# 24-70L or 24-105L (Travel Photography)



## TNHphoto (May 20, 2013)

Hi everyone,

I've been agonizing over this question for weeks now so I wanted to get some opinions. I'm upgrading to full frame this summer (either a 5D Mark ii or iii) and I want to get an excellent walkaround zoom as my main lens. I'm mainly interested in travel photography (landscapes, beaches, sunsets, outdoor portraits, and the occasional indoor shot). I don't use a tripod when I'm backpacking.

I'm torn between the 24-70L and the 24-105L. 

I hear from pro friends that the 24-70 is the sharper lens, but I worry about not having IS and the convenience of the extra focal length.

Any feedback would be great! I suppose I could rent both too, but taking two rentals traveling can get pretty pricey...

Thanks!


----------



## The_Traveler (May 20, 2013)

At this focal length, IS isn't an issue unless your technique is terrible.
From years of travelling with a D700 and 24-70, I can tell you it is heavy to schlep around and intimidating to subjects.
All of my travel pictures were with D700 (early ones with D200) and 95% using 24-70.


----------



## Derrel (May 20, 2013)

I shot the 24-105 f/4 L for about three and a half years as my "main" walkaround lens on my 5D classic. It's an okay lens, it really is. Size- and weight wise, it's not too bad.  670 grams on the 24-105, 805 grams on the 24-70 Mark II.

I think IS is good when you want to do smooth, slow-speed panning shots, and when you're shooting in windy conditions, or when you're out of breath and breathing hard, have elevated heart rate, or when you're shooting from a moving platform (boat, ferry, train, car,etc). Both are good lenses. One costs twice as much as the other. The 24-105-L has been paired in kits with the 5D, 5D-II,and 5D-III, so there are TONS of them available used for around $850 or even less occasionally.


----------



## TheBiles (May 20, 2013)

24-70. I'd never trade aperture over image stabilization given the equal choice. 

Sent from my Droid DNA


----------



## goodguy (May 20, 2013)

Get the 24-70mm and the 5DIII and not the 5DII.


----------



## Jad (May 20, 2013)

I really like my 24~105 f4. It has a great range and I bet you buy a used one for half the price of a new 24~70.


----------



## Big Mike (May 21, 2013)

Specifically for travel, I'd probably go with the 24-105mm.  It gives you more reach, which is often nice when you're out and about.  It's smaller and lighter, which may be a big issue for some people.  And while IS isn't a necessity, it would certainly help in many situations.  

The difference between F2.8 and F4 is only one stop...and if you're upgrading to full frame, you'll more than be able to make that up with higher ISO.  

But on the other hand, F2.8 will always be bigger than F4...and sometimes you'll want/need that....but is that worth the extra cost/size/weight.


----------



## TCampbell (May 21, 2013)

If you're ONLY going to have one lens, I'd go with the 24-105.
But I'd go with the 24-70 / 70-200 combination if you could have two lenses.


----------



## o hey tyler (May 21, 2013)

24-105 is more practical for travel IMO.


----------



## TheBiles (May 21, 2013)

Big Mike said:


> The difference between F2.8 and F4 is only one stop...and if you're upgrading to full frame, you'll more than be able to make that up with higher ISO.



It's not just the fact that it's faster.  The depth of field created by f/2.8 is much more pleasing, especially on full-frame.


----------



## Big Mike (May 21, 2013)

TheBiles said:


> Big Mike said:
> 
> 
> > The difference between F2.8 and F4 is only one stop...and if you're upgrading to full frame, you'll more than be able to make that up with higher ISO.
> ...


That's pretty subjective.  It's a little shallower at F2.8 but it could easily be too shallow for a lot of things....especially on full frame.


----------



## TheBiles (May 21, 2013)

Big Mike said:


> TheBiles said:
> 
> 
> > Big Mike said:
> ...



Which is why you just stop it down.  You can't open a f/4 up to f/2.8, though.


----------



## o hey tyler (May 21, 2013)

TheBiles said:


> Big Mike said:
> 
> 
> > TheBiles said:
> ...



Just as you can't zoom a uselessly short 24-70 to 105mm.


----------



## dbvirago (May 21, 2013)

Just got back from 2+ weeks in Europe. Only took the 24-105 and the 70-200, both f4. First travel trip with the 24-105. 33% of shots were taken between 70 and 105, with 20% at 105. 33% were shot at f8 and about 10% at f4. Most of the f4 shots were on the non-IS 70-200 trying to squeeze out a faster shutter speed. Having said that, there were many low light situations where I could have used the extra stop.


----------



## TNHphoto (May 22, 2013)

Thanks everyone. This definitely helps. It does seem more convenient to be carrying one lens when backpacking (seems to favor 24-105), but sharpness is always important too (seems to favor 24-70). 

Any thoughts on which is the better lens for landscapes? Or is there little difference?


----------



## Alex_B (May 23, 2013)

About half of my Landscapes which I show to audiences on the big screen are done with a 24-105L and the other half with the 17-40L, and some tiny fraction with my 300L f/4. 
I do backpacking and prefer the slightly longer and lighter lens over the heavier 24-70. In particular on full frame the extra focal length at the end helps and I do not miss the gap from 105 to 300mm much.

The 24-105 needs a bit more corrections in postprocessing (e.g. chromatic aberration is more pronounced on the 24-105), but then again you need to do postprocessing anyway so it does not really mean extra effort.


----------



## bratkinson (May 23, 2013)

Unless you're shooting for a magazine or have some overriding reason to get the top sharpness and top bokeh, save your arm/shoulder/back and go for the 24-105 and 5D3. 

I had both the 24-70 (mark i) and 24-105 and found the 24-70 too heavy for 4-5 hours at a time as my only lens. I figured I needed the f2.8 as it was indoors and I had a 60D.  I ultimately sold the 24-70. Since upgrading to a 5D3, when I want bokeh, I pop on my 135 f2L. The 24-105 does quite well at f4, 5.6, 8, and everywhere else in all kinds of low lighting when shooting at ISO 6400 and 1/160 shutter speed, no flash, indoors. I don't miss that extra f-stop at all.


----------



## iolair (May 23, 2013)

You didn't ask about bodies, but have you considered the 6D?  I imagine the built in GPS for tagging your image locations and WiFi for sharing on-the-hoof could be useful (Not sure the exact features of its WiFi).

I've done several trips just with the 28mm/2.8 (on crop) and didn't feel I missed out on many shots from a single focal length.  If you're JUST getting the lens for travelling, I think I'd go for the 24-105; the slightly longer lens gives you options for more flattering shots of people you travel with or more subtle shots (due to the distance) of people you see around as you travel.


----------



## Thanasis_gs (May 28, 2013)

Hmm. I own the 24-105 (and a full frame body). It isn't bad, actually it is my primary lens, because it is convenient and reliable. It is sharp, but not as sharp as the 24-70. IS is a good feature given the fact that the aperture is max 4 and you will definitely need it, if you go for the 5DmkII and want to shoot at night. Please note that the 24-105 has moderate distortion at 24mm so you will need to correct that in your pc. To be honest, i have never shot with a 24-70, so I cannot make a comparison, but if you go for the 24-105 you will not regret it, that's for sure. 
Now as for the body. If you can afford it, buy the 5D mk III, if not go for the mkII, or consider the 6D as mister Iolair mentioned. But if you consider the 6D, do not take into account the GPS and the WiFi, I only see them as a parameter for higher price. I may be wrong, but I have this feeling that they are not useful. 
P.S The USM that both lenses have, is awesome!!


----------



## CanonJim (Jun 1, 2013)

OP, given your stated preferences and photo styles, I'm in the 24-105 camp. And, not surprisingly, in the 6D camp. As a kit from Amazon they are priced well. The 6D is aimed specifically at, among other uses, travel photography, as it is noticeably lighter than the 5D/III.  As a pair, the 6D and 24-105, for about $2500US, is a pretty good deal.


----------



## MLCIII (Jun 8, 2013)

Have you thought about doing a couple of primes? It's not a popular way to go, but they have many advantages. And very backpackable.


----------



## table1349 (Jun 8, 2013)

Download Exposure Plot or WegaII, check the focal length's you use the most and decide from there.

ExposurePlot jpg exif lens length analyzer for photographers


----------

