# Lens Suggestion, 24-105 f/4L IS vs. 24-70 f/2.8L to Compliment 70-200 f/2.8?



## MattHira (May 1, 2013)

Hello,
   I've read many comparisons for the two lenses but I wanted to see what everyone thought. I'm an independent filmmaker but also love wildlife and general photography for vacations. I love the 70-200 f/2.8L lens, but it's quite cumbersome as a "walk around" lens, and for some vacations shots/film shots, 70mm is just too close. I'd like a really nice lens to fill the gap under 70 and it is between the 24-105 f/4L or the 24-70 f/2.8L. Here's what I've thought are the pros of each:
24-105:
-Can get for about $750
-Image Stabilization (for video especially)
-Little more reach

24-70:
-Faster
-Smaller
-Lighter

What would you do? This is all on a 60D and battery grip which I'm considering replacing with a 6D or used 5DII. I'd like any feedback on that as well. And in the long run I think I'd like to close the "bottom" with a 14mm Rectilinear. But when considering price difference, videography, and personal experience, I'm interested to know what everyone thinks in that context, because all the other discussions on this lens are general. Is the faster lens worth the IS sacrifice and less reach? 
Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated, thanks!
   Matt


----------



## ronlane (May 1, 2013)

24-70 just for the faster glass.


----------



## Gsomej (May 1, 2013)

I agree with ronlane, plus if you already have the 70-200mm f/2.8 it will compliment it well and your total range with the two lenses are better than that one lens.  You also have to consider if you want more versatility in one lens vs. better speeds with two different lenses. (the battle is between casual shooting and serious shooting, in my opinion)

Though if for videos I must say that it would make more sense to stick to the other lens for the IS. I'd personally go for the f/2.8 though.


----------



## eswebster (May 1, 2013)

you'll always wish you went with the faster lens if you get the f4.... you'll never wish you had a slower lens.


----------



## David444 (May 1, 2013)

.


----------



## Robin_Usagani (May 1, 2013)

the first generation of 24-70 really isnt that great.


----------



## David444 (May 1, 2013)

.


----------



## Robin_Usagani (May 1, 2013)

David444 said:


> ^
> Mine was very good, IQ was about equally to the very sharp 24-105 that my brother owned.



Try the Mk2 .


----------



## David444 (May 1, 2013)

.


----------



## Derrel (May 1, 2013)

24-105-L IS USM + 70-200 2.8-L IS USM was my go-to zoom lens kit for almost three years on Canon FF. Decent weight on the 24-105...I'm pretty sure that it weighs less than the 24-70/2.8, which is kind of a pig. The 24-105 feels reasonably light, to me...and makes a good wide-normal-short tele with stabilizer, all in one nice package. PLus, as you pointed out, these are available for $750-$800 ALL of the time; keep in mind, these were kitted with the Canon 5D, 5D-II, and 5D-III, so there are loads of these on the used market, many with light amateur use.


----------



## Juga (May 1, 2013)

Robin_Usagani said:


> David444 said:
> 
> 
> > ^
> ...



Very hefty price tag too. You suggest the lens as if it is extremely affordable.


----------



## usayit (May 1, 2013)

I found the 24-105L more usable in more situations... often with a 50mm f1.4 in my pocket.   The 24-70mm often sat collecting dust especially when a set of prime lenses were also available.


----------



## o hey tyler (May 2, 2013)

usayit said:


> I found the 24-105L more usable in more situations... often with a 50mm f1.4 in my pocket.   The 24-70mm often sat collecting dust especially when a set of prime lenses were also available.



^^^^ especially regarding primes.


----------



## eswebster (May 2, 2013)

I have the same gap in my focal length, have a 16-28 and a 70-200.... It seems like the tamron 24-70 2.8 with VC has been reviewed well.... was considering that since the canon 24-70 MK II is over the top expensive for a hobbyist.  Either that or a few primes, but that route seems like it would be a pain since you would be forced to change lenses more often.  No means trying to hijack just sharing what I have found in the research I have done being in the same boat.


----------



## MattHira (May 2, 2013)

Thanks for all the replies! It helps a lot! Eswebster, you're not high jacking. I really value other people's opinions on purchases like this because specs can't tell you enough. I've considered third party lenses, but even to my non professional eye the L glass is unmatchable. But if someone thinks otherwise I'd love to hear why! I'd love to keep hearing suggestions! You're all so helpful! Thanks!


----------



## Rocketman1978 (May 2, 2013)

eswebster said:


> you'll never wish you had a slower lens.


And for this reason I am getting ready to pair my 70-200 2.8 with a 24-70 Mk I.  For me as a hobbyist the Mk I will do just dandy.


----------



## bratkinson (May 2, 2013)

MattHira said:


> 24-70:
> -Faster
> -Smaller
> -Lighter!



Smaller??? Lighter??? That is definitely NOT the 24-70 f2.8L mark i that I owned a little over a year ago! 

I had the 24-105 for a couple of months and figured I'd give a try to the 24-70. Used it for a wedding (as guest) and found that although it was a stop faster, the lack of IS caused this old geezer problems...especially at slower shutter speeds on my 60D (no surprise, really). The weight was another problem for me. It's not called 'the brick' without reason. So I sold the 24-70 and kept the 24-105. 

Since upgrading to the 5D mark iii, f4 is no problem whatsoever these days...neither is f5.6 or f8 in dim light. ISO 6000 solved all my slow shutter speed problems!

As for the 24-70 mark ii, however, all I've read was how super sharp it is, etc. But even with improved glass and less weight compared to the mark i, I'll stick with my 24-105. For me, and many others, the 24-105 is a great walk-around lens. Perhaps 70% of my shots are with that lens. It would also give you a great focal length 'overlap' with the 70-200, to reduce the number of lens swaps needed. 

If I could only own 1 lens, it would be the 24-105, hands down.


----------



## Derrel (May 2, 2013)

bratkinson said:
			
		

> SNIP>>>> ISO 6000 solved all my slow shutter speed problems!



Ummm,yeah....funny how formerly astronomically-high ISO values, made possible AND practical on the newest modern d-slr cameras, have redefined the term 'slow glass'. It's amazing what modern sensor technology has done to expand the boundaries of what is possible; what used to be impossible is now merely difficult; what was once difficult, is now fairly easy.

F/2.8 at 1/30 has given way to f/4 at 1/125 in bad light. High-speed shutter now means 1/1600 to 1/4000 under real-world conditions.


----------



## TCampbell (May 2, 2013)

Low focal ratio lenses usually are heavier -- not uncommon.  I own the original 24-70mm f/2.8L (which _is_ a fantastic lens, btw.  Yes, the "II" is better... it's particularly better in the center... as you get toward the edges it's probably not noticeable that it's better.)  It's a heavy lens.  Lots of people complain about the weight.  I don't mind it myself, but it _is_ a heavy lens.  

The 24-70 II is 805g.
The 24-105 is 670g

And just in case you're interested, the original 24-70 is 950g (the heavyweight winner!)  So while the "II" is noticeably lighter than the original, it's still not lighter than the 24-105.

I went with the 24-70 because of the f/2.8 advantage and didn't care about the image stabilization of the 24-105.  But that's me.  I don't shoot video.  I have done a lot of low light events where even if the camera is braced, I needed the fastest shutter speed possible (e.g. music concerts where I'm shooting down at 1/30th... but that'd be 1/15th if all I had was f/4 glass).  Derrel is right in that we've got such incredibly high ISO that I no longer have to pray that ISO 3200 wont look too terribly awful with noise even in low light situations, and frankly ISO 6400 looks really good, and ISO 12800 is acceptable.

One of my local photography buddies went with the 24-105.  HE shoots almost nothing but video.  BTW, he also bought a really cool CarrySpeed brand videofinder for his DSLR:  ViewFinders | Carry Speed Store


----------

