In a recent thread on the 24-105 it was suggested that the 24-70 outperforms the 24-105 to which it was properly suggest by someone that the claim should be backed up. To that end, and being a former owner of both (the 24-105 went back) I suggest we put up good shots from both lenses and let the battle begin - nicely. Please no flaming of other people's work (though yesterday's multi page attack on someone's 85mm post was a hoot to read) so that we can all get a better sense of what each of the lenses is really capable of.

I'll start with three from the 24-70 with the two portraits being down and dirty shots at Christmas events taken with a 580ex and Lightsphere. On the shot of the young girl, I have softened her face a tad because young ladies (and older ones) tend to get upset if the photo shows every imperfection which the 24-70 did.

Nice photos Henry!

I've almost always use my 24-70 between f2.8 to f4, therefore I can't imagine substituting it with the 24-105...


at 70mm, f3.2

70mm, f3.2 again

I have both, and they are used for different purposes. If you want shallow DOF, or perhaps focusing in lower light then you need the 24-70L. If you need a longer zoom and IS, then the 24-105L is more suitable.

f2.8 will not make up for IS when you don't want a shallow DOF. IS on an F4 lens can't give you shallow DOF.

They are not in competition with each other, they are complimentary, hence I have both.

at 54mm, f3.2

DaveEP wrote:
, they are complimentary,



i quite agree, it really depends on your use...

I am also very tempted by 24-105IS as my general use walkaround lens

(just in case you are wondering, the 24-70 LNIB which appears in my signature is my friend's lens, he's getting a 24-105IS...)

Powerful images Zane! Very special.

Dave, I agree - to a point. That point being I don't think I can justify owning both. Well, I can but my wife can't.

Nice shots HRow. Somehow I think if our friend in the 85mm thread yesterday had posted such wonderful shots he might not have incurred the wrath that he did.

The 24-70mm has been my favorite lens; it is great for landscape and awesome for semi closeup. Here are two shots using that lens. Recently, I bought a 24-105, not to replace the 24-70L but to compliment it, at least at this moment. We will see where the chips may fall later....

Machu Picchu, Peru - 28mm at f/8.0

Thanks Henry... both my wife and I also can't justify owning both. I know that I will pick up the 24-105 most of the time if i have both just because it's a lot lighter to carry around....

Wow, i've been trying to decide between the 24-105 and 24-70 for my next purchase and I think I'm gonna find a sharp copy of the 24-70, it would be cheaper, the photos look amazing and I'd like to keep everything 2.8 or faster.

thanks for the photos guys.

patrick

Wow AGeoJO! Great shots. The 2nd looks almost hand painted.

A couple from my 24-70, although I am a proponent of both lenses, since I feel they both have their place in the bag.

F5 at 58mm

ya eeprete....nice shallow DOF!! I also won't hesitate to use the lens at 2.8 if i feel the need to...

Zane Yau wrote:
Thanks Henry... both my wife and I also can't justify owning both. I know that I will pick up the 24-105 most of the time if i have both just because it's a lot lighter to carry around....


That was why I bought one and I really liked the IS. When I started looking through my shoots with it, I just didn't think it was as good as the 24-70. I still hope that it was just my copy as the 24-105 has lots of advantages.

Any 24-105 shots to enter the challenage?

24-70L from this past weekend.

Edit: significantly downsized for the web

and one 24-70L "snapshot" natural light portrait.

Wow, GREAT shot, RGS65. That shot alone may convince me to go with the 24-70.

Why I like the 24-105:

IS - shot at 1/8th:

I have the Canon 28-135 IS and was thinking of selling it and getting the 24-105. I'd like to see a comparison of the two lenses (24-105 vs 24-70) having shot the exact thing on the same camera body and the same exposure. That's the only way to get a real test. Now, if the 24-105 was a f.2.8...

rjeyre wrote:
Wow, GREAT shot, RGS65. That shot alone may convince me to go with the 24-70.


Thanks man. I like it a lot. I wanted the 105 for the length, but I really prefer f 2.8. I decided long ago I would not again buy a lens slower than 2.8 if I had the option. Anyway, the 24-70L is a great lens. I think I could do with less on my XT, but I am buying lenses for my NEXT body, not this one.

Edited by RGS65 on Jan 20, 2006 at 12:02 AM GMT

W9JIM wrote:
I have the Canon 28-135 IS and was thinking of selling it and getting the 24-105. I'd like to see a comparison of the two lenses (24-105 vs 24-70) having shot the exact thing on the same camera body and the same exposure. That's the only way to get a real test. Now, if the 24-105 was a f.2.8...


There are threads on this from about a month back - rather heated at times - like the current 85 debate boiling over as I type.....

There seems to be 105 lovers detractors. Those, like me, who don't particularly like slow lenses, and have no working need for IS, don't see the attraction for the price. I am an f stop over IS guy everytime, so no use trying to convince me. I can't see paying all the $ for IS. I will pay it for the extra stop. I think IS is cool and interesting, but primarily a marketing gimick to overprice lenses.

It's not a gimmick on long lenses - no question that it has revolutionized the usabiility of long lenses. Ask any nature photographer.

I just purchased the 24-105 and should get it tomorrow. I would venture a guess that IS will be invaluable on this lens for landscape shooters - where an extra stop is a waste.

Depends on what you use it for whether the stop or IS is better.

IS is no gimmick.

Heres a 24-105.......ASA 800......f4...at about 100mm