You should buy the 17-55 IS, hands down. It has speed and IS going for it, and you will not miss the range from 55-70mm. For travel and landscape you may often wish to go wider than 24mm, but 55mm is plenty long enough for many portraits on a crop body.
azurekenzo wrote:
For the image quality, although my 24-70mm is a good copy, but I cant see the difference between the 24-70mm and 24-105mm. Both are excellent.
If you shoot portraits or wedding most of the time, 24-70mm would be good for you. For walk around and traveling, 24-105mm is the best.
I agree with Azurekenzo. I own a very sharp copy of the 24-70 F2.8L and I also field tested a 24-105L that I was consirdering purchasing from a local camera store. At F4 I couldn't spot any discernable differences between the two lenses. Therefore I don't think IQ should be the deciding factor. It all comes down to the extra 35mm and IS you get from the 24-105 vs the 2.8 you get from the 24-70.
The main reason I kept my 24-70 F2.8 is that for some indoor shots I sometimes want the look of the 2.8 bokeh (at the 50-70mm range) and it was hard giving up such a sharp copy of this lens.
I don't want to make another thread, so I'm asking the same question in this one, since I'm in the same boat.
I currently have:
Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
Canon 17-40mm f/4L USM
Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
I don't have anything between the 40-100mm range, but I want the new lens to replace the 17-40. I shoot mostly on vacation, landscapes, family, etc, but I also volunteer at a lot of corporate events. I use my 580EXII with the 17-40 (mostly) and don't feel like I have enough range , but after using the 50mm1.8 a few times, pictures come out much better without flash. Ideally, I would like a 24-105 2.8, but that doesn't exist
I can't decide which one would fit me best. I can't figure out if 2.8 or the extra 35mm would be more convenient for me.
What are your thoughts?
DarkFall01 wrote:
I don't want to make another thread, so I'm asking the same question in this one, since I'm in the same boat.
I currently have:
Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
Canon 17-40mm f/4L USM
Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
I don't have anything between the 40-100mm range, but I want the new lens to replace the 17-40. I shoot mostly on vacation, landscapes, family, etc, but I also volunteer at a lot of corporate events. I use my 580EXII with the 17-40 (mostly) and don't feel like I have enough range , but after using the 50mm1.8 a few times, pictures come out much better without flash. Ideally, I would like a 24-105 2.8, but that doesn't exist
I can't decide which one would fit me best. I can't figure out if 2.8 or the extra 35mm would be more convenient for me.
What are your thoughts?...Show more →
My thoughts:
1. 24mm isn't very wide on a 1.6 crop, but if you don't mind having 2 lenses in the bag while travelling then 24 is wide enough
2. since you already will need the 10-22, then you want something reasonably long so you won't need 3 lenses in the bag
3. there are a ton of people who bought the 24-105 as a kit with the 5d/5d2, so the used market is flooded right now. translation: barely used 24-105's can be had for much cheaper than 24-70's, and are readily available
4. if I had the cash, I'd get a 24-105 to pair with my 24-70
Galibier wrote:
Do not take at face value those who say the 24-70 will autofocus faster and more accurately because it is f/2.8 rather than f/4. There is far more involved in the speed and accuracy of AF than widest available aperture. For example, both of my f/4 lenses (24-105 and 70-200) focus faster than, and as accurately as, all of my faster lenses (50/1.2, 50/1.8, 85/1.2, 100/2.8, Tamron 28-75/2.8). I've used both the 24-70 and 24-105. AF with the 24-105 is as accurate and fast as AF with the 24-70. IQ between the two lenses is also very, very similar. What you should consider in making your decision is (1) IS versus f/2.8, (2) range, and (3) size and weight....Show more →
To a certain extent your correct that its not just about the wider apature but of the lenses you give the 50 and 85 L's are not renouned as fast AF the Tamron a type of Micro motor so is the the 50/1.8 and the 100/2.8 is a macro so is not setup for fast AF. Those lenses being just as accurate well the DOF is larger at F4 so thefocus has more scope to get it wrong and still get a shot 'in Focus'
Ian.Dobinson wrote:
To a certain extent your correct that its not just about the wider apature but of the lenses you give the 50 and 85 L's are not renouned as fast AF the Tamron a type of Micro motor so is the the 50/1.8 and the 100/2.8 is a macro so is not setup for fast AF. Those lenses being just as accurate well the DOF is larger at F4 so thefocus has more scope to get it wrong and still get a shot 'in Focus'
Exactly. All things being equal, a faster lens may focus faster and more accurately than a slower lens, but all things are never equal between different lenses. It is just as likely, and in my experience more likely, that a faster lens will actually focus more slowly, and no more "accurately" (in the sense that what you want in focus is in focus), than a slower lens.
Galibier wrote:
Exactly. All things being equal, a faster lens may focus faster and more accurately than a slower lens, but all things are never equal between different lenses. It is just as likely, and in my experience more likely, that a faster lens will actually focus more slowly, and no more "accurately" (in the sense that what you want in focus is in focus), than a slower lens.
Huh? An f/2.8 lens will be focused to within 1/3 of DOF (2.8 DOF that is) with a high precision sensor (a la center point), whereas an f/5.6 lens will focus within DOF (5.6 DOF that is). Assuming you are shooting something 3 dimensional like a face, what you want in focus may be on the edge of DOF with an f/5.6 lens. Say you focus on an eye, and the AF sets the focus point farther back but with the eye just within the leading edge of DOF. In that case the nose, forehead, and hairline are all going to be closer than the edge of DOF and thus OOF.
Everyone has covered the AF issues with focus at 2.8, and whether IS wins over f/2.8 depends on subject movement.
The 24-105 can produce great pictures, and can be "sharp", and if you read quantitative reviews of the lenses they may seem equal if you're just looking at resolution charts, LP/mm etc.... Qualitatively, however, I'd say that there's something special about the quality of the pics from the 24-70 that the 24-105 simply doesn't have. There's tone, smoothness, colour and bokeh aspects to consider as well.
I don't have a 24-70L, but I do have a 28-70L, and there is something special about it. I was itching for a 24-105L before I got the 28-70. The itch has gone away somewhat but the convenience of the 24-105 form factor and weight has me thinking about one again.
I've loaned the 28-70 out a couple of times too, and the users have tended to 'oooh' about the results it can produce, and it doesn't need to be shot at 2.8 to look special.
Both lenses can produce excellent image quality, and that is hardly a reason to choose between them. More significant decision points include:
size and weight
focal length range
maximum aperture size
image stabilization
how either fits into your system of lenses.
Each has its advantages and disadvantages for different photographers, but either can produce really excellent image quality.
Dan
Rick Ethuen wrote:
After spending time on FM over the past year I realize I have much to learn, so please be patient. This is probably a basic question, but I am not clear on the answer and have not found it in the many threads I have read regarding comparisons of these two lenses. I understand the low light advantage if shooting at f/2.8, but what if any advantages does a f/2.8 lens have over the f/4 lens if you are shooting at f/4 or higher? In low light, can the IS make up for the f/4 with longer exposure compared to the f/2.8. I am deciding between these two lenses. My top priority is image quality. The reach of the 24-105 as a walk around is appealing, but the sense I get from reading threads is that the 24-70 produces better images in the same hands. I currently have the 40D with the kit lens(28-135 f/3.5-5.6), a 70-200 f/2.8L IS, and want to upgrade from the kit lens. Photographic interests at this point center around family, sports, travel and landscape.
Any input is appreaciated....Show more →
timbop wrote:
My thoughts:
1. 24mm isn't very wide on a 1.6 crop, but if you don't mind having 2 lenses in the bag while travelling then 24 is wide enough
2. since you already will need the 10-22, then you want something reasonably long so you won't need 3 lenses in the bag
3. there are a ton of people who bought the 24-105 as a kit with the 5d/5d2, so the used market is flooded right now. translation: barely used 24-105's can be had for much cheaper than 24-70's, and are readily available
4. if I had the cash, I'd get a 24-105 to pair with my 24-70 ...Show more →
I know 24mm isn't wide enough most of the time, but it would be wide enough for taking pictures at events and other vacation stuff. I'm usually in the 24+ range anyway. If I need to go wide, I'd use the 10-22 like you said (I'm not selling my 17-40 btw). I don't mind having 2-3 lenses in the bag.
Ideally, I'd have both, but I can't see myself spending that much money on a hobby right now I don't know...maybe I'll go the 24-105 route
Thanks for all the well considered advice and opinions. You are all alot of help, but I am still in the research mode and will monitor this thread for any further information. Thanks again for all the help.
The 24-105 distorts quite a bit more than the 24-70 at 24mm. It was for this reason that I switched back to the 24-70 and have not looked back since. Bokeh and background blur is definitely nicer with the f2.8 and the extra stop is great.
Rick, I have (or had) both. My 24-70 was stolen a few months ago and I have been using my 24-105 instead, whilst waiting for the 24-70 to be replaced. I finally got told today that the store has it in stock now and I can pick it up tomorrow. I can't wait! It's hard to describe the difference, but for one - the colours are richer and it's just a fantastic portrait type lens. My 24-105 is my walk around lens, but the 24-70 will live on my 5D for most of the time.
Which to get if you only get one? Good question and one I can't answer for you. The 24-105 is a great lens, but I prefer the 24-70 at the same focal lengths.
bobbytan wrote:
The 24-105 distorts quite a bit more than the 24-70 at 24mm. It was for this reason that I switched back to the 24-70 and have not looked back since. Bokeh and background blur is definitely nicer with the f2.8 and the extra stop is great.
I'm not sure the distortion is an issue for the OP (profile indicates a 40D) unless a FF upgrade is imminent. The rest is up to what things are being shot.
mirageII wrote:
I'm not sure the distortion is an issue for the OP (profile indicates a 40D) unless a FF upgrade is imminent. The rest is up to what things are being shot.
just a thought
Are you saying that on a crop camera, like the 40D, the distortion will be less than on a FF?
I have had both. 24-70, then 24-105, then back to 24-70. In the end, the background blur (bokeh) made the difference. 24-105 background = scrambled eggs, 24-70 background = creamy heaven.
bobbytan wrote:
The 24-105 distorts quite a bit more than the 24-70 at 24mm. It was for this reason that I switched back to the 24-70 and have not looked back since. Bokeh and background blur is definitely nicer with the f2.8 and the extra stop is great.
I use the 24-105 and, yes, it does have more barrel distortion at 24mm than the 24-70. But each lens has its strengths and weaknesses, so you have to consider the effect of each element on your particular shooting. I can understand why some would prefer the 24-70 for their work, but I understand (obviously) why others prefer the 24-105.
The "distortion at 24mm" issue is one of these. For my part, it rarely proves to be an issue in the sort of photography I do. But sometimes in a particular shot the curvature in lines parallel to the edges of the frame can be noticeable. (This is true of many, many fine lenses, by the way.) When it is a problem I either use an alternative lens or I simple correct in post-processing.
There is quite a bit of mythology about supposed problems with post-processing corrections of issue like this. However, I have found that in almost all cases barrel distortion can be corrected in post with no visible problems even in a pretty good sized print.
The following example illustrates. In includes two versions of a small 100% from the very far corner of a photograph made on a full frame body. (Not with the 24-105, but the point should be the same.) Can you tell which half was corrected in post and which half is as it came from the camera?
If you look closely you should be able to detect differences between the two images - after all, one was altered in post. But can you state definitively which is better? And, if so and keeping in mind that the full image if printed at this resolution would be about five feet wide, could it possibly matter?
I've had both for 18 months or so. I have just managed to get hold of a 5D2 and I've decided the 24-105 is staying and I've just put my 24-70 on 'buy and sell'.
I got some great shots with the 24-70 but I found I was always reaching for the 24-105. Suits my style better. I think the debate, (which comes up monthly) is really a matter of personal preference. Go to a store with a good return policy, get them both and see how they fit in with you. Return the one you don't like.
Lenses are personal, everybody sees different pros and cons in each lens.
