at its worst (large front element)! I often find I need to shade it at 24mm (I live in Arizona, always sunny).

As someone else states filters and hoods are not really 'buffer' devices they just work that way.