# 24-70 vs 24-105



## JTM_04 (Aug 20, 2012)

Ok so I am looking to get either the 24-70 2.8 or the 24-105 f/4. I'm hoping to hear from someone who either owns both or has shot both to see what they think of the differences. I dont know if the IS of the 24-105 is really that necessary or not. I dont plan on shooting in too much low light but I may alittle and I'm just curious if the 2.8 is that much more important. Thanks for the input


----------



## macpro88 (Aug 20, 2012)

I've shot both, own the 24-105. Didn't play around with the 24-70 too much but its a workhorse. A fine piece of glass.

The 2.8 will perform better in low light, and honestly, you say you won't be in low light situations, but eventually you will be, I said the same thing, and there are times where I wished I had the f/2.8.

The 24-105 is a great lens don't get me wrong, its a fine piece of glass as well, had I done it over again, I'd shell out the extra for the 24-105.

Better yet, depending on how desperate you are, wait for the MKII of the 24-70 f/2.8 to come out, if you can afford it.

One of my other factors was price of course, depending on how the pricing works for the new MKII, I may upgrade or find the 1st version used at a decent cost.


----------



## macpro88 (Aug 20, 2012)

Also, do a search of f/2.8 vs f/4 and you will find some great articles.


----------



## JTM_04 (Aug 20, 2012)

Yeah I have looked at some articles and vids about them. I just didn't know how big the difference really was between them


----------



## macpro88 (Aug 20, 2012)

If I'm not mistaken, the f/2.8 is 4 whole stops faster than f/4. That's fast. Even in good light, you can really bump up that shutter speed and really stop action dead in its tracks. Also f/2.8 makes for a nice thinner depth of field than the f/4.

There is a reason the f/2.8 are a hell of a lot more expensive. If there weren't enough difference, nobody would buy them...


----------



## sovietdoc (Aug 20, 2012)

macpro88 said:


> If I'm not mistaken, the f/2.8 is 4 whole stops faster than f/4. That's fast. Even in good light, you can really bump up that shutter speed and really stop action dead in its tracks. Also f/2.8 makes for a nice thinner depth of field than the f/4.
> 
> There is a reason the f/2.8 are a hell of a lot more expensive. If there weren't enough difference, nobody would buy them...



f/2.8 is one stop faster than f/4

And there is no 24-70 II. It's a myth.


----------



## leeroix (Aug 20, 2012)

i have the 24-70 2.8 and i must say it spends the most time on my camera. i love it. i also have the 70-200 2.8 for when i need extra... some day ill have the holy trinity.


----------



## sovietdoc (Aug 20, 2012)

leeroix said:


> i have the 24-70 2.8 and i must say it spends the most time on my camera. i love it. i also have the 70-200 2.8 for when i need extra... some day ill have the holy trinity.



The holy zoom trinity doesn't exist on canon system yet.  Now, next year they're supposed to announce 14-24 or something like that...


----------



## leeroix (Aug 20, 2012)

oops, i have to get better at reading the forum title. didnt realize this was canon.


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 20, 2012)

sovietdoc said:


> macpro88 said:
> 
> 
> > If I'm not mistaken, the f/2.8 is 4 whole stops faster than f/4. That's fast. Even in good light, you can really bump up that shutter speed and really stop action dead in its tracks. Also f/2.8 makes for a nice thinner depth of field than the f/4.
> ...


Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM Zoom Lens 5175B002 B&H Photo


----------



## TheBiles (Aug 20, 2012)

macpro88 said:


> If I'm not mistaken, the f/2.8 is 4 whole stops faster than f/4. That's fast. Even in good light, you can really bump up that shutter speed and really stop action dead in its tracks. Also f/2.8 makes for a nice thinner depth of field than the f/4.
> 
> There is a reason the f/2.8 are a hell of a lot more expensive. If there weren't enough difference, nobody would buy them...



FYI, f/1 is four stops faster than f/4. 1.0, 1.4, 2.0, 2.8, 4.0. 

Sent from my Galaxy S III


----------



## macpro88 (Aug 20, 2012)

Haha, indeed the MKII seems to be a myth... they keep delaying the dang thing... lol

and thanks for the clarification on the stops, still learning myself! lol


----------



## pgriz (Aug 20, 2012)

Besides the optical properties of the lenses, you also need to consider their bulk/weight.  If it's the primary lens, it can really wear your neck or arm down carrying a heavy lens.


----------



## TheBiles (Aug 21, 2012)

pgriz said:


> Besides the optical properties of the lenses, you also need to consider their bulk/weight.  If it's the primary lens, it can really wear your neck or arm down carrying a heavy lens.



That's what the gym is for! Also BlackRapid straps. 

Sent from my Galaxy S III


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 21, 2012)

pgriz said:


> Besides the optical properties of the lenses, you also need to consider their bulk/weight.  If it's the primary lens, it can really wear your neck or arm down carrying a heavy lens.



YES!!
I have tennis elbow from my 70-200. Hasn't bothered me until probably about 2 weeks from now when I start shooting football non stop!


----------



## sovietdoc (Aug 21, 2012)

> Besides the optical properties of the lenses, you also need to consider  their bulk/weight.  If it's the primary lens, it can really wear your  neck or arm down carrying a heavy lens.



My main walk-around is 70-200 II atm and I don't have a problem.  The two most important things about the lens in the order of importance are these:

1. Wow factor.
2. IQ


I wish I was joking about the wow factor, but I keep proving my own point every time I am shooting another wedding.


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 21, 2012)

sovietdoc said:


> > Besides the optical properties of the lenses, you also need to consider  their bulk/weight.  If it's the primary lens, it can really wear your  neck or arm down carrying a heavy lens.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's my main lens, but when you are shooting anywhere from 1 to 6 football games in a day? It gets to be a problem! Add to it the fall weather and Old Lady Syndrome and it sure did a number on my elbow! Hefting it? not a problem. I got guns on my right arm from that sucker! The joints? falling to rack and ruin


----------



## TheBiles (Aug 21, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> sovietdoc said:
> 
> 
> > > Besides the optical properties of the lenses, you also need to consider  their bulk/weight.  If it's the primary lens, it can really wear your  neck or arm down carrying a heavy lens.
> ...



6 football games a day? What? And get a monopod. 

Sent from my Nexus 7


----------



## sovietdoc (Aug 21, 2012)

I was going to say..


----------



## TCampbell (Aug 21, 2012)

One of the differences to consider is what the f/2.8 ratio does to your image.  You can force a narrow DoF and stronger background blur -- if you want it.

I looked at it this way:  I own a 70-200, so the extra overlap point (70-105) that I pick up on the 24-105 is really a convenience and not so much a necessity.  I preferred the performance of the 24-70 f/2.8 - knowing that I'd have to change lenses, but I'm ok with that.

I've got a small pile of lenses by now so the thought of buying "the lens" so I never have to swap lenses is just not reality.  I usually think about what I'm likely to shoot before I pick the lens(es) I want for the day.


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 21, 2012)

TheBiles said:


> MLeeK said:
> 
> 
> > sovietdoc said:
> ...


I have a great carbon fiber one that is light and everything, but I SUCK with it. I am up and down and it's more of an impediment to me than anything else. I keep telling myself I AM going to learn to use it better, but... 
BUT... I only have one day with that many games this year. I have most with 4 and a couple with 5, but it's not as bad as it could be... I usually have one Football and one Soccer on Fridays, then Saturdays are my worst. 

I am thinking there's got to be a monopod with a flip release for the leg at the base like some tripods have. Anyone got a suggestion? I live 8 hours from a GOOD store that would carry something, so I am ordering. Wait... NM... That's another post...


----------



## johndizzo (Aug 21, 2012)

Since no one has mentioned it, you might consider the Tamron 24-70 VC which has their version of IS if you cannot wait for further delays of the Canon 24-70 mkii to see how much better it is going to be. If you are not afraid of straying from Canon glass, the Tamron has proven to be quite comparable and sharper at the wide end. And again, it has IS. It is a bit pricey for non-Canon glass, but functionally, it may serve you best with the options that are currently available.


----------



## TCampbell (Aug 21, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> I am thinking there's got to be a monopod with a flip release for the leg at the base like some tripods have. Anyone got a suggestion? I live 8 hours from a GOOD store that would carry something, so I am ordering. Wait... NM... That's another post...



You mean a flip release to allow the telescoping leg sections to extend?

Benro has it:  | C38F ? Cat. C38F

I own a couple of them... one is mg-aluminum, the other is carbon fiber.  But I really DO like the quick flip-lock legs.


----------



## CanonJim (Aug 23, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> pgriz said:
> 
> 
> > Besides the optical properties of the lenses, you also need to consider their bulk/weight.  If it's the primary lens, it can really wear your neck or arm down carrying a heavy lens.
> ...



Then wouldn't it be football elbow?..


----------



## Postman158 (Aug 26, 2012)

I have the 24-70 f2.8L, and I absolutely love it. The only thing I would get the 24-105 for is the IS for videography, which I've been getting into a lot lately. Helps with a little bit of the camera shake in video I hear.


----------

