# 24-105 f/4 & 5d3 vs 24-70 f/2.8 & 5d2



## roman7 (Mar 4, 2012)

I currently have the 5d2 and have used the 24-70 but felt it was too heavy for use as a general purpose lens. I ended up selling it and have been using primes (35 1.4L and 85 1.2L). 

I will continue to use my primes for low light and best image quality, but as a general purpose lens, I wonder if the 24-105 5d3 kit would be as good in low light situations as the 5d2 and 24-70 f/2.8 combo giving the 2+ stop advantage in high iso performance the 5d3 has. If so, I would like to add the kit lens to my collection and also use it for video where the IS will also very benefitial. 

I am trying to decide if I should get the 5d3 kit or just the body, input would be GREATLY appreciated!!


----------



## swampler (Mar 4, 2012)

I'm considering the kit as moving from a 50D, I'll need a new walk around lens and you save over $200 getting the lens in a kit. Your proposal sounds very reasonable to me concerning losing a stop in the lens, but gaining it back in the body.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 4, 2012)

The 24-105mm is a kit lens for lots of good reasons - useful range, IS, convenient size.


----------



## jwong (Mar 4, 2012)

I'm thinking along the same lines too. If the 5DIII high ISO performance advantage is that much better than the 5DII, then it may be feasible to use f/4 zooms rather than f/2.8 zooms and save a lot of money to spend on fast primes. The new 24-70 II costs maybe 500 less than the 35L + 50L or 24L + 35L. I think I'd rather get the 24-105 as a walk-around and get primes for shallow DOF and a 3 stop difference from the f/4 rather than all that money for the 24-70 which is only 1 stop faster. Granted, the 24-70 will have better IQ, but if IQ was critical, I'd use the primes anyway.


----------



## roman7 (Mar 4, 2012)

Those were my thoughts exactly! I was thinking the same for a tele zoom, perhaps the 70-300 4-5.6L instead of the 70-200 2.8L which now everyone raves about...smaller, cheaper, and better range.


----------



## jwong (Mar 4, 2012)

roman7 said:


> Those were my thoughts exactly! I was thinking the same for a tele zoom, perhaps the 70-300 4-5.6L instead of the 70-200 2.8L which now everyone raves about...smaller, cheaper, and better range.



That one is a little harder to justify because the 70-300 is f/4 to 103mm, f/4.5 to 154mm, f/5 to 228 and f/5.6 the rest of the way. Try the 24-105 first and if you like it with high ISO, then you might want to try the 70-300. But please let us know if it works out well.


----------



## roman7 (Mar 5, 2012)

Im glad I asked, i will try out the kit zoom first, then if that works out i might go for the 70-200 4.0L instead.


----------



## SebSic (Mar 7, 2012)

Ans why buy 5d ii plus 25 105 f4. plus 24 105 f4


----------



## roman7 (Apr 2, 2012)

UPDATE:

Ok so I received the 5d III kit a few days ago. Just shot my daughters b-day party yesterday all indoors at Chuck'e cheese's. I used the 24-105 for most of the day, shot about 500 images and some video footage. I do not own a flash, so all natural light.

Before I give you my impressions, I would like to point out that I am a prosumer user, not a professional photog. I shoot for fun only. I started shooting only 2 years ago and started with the Panasonic GH2, Sony a65, 5d II, and now finally 5d III. I was looking for a great all-in-one camera for photos and video, and this is what led me to the 5d III. High iso performance became my most important goal after I developed my skills, and this is where the 5d II/III have not dissappointed. I finally have what I have been looking for in a perfect camera. The 5d III has greatly improved on the 5d II's shortcomings, but the reason for this post was to see if the 24-105 would be a viable lens for my needs. 

Being primarily a prime shooter, I was aprehensive about the 24-105 with its f/4.0 aperture. After using it only a couple of days, all I can say is WOW. I see why Canon decided to keep this as the kit lens. It is perfect for the 5d III. It does not replace my primes, but compliments them perfectly. The 5d III shoots up to iso 12,800 with perfectly acceptable results for my use, and so far I have not missed a shot due to low light issues with this lens! PERFECT! Some of my portrait shots of the kids even had decent depth of field when shot at longer focal lengths...was not expecting that.

The big bonus of this lens is the IS. However, when I need faster shutter speeds, boost the iso and I'm good to go! I am no longer limited in my gear to get pretty much any shot.

For video use, the lens is also great due to the range and IS. I shot video in Manual mode, shutter speed 1/30th, aperture 4.0, iso on auto and I was good to go. 

So now the next lens on my list is the 70-200 f/4 IS L. I was waiting to see how the 24-105 fared before I made my decision on 70-200 f/4 vs f/2.8, my mind is now made up. F/4 it is...smaller, lighter, cheaper, and bright enough for the 5d III!

I hope this assessment helps other casual users out how are on the fence about the 5d III kit.


----------



## Flake (Apr 2, 2012)

It doesn't matter how fast your expensive prime lens is, when you need some depth of field you have to stop down, and f/5.6 is f/5.6 on all lenses. This is where the IS shines and being able to capture shots at 1/6 sec is what sets the 24 - 105mm IS L apart.

On the 70 - 200mm I'd say that this is where is it worth buying the faster lens, because at this focal length you can blur the background more than on the 24 - 70mm f/2.8, but also consider the Sigma 120 - 300mm f/2.8 OS which gives a longer reach.

And do consider a flash even if it's the 270EX II, the 5D series has no pop up flash and it really is missed if you don't have one.


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 2, 2012)

roman7 said:


> So now the next lens on my list is the 70-200 f/4 IS L. I was waiting to see how the 24-105 fared before I made my decision on 70-200 f/4 vs f/2.8, my mind is now made up. F/4 it is...smaller, lighter, cheaper, and bright enough for the 5d III!



Glad to see that you actually tried the lens out before trying it. There are lots of "f/2.8 elitists" that love bashing the f/4L glass that have never even used it before. The 24-70L is an optically superior lens, hands down, but the the zoom range of the 24-105 combined with its IS make it one damn versatile lens. Optically, it's the worst lens I own, but it's versatility means it's what's on my camera most of the time. 

With ISO performance improving with each generation of camera, and AF points become more sensitive to smaller apertures, f/4 lenses are a much more viable option.


----------



## Flake (Apr 2, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> roman7 said:
> 
> 
> > So now the next lens on my list is the 70-200 f/4 IS L. I was waiting to see how the 24-105 fared before I made my decision on 70-200 f/4 vs f/2.8, my mind is now made up. F/4 it is...smaller, lighter, cheaper, and bright enough for the 5d III!
> ...




So you haven't got any of the Canon wide angles then? ;D


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 2, 2012)

Flake said:


> Optically, it's the worst lens I own, but it's versatility means it's what's on my camera most of the time.
> So you haven't got any of the Canon wide angles then? ;D



Hey, I like my 17-40! I used a 16-35 before that, and I liked it as well. I hardly use wide-angles, though, so maybe that's why I don't notice their optical shortcomings


----------



## roman7 (Apr 2, 2012)

Flake said:


> On the 70 - 200mm I'd say that this is where is it worth buying the faster lens, because at this focal length you can blur the background more than on the 24 - 70mm f/2.8, but also consider the Sigma 120 - 300mm f/2.8 OS which gives a longer reach.
> 
> And do consider a flash even if it's the 270EX II, the 5D series has no pop up flash and it really is missed if you don't have one.



The reason I would prefer the 70-200 f/4 is the fact that its a smaller package. I have an 85 1.2L and 135 2 L for the blurred backgrounds, but if I didn't I know the 70-200 f2.8 would be great for that.

I was going to get the 35 1.4 L to complete my prime set, but after my findings with the 24-105 I am thinking I will hold off on that and get the tele zoom first.

I will also be getting a flash eventually, I just enjoy shooting natural light so much!


----------



## donjensen (Apr 2, 2012)

The 70-200 f4 L IS is amazing value for money! It's fast and super sharp, and often sharper compared to the f2.8 II IS version.
I have borrowed the f2.8 II IS, and even though the speed is good, it's just too heavy IMO weighing 1 kilo more than the f4. 
I have wet dreams about the 35L, do you have any pics online with the Mark III + 35L?


----------



## roman7 (Apr 2, 2012)

donjensen said:


> I have wet dreams about the 35L, do you have any pics online with the Mark III + 35L?



No I don't have the 35L, it is the lens I am missing in my prime setup.


----------

