I'm sorry for bringing these comparison threads up again, but I'm really torn! I've had my Canon 17-40L for about a month now, and while I love it, I've been wishing for a faster lens or something with a bit more reach. My choices come down to the Canon 24-70 and 24-105IS. I know these two have been compared to death and each person's "mileage may very". This is how I see it as of now:

1. The extra stop in speed seems negligible when my shutter speed is already slow. For example:
If my shutter speed is 1/15 @ f/4, then it will only be 1/30 @ f/2.8. While that can make the difference between a photo and trash, I feel like if my subject is stationary for that long to begin with, the IS will be more beneficial. This is of course an extreme example.

2. On the other hand, IS will be some what useless if I need to take pictures of fast moving objects indoors and I'm not able to use my 580EX (weddings, indoor concerts, etc.).

I know this has been brought up and it's really up to the person taking the photos, but I'm so torn between the two. I feel like I want both, but that definitely will not happen. I MAINLY shoot indoor events such as church events that can get by with the f/4 and IS, but there will be times where I wished for that faster glass (but could have definitely benefitted from IS, OR BOTH!). Ahh what to do!

Have any of you made a decision between the two lenses, and if so, can you please share your experiences? Wither either lens, I plan on purchasing a 85/1.8 lens as well some time in the near future. As of now, I'm planning to sell the 17-40L and the 70-200 f4L to make the purchase.

i choose the 24-70 over the 24-105. the IS doesnt make it up to one stop down, atleast for me. if that helps you

It really is a toss up. The 24-105 balances well on the 20D when compared to the 24-70, but at f4 in a dark setting the 20D AF may "hunt". I noticed the 20D is better at AF when using f/2.8 lenses. If you upgrade to the 20D replacement or the 5D, AF may be better and the 24-105 works better in this regard. The problem is that the 24-105 distorts at 24 and this becomes very evident looking through the 5D VF - although it is still sharp. If you can live that, then ok. Otherwise, I would suggest sticking with the 24-70. New copies of this lens are suppose to be superb.

I was in the same delimma....I decided to get the 24-105 and I'll save up for the Tammy 28-75 instead. Not as good as the L lense but very good bang for the buck in comparison and then you can have the best of 2 worlds. I went with the 24-105 now just because of the extra reach and with still subjects and IS you'll actually get more stops then a 2.8 glass.

Sometime I will get the 85 1.8 also and still trying to decide on a wide lens..........and then I'll get a new body.............and then I'll get a 580EX...and then I want.....

Thanks for the replies.

rsg_1: The 24-105 can't be THAT slow in regards to the AF speed right? So far all my lenses snap into response are are very fast. As for the distortion, how bad exactly is it? I don't find the distortion on my 17-40L to be that bad, but I have never really "tested" FOR it. Thanks.

sero: Hmm sounds like a good plan, but I've tried the Tamron 28-75 (as in holding it) and did not really like the build. The zoom ring seems to work in the opposite way as Canon's zoom ring which was a bit uncomfortable. I'm sure I could get used to it, but not too sure. I would rather put the money to a 85/1.8. It could be a possibility though! Thanks for the suggestion.

I would be asking do you have more use for a longer lens or more need to shoot in low light?
The one that comes out on top should give you the answer.
Even then in low light F4 and I.S is pretty good.

I had the 24-70L and traded it for a 24-105L IS. I also have the Tamron 28-75 as well. Personally, I love the 24-105L and for my uses find it to be almost perfect. If it were f2.8 and the same size it would be perfect. If I want better bokeh I use my primes.

Chris Fawkes, to be honest, I would love to have both!

Hmm, thanks for the input akvisuals. I think I'm slowly leaning towards the 24-105IS. Still unsure.

What do you shoot more of and on what body? If you will upgrade soon and don't want soft corners then the 70...if you don't care the 105. I went with the 70 for the sharp all around, 2.8, and the fact that it is cheaper due to everyone dumping there's for the 105...their upgrade fever, my deal

Paul

I would get the 24-105 IS. You can get an extra fast prime for those times that you need a fast lens that really makes a difference (an f/1.4 or f/1.8).

I shoot with a 20D, my one and only body. I do plan on moving to a full frame body some time, but not very soon. Maybe when a 5D replacement comes out. I take pictures of a variety of subjects. While I'm just a hobbyist, I like to try my hand at just about everything. Weddings to sports to casual candids to landscapes to just about anything! Just want something very versatile.

Gijs, I've thought of that and might just move in that direction. I've already got the 50/1.4 and I'm looking into the 85/1.8. That might just work! Still, it would be nice to have a f/2.8 lens in the 24-70 =P range. Yikes, decisions...

Hi,

I would try a small prime 35/2 or 28/1,8 for available light photography. These lenses can be found 2nd hand! The combination with a 85/1,8 is perfect.


HK

I also have a 20D, and used to own the 24-70L. The pictures from the lens were really great, but the lens is quite heavy. When using it at its higher focal lengths, there were also definitely times I wished it had IS. I eventually sold the 24-70L and purchased the 24-105L. The 24-105L is lighter, smaller, has longer range, and has IS. The only downside is that it is 1 stop slower. But with the very usable 1600 ISO on the 20D, that 1 stop doesn't really bother me too much. I've found that even if I have to shoot underexposed in the worst case, I can usually recover 1-2 stops in post-processing the RAWs anyway. I'm just a hobbyist, but that also means overall weight and usability matters a lot to me. My 70-200L IS rarely leaves the house except for dedicated photo expeditions because I get lazy. I find I use the 24-105L much more than I did the 24-70L for the same reason as well. The 24-70L is front heavy on my 20D (no grip) and doesn't feel balanced. The hood on it is also ridiculously large, so I end up leaving it home too. Lastly, I'd say I only have about average hand-steadiness. Shooting 70mm at 1/60s is a challenge for me. I have friends who have steadier hands, making the IS less of an advantage. But the IS is godsend for me.

For me, the 24-105L fits my uses better. Though I can see why some people would prefer the 24-70L instead.

>> I'm planning to sell the 17-40L and the 70-200 f4L to make the purchase.

I would not recommend that move.

So far great advice! I can relate to you GXCross! I'm fine shooting at ISO 1600 and even 3200 at times.

Yakim, I know its a drastic move, but I'm planning on getting a 70-200IS not too long after this move. Well, by the end of summer seems likely. I usually use my 17-40L with the 580EX and at times when I cannot use the flash, I can manage to hand hold the lens fairly well. At the telephoto end of the 70-200 f4, I can only salvage VERY FEW photos due to camera shake (this is all indoors by the way). While I love the 70-200 f4, it's not getting much use now.

I will not be without a telephoto lens for too long. If I must, I may just repurchase the 70-200 f4, or I'll keep it and push back the 24- back a bit. I wish I could be more decisive! Yikes!

Have you thought about getting the 70-200/2.8 IS before getting the 24-105/4 IS?

I have both, and use now use the 24-105L more than the 24-70L. The extra range and IS make it a much more useful 'walkabout lens'.

The 24-70L is a great lens, but it's bigger, heavier and less range. The only thing going for it over the 24-105L is the extra stop. When I need it I will use it, otherwise the 24-105L is far more useful to me.

The extra stop doesn't just give 2x the shutter speed but it also gets you a more blurred background to help your subject to better stand out, esp when the background is busy.

The 24-70 balances nicely on the 20D (no grip) if you've got a flash on it. The 2.8 aperature helps let in more ambient light for the background to convey the right mood (useful in dark rooms) and raises shutter speed, while the flash (set to -2 FEC, for example) helps reduce shadows on the face of your subject. Set FEC so that it isn't obvious that a flash is being used. On an ETTL-2 body (e.g 20D) set the WB to Flash so that the overall scene still looks warm(ish).

On a 20D I would clearly go with the 24-70 alone because the af is better when the max apature is 2.8 or higher.

I was just torn with this decision too, but I have the Tammy 28-75. I recently tried the 17-40L, and was blown away with its focusing speed compared to the Tammy, so I wanted to get an L lens. I mostly take pictures of my two little boys and various events, and the focusing speed matters a lot. Like you, I couldn't decide between the 24-105 and the 24-70. I ended up buying the 70-200 IS for now. I decided that the Tammy is functional at the moment, and cheap. But really, I'm hoping for Canon to eventually release an IS version of the 24-70 down the road. Wishful thinking I'm sure, but who knows.

Getting IS on the 70-200, a lens that I know I've wanted, will also let me play around with it a lot, and that will help me determine if IS or f/2.8 is really more important to me going forward. So basically, I just put off your decision and got a lens I was sure of, which will help experiment.

If anything, I was leaning towards the 24-105. IS seems to be great, and you can always get a nice prime for bokeh if you need it, or low light. f/2.8 seems to slow fo rmost dark settings anyway, where IS may help at events with slower moving people.

The f2.8 aperture alone will assist in focus lock and is worth the price when shooting in not so ideal situations. You are letting in twice the amount of light which only helps with focus.

The 24-105 IS is a very nice lens and I really do like it. The IS on this lens is amazing and it was letting me shoot down to 1/15th sec and still get sharp images.... now that's impressive.

Seems like in your case, the 24-105 L might be more appropriate as you want a lens you can use as a walk around and a more versatile lens. The extra reach of the 24-105L might come in handy. However, when I need the shot and don't have a second chance at getting it, I use the 24-70L. The resolution of the 24-70L wide open is spectacular.

I know I might not be helping here, but these are two very nice lenses and it's hard deciding which one to get. If I had to start all over again, I would get the 24-105L IS first and then, if I needed the extra stop, would upgrade to the 24-70L when I had the $$$ or the need.

I had them both and sold my 24-105. The extra stop is crucial for me. In some situations I was very disapointed and cursed myself for taking only 24-105. If you're shooting in low light IS does a great job but you can't freeze time. If I were you I'd rather not listen to others but think on my own. How will you use this lens? Why do you need it? The answer'll be obvious IMO.

Oh, and about the weight... I don't feel tired after a day spent with MkII with 24-70 on it. Those who spent 7 or more hours holding 645 will understand me.

Edited by LiveWire on Feb 02, 2006 at 05:15 PM GMT

Edited by LiveWire on Feb 02, 2006 at 05:16 PM GMT

I had both and eventually decided to sell 24-70. I liked the DOF on it, but after converting to FF DSLR I found tha I need more reach for the type of shooting I do. I miss the extra stop, but the sharpness of 24-105 makes it a clear winner. The gain in sharpness is probably due to the superb IS performance, as I mostly shoot handheld. 24-105 is much lighter and more suited to walkaround lens role especially for FF cameras.

Thank you everyone, for very subjective... reasoning! I have considered getting the 70-200IS first, but the telephoto end is not something I shoot in often.

I agree about the difference in bokeh, but as someone else mentioned, I can always use a prime if thats what I need. I think I'm leaning towards the 24-105IS now, but I won't be sure until its in my hands

Thanks again, you guys have been very helpful!

I had a really hard time deciding between the 24-70 and 24-105 for all the reasons mentioned. For me there were two deciding factors.

1) Better focus on the 20D @ f/2.8
2) I shoot a lot of kids indoors so I need the fastest glass possible.

I would love it if Canon made a 24-105 f/2.8L IS, but that would be even bigger and heavier than the 24-70. In the end, I think I made the right choice and have had no regrets and no plans to get the 24-105. Next lens for me is the 70-200 2.8 IS.


-- Mark