# Which Lens 24-70 mk1 or 24-105 kit lens for Canon 5d3 purchase



## KKCFamilyman (Mar 24, 2012)

Hey I am upgrading from a 60d with 17-55 2.8 and want to know if I should get the 24-70 mk1 or the kit lens. I need an all around family photography and vacation lens for low light and outdoors. I am inclined to get the 24-105 kit but others have said it is too slow. I will not be able to buy a lens for awhile so I need to buy wisely. Any suggestions would be appreciated.


----------



## prayharder (Mar 24, 2012)

I have had the 24-105L and sold it, because it was too slow and it wasn't that sharp. I personally would get the 24-70L where I could make sure it was a sharp copy. I have used several that where pretty darn soft. 

I am waiting for the 24-70L II, but man it's expensive.


----------



## solarpos (Mar 24, 2012)

2.8 ftw, really a soft 24-70? , ouch sounds like Sigma employees infiltrated Canon 
mine's flawless….well, heavy as all hell but plenty sharp.


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Mar 25, 2012)

My fear is that it weighs too much and only leaves me off at 70mm. Also I am worried about the lack of IS. Finally when I go out on vacations I would not have much zoom. Is it really worth it or just to get a 50mm 1.4 to go with my kit so I have a more versatle coverage?


----------



## YellowJersey (Mar 27, 2012)

I've shot with a 24-105 for years now and I love it. Imho, it only really makes sense to get the 24-70 if you need the 2.8. The 24-105 has never seemed soft to me.


----------



## TheAshleyJones (Mar 27, 2012)

I have had the 24-70 for a couple of years and got the 24-105 last week with the 5DIII. I am really enjoying the 24-105. The IS is great for video and my copy seems nice and sharp and the extra focal length is very nice to have. 

I would reiterate the simple point - if you need the F/2.8 get the 24-70. If not the 24-105 would be my choice. Getting the 24-105 in the kit makes it a reasonably priced option too.


----------



## Bruce Photography (Mar 27, 2012)

I vote for the 24-105L. Now maybe I just got a great copy but if I only had one lens in the Canon lineup, that lens would be it. For shooting events and family it is great. For low light without flash I use my primes. To minimize cost I'd suggest the 50mm 1.4. With alittle care that lens can last a long time and it is one of my sharpest lenes of all Canon lenses. But with the Canon 5D3 and the extra iso that you will now have, you may find the 24-105 is the only lens you will need. By the way, the kit price of the 24-105L makes the lens only $800. Even I'm tempted to buy it again as a spare.


----------



## iMagic (Mar 27, 2012)

Dont have my 5d3 yet, but wouldnt 2.8 be less relevant given the better iso you can use on the 5d3? Sure bokeh is a consideration but capturing action should be easier with higher quality iso.


----------



## whocanstandagainstus (Mar 27, 2012)

I own the 24-70,24-105, and 50 1.4 and the 24-105 is my go to lens. If I had to choose one I would choose the 24-105. and get the 50 1.4 if I could afford it just for low light and bokeh. The mark 3 should give you plenty of room to not have to use 2.8, and the 50 would take care of it down the road if you needed it. The 24-105 is plenty sharp in my opinion and I have had to send my 24-70 in to canon a couple times for back focusing issues. Also the extra focal length of the 105 will be nice on a full frame camera if you are used to aps c sensors.


----------



## idratherplaytennis (Mar 28, 2012)

Just to add my 2 cents, and I'm no pro while at the same time no amateur- I've been shooting for about 5 years for a hobby and never once ventured out of manual mode (literally learned only manual and still have no idea about the Av, Tv, and P modes on my 20D)... but I am one of those freaks who insists on getting the best he can afford. So that being said, I had been throwing this same tossup of lenses over and over in my mind for the greater part of well, the last 4-5 years, reading dozens of reviews, viewing dozens of video reviews, looking at hundreds and hundreds of images produced by both on Flikr forums, and I finally made my choice back about a week ago when I pre-ordered my 5DM3. 

I decided, at this point in my life, not being a pro, shooting family, my dogs, and for fun and NOT to make money (while at the same time doing a LOT of indoor shooting with really phenomenally low lighting in my house which I really should redo when we remodel, but I digress), that I would go with the 24-105. I mean, I was in the throes of a decision before the Mark III was even a blip on the radar screen and I was only aiming for the Mark II, even before and after the 7D was released. Having viewed and the knowledge of many higher ISO images of the Mark II and now the Mark III, I've decided it's not that vital for me to have the 2.8 speed over the f/4 because I can raise the ISO a little more and still get my shots with negligible increase in noise. Of course, this is coming from a guy who learned shooting in low-light with a 20D... where pretty much anything beyond 400 really bit the big one, in my opinion- at least in the darker rooms. Then again, I also have the 50 1.4 which is pretty amazing although I haven't really shot much with it, and I only got it as a replacement to a broken 50 1.8 which was like money with every shot. Still considering getting another 1.8- I mean, it was razor sharp. 

I also plan to eventually buy the 24-70 in the long run when prices get more manageable but for now, yea, I can handle a better ISO camera than the Mark II and f/4. But I also recommend just throwing in the 50 1.8 for the hell of it cause, hell- it's 1.8, razor sharp and the bokeh is pretty decent if that's what you like- all for $100 it's a no brainer.

-----
Edit:
I stand by all that I said before, but a thing of note to you:

There are different lenses that the Mark III's new auto-focus system works well with, and lenses it works above well with. Basically, they have a list that states which lenses can take advantage of the obscene superior quality auto focus points, and basically their whole list of current lenses is listed as to which lenses fall under what class. A is the best, and it goes on from there to B, C, down to H. 

If you look at the free to view online manual for the 5D M3, you can see the lists on what is page 79-84 of the printed version. The Group A is filled with mostly primes, some zooms including the 70-200 2.8's (version I and II). Group B which has the best central focus is much smaller with the 24-70 2.8 (version I listed, and I couldn't find mention in any list of version II, I suspect because it's not yet released..? or is it...) along with some primes, and Group C contains the 24-105. To specify what they say is best, Group A has a string of Dual cross-type Auto Focus Points, B has a singular, central one- and Group C only has Cross Type Auto Focus Points.

I don't know how this all relates to the actual quality of sharpness your camera can help the lens attain, because I'm coming from a 20D and haven't researched all the details of said Auto Focus points, but I just wanted to throw this in after having learned and messed around a little with my camera tonight, as I was unaware of the difference. Luckily, I have a 50 1.4 to test the Group A with and compare a 50mm length on the 24-105 Group C with later. Good luck in your decision!


----------



## razar2012 (Mar 29, 2012)

I originally owned the 24-70 but found it quite a heavy/bulky lens so decided to exchange it for the 25-105. I had read reviews that they were comparable in quality so didn't think I was making any compromise, but I was wrong. I was never happy with the photos I took with the 24-105, so much so that I exchanged it back for a 24-70.

In my opinion the 24-105 is not one of Canon's finest. It has quite bad distortions and soft corners at the 24 end, almost like looking through a goldfish bowl. Between 70-105 it is quite soft, to the point that I would struggle to take images I was happy with. Also bear in mind that the difference between 70 and 105 is not that much and a sharp image at 70 can easily be cropped post production. Mid-range the 24-105 is a match for the 24-70.

The 24-70 is noticeable heavier than 24-105 and even on a 5D it looks chunky and will draw attention. But the quality of the images are definitely worth carrying that extra weight. Between around 28-50 it is almost equivalent to prime lenses. Also remember that the 2.8 aperture advantage isn't just about low light, but also about the shallow depth of field that can be achieved. This is especially useful for taking photos of the sort of subjects you've listed.

More food for thought...


----------



## nickbj05 (Mar 30, 2012)

I have the 24-70 mki and I love it, but I also have the 70-200mm 2.8 to use when I need the extra reach. I will say that I find the 24-70 to be a little short side for a walk around lens. If you can get close enough to your subject you will be ok, but even going to the theme park it just doesn't have the reach I would like. I have not used the 24-105, but have thought about purchasing it just for a walk around lens. The 24-70 is also quite heavy like mentioned. If you are not buying the kit, you could try renting them before you buy to see what you think. For normal shooting, you will probably be ok with F/4 as you have a lot of ISO to play with.


----------



## katwil (Mar 30, 2012)

I think you’re spot-on with the thought of getting the kit lens plus a 50mm f/1.4. Yes, the 24-105 may be a bit slow, and IS doesn’t compensate for fast-moving subjects (kids). But the 50 f/1.4 will take care of that. At 55mm on a crop body you are accustomed to seeing what would be 88mm with a full-frame body. So with the 24-70 you’re losing 18% of the reach you currently have.


----------

