Guys, I have a dilemma. I own a Canon 24-70 and 70-200 f2.8 non-IS and now seriously looking to buy a 24-105 as a general "walk around" lens. I thought about trading my 24-70 for the 24-105 or sell the 24-70 to buy a 24-105. But no matter how hard I've tried, I just cannot bring myself to give up my 24-70. The IQ and the f/2.8 was a huge factor. The only reason why I would like to get a 24-105 is the weight and a lil extra reach. Also, I travel a lot and would like to bring just one lens with me. I have a one week trip to Cozumel in April and that's why I was seriously looking at 24-105. I shoot a lot of Motocross (out doors) and portrait. My question is, does it make sense for me to keep a 24-70 if I get a 24-105? Anyone else have both in their kit? I shoot a 40D btw. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
I swapped/sold my 28-70L for the 24-105L . Very happy with it.
If you could afford both then go for it but the other way to look at it would be get the 24-105L and sell the 24-70L and buy a couple of fast primes in the range that you use most.
Thank you jcolwell, do you get enough use of both?
Ian, I thought about doing that as well. I've looked at 135L and the 85L and the IQ is amazing on those. I think I might just pull the trigger and say good bye to my 24-70.
They compliment each other, imho they can coexist in a setup.
OTOH it depends on need and other lenses in your kit.
But with the addition of fast primes, in the same range, the need for a 24-70 becomes less. At least if you ignore the convenience of having a fast(ish) standard zoom.
The 24-105 is a great travel lens, especially paired with a fast prime.
Ruy
PS. Since getting the 24-70 my 24-105 has not been used much, as I am more likely to pick up the faster zoom or a prime. But I've been neglecting some of the strong points of the slower zoom. A sign of having too much choice.
One thing is for certain, next vacation it will certainly be in the bag.
I use them both quite a lot. The 24-105L is often on a 5D in the 'day bag' that I keep in my car. I also use the 24-105L and 5D with a Voigtlander 20/3.5 and a longer lens for travel. The longer lens is often a Canon 135L with 1.4x TC. I have a Leica Apo-Telyt-R 180/3.4 on the way, just to see how good it is.
I use the 24-70L for shooting events, landscapes and lots of other stuff. The 24-70L is especially good in low light, where it has faster AF and faster shutter speeds than the 24-105L. I often use the 24-70L on a monopod, in these situations. I'll be carrying my 1DsIII with the 24-70L on it for most of the time during a trip to southern Utah this coming summer. Of course, I'll have a second body with a longer lens on it somewhere nearby at the same time.
I use a 40D and 5D II and find rather than a 24-70 / 24-105 setup, I use a fast prime, the 35 f1.4 L along with the 24-105 which makes a nice pair to give you convenience of a zoom with good range along with the fast aperture of the prime. On the long end, I have a 70-200 f2.8 IS as well so this way you have a fast lens (f2.8 or wider) at 35 and then again at 70 with the 70-200. Works for me.
Thank you so much everyone! I think I'm going to sell/trade my 24-70 for a 24-105 and then get a fast prime or two to add to the kit when I need them. Thanks again!
catheriya wrote:
My question is, does it make sense for me to keep a 24-70 if I get a 24-105?
Lots of people have both. The 24-70L is better suited for people stuff, whereas the 24-105L is a better "walk-around" lens (due to the weight/size, IS and longer reach).
A f/4 zoom + prime(s) is a good way to solve your "dilemma"
I'm sure the possibilities are endless, and I know you are not starting from scratch, but with the 40D I would consider the 17-55 2.8 Is and the 70-200 4 IS. It covers a lot of ground and makes a very nice travel set up.
I'd say keep the 24-70 and the 70-200. Motocross, I think you are not gonna be up close, so you will be shooting with the 70-200 anyways. And as for portraits, just leave that 70-200 on... For all your wide stuff, the 24-70 is perfect.
I generally find 24-70mm is good enough for walk-around. And if you are looking for large zoom, why not just get the 18-200 IS? It's wider, longer, also has IS, AND cheaper compared to the 24-105 IS (since you don't care about the f/2.8 as much as the convinience)! Kidding though, you just gotta find whether you need that IS or not.
I too, have both 24-70 and 24-105, but I'm using 24-105 less and less and I might even trade it for a 100-400.
The 24-70 is my party and people lens and 24-105 is the outdoor lens.
I got the 24-105 first, a year and a half ago when I still had the 30D - but I always wanted to move to full frame. It is a good walk-around lens on both 30D and 5D: it was one of three lenses I took to Hawaii last month (the others were 16-35 and 70-200f/4 IS) and one of the two that was always in the bag. I found the F/4 aperture constraining in some evening and night shots on the beaches and on the Waikiki strip.
For a crop camera, you might want to consider the new 15-85mm IS along with a fast prime like a 35mm. The 15-85 is a great "walk around" range and it seems to be an excellent lens, although not quite as fast as the others.
As to your direct question, I do have both 24-70 and 24-105 and find them both useful enough to keep. However, I generally use them on a full frame 5D-II.
Ah, my current and never ending dilemma. I once had both and sold the 24-70L thinking I could use the 24-105LIS and a 35L/1.4. Then I realized my style utilized the 24-70L when I didn't have time to swap lenses and needed a solid low light zoom (ie weddings/events). So I sold the 24-105LIS and picked up another 24-70L. Then, I realized how much I hated lugging the 24-70L around for "fun" shoots due to its bulkiness and weight. Picked up another 24-105LIS, and now... the 24-70 comes out for critical work/low light only. BTW, I also sold the 35L f/1.4 in the process - the one lens I should have NEVER sold.
In the end, for my purposes, I've realized that both lenses can live together in harmony, for both have their callings.
Not to confuse you anymore, but have you ever given thought to a 17-55 f/2.8 IS? That, plus your 70-200 f/2.8 would give you a perfect 2 lens kit for the 40D.
jfulton, I've looked at other EF-S as well but I've seen mixed reviews as far as the IQ goes? I'm no pro by any means, I'm just a serious hobbyist. I thought about some of the people on FM suggestions that I could get rid of the 24-70 and get a 24-105 with a fast prime or two. I was looking to add a 135L to my kit as well. I use my 70-200 f2.8 a lot for Motocross because my family own a Motocross track in Indiana so I get up close and personal in the action. I really like my 24-70 but I would love a tad bit more reach and a tad bit lighter and it would be using mainly for traveling/outdoors. I thought about keeping both 24-70 and 24-105 but I don't think I'll get much use of the 24-70 once I get the 24-105 and a 135L.
Considering your main use will be outdoors, the 24-104L makes the most sense. When I had a 40D, I REALLY enjoyed this focal length and setup.
The 135L is blazing fast at AF. I found it a strange focal length for a 1.6x, but great results when it worked, especially if you're looking for fast reach. FWIW, an 85/1.8 felt more natural to me as it was closer to a 135mm on a crop cam.
I have both as well. The 24-105L is great for travel since it's lighter & gives 30% more zoom. However. The minimum focus distance is not as close as the 24-70L. I find the color density better on the 24-70, which is why I use that for portraits. Both are very sharp though
Kidding though, you just gotta find whether you need that IS or not.