# 24-105L or 70-200L f/2.8?



## VitorMachado (Apr 8, 2013)

Currently in the market for a 6D and was wondering which lens should I buy with it? If I were to go for the body only ($1,699) instead of the 24-105 kit ($2,329), I'd be basically getting a 600$+ head start on the 70-200 f/2.8 ($1,300). These lenses would both serve as general purpose lenses but the 70-200 f/2.8 would benefit me more in my work of field (automotive photography). Also note that right now I have exactly enough for the kit. So if I decide to get the 70-200 f/2.8 I'd still need about $600-700. Thanks in advance!


----------



## ksuweh (Apr 8, 2013)

I think that a 70-200 is the second most important lens in any photogs bag, right after the standard zoom (or a set of primes in the standard range). So, I say either buy the kit or buy the body & a few decent primes like a 50 & a 24. Then save for the 70-200. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Click (Apr 8, 2013)

ksuweh said:


> I think that a 70-200 is the second most important lens in any photogs bag, right after the standard zoom (or a set of primes in the standard range). So, I say either buy the kit or buy the body & a few decent primes like a 50 & a 24. Then save for the 70-200. Just my 2 cents.



Ditto


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 9, 2013)

A 70-200 is a useful lens, but generally a standard zoom is more useful. What do you mean by 'automotive photography'? 

One option might be the 70-200 plus the 40mm pancake as a normal lens.


----------



## wickidwombat (Apr 9, 2013)

you could go the 24-105 kit (best value for the 24-105 lens)

and you really do need that wider angle of view and since you are only looking at the 70-200 f2.8 non is
why not consider the great value and awesome quality 200 f2.8L II in addition to the 24-105 those 2 lenses would give pretty good coverage. have a look at the gallery here lots of great shots from the 200 f2.8L and it's only around $800 new

that would give pretty good coverage, and also grab the 40mm f2.8 its a brilliant little lens


----------



## VitorMachado (Apr 9, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> A 70-200 is a useful lens, but generally a standard zoom is more useful. What do you mean by 'automotive photography'?
> 
> One option might be the 70-200 plus the 40mm pancake as a normal lens.



Automotive photography as in I do mostly car shoots. I don't really do it as a career, but a serious hobby with some money on the side. I already have the pancake, which is good news for me.


----------



## bholliman (Apr 9, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> One option might be the 70-200 plus the 40mm pancake as a normal lens.



+1

Since you said the 70-200 focal length will benefit you the most, I think the combination of 70-200 and 40mm pancake would give you the most flexibility for your money right now. You can always add a standard zoom later. Used 24-105 can be had for around $700.

That said, if it were me, I'd start with the kit and the 24-105mm. Kit pricing is pretty good, saving you a few hundred off the price of buying body and lens separately, and the 24-105 is a great general purpose focal range. More useful all around than the 70-200.


----------



## gimmeadeal19 (Apr 9, 2013)

I really like my 24-104 f/4 for general purpose; it's not too heavy and is easy to maneuver. However, at f/4 is does struggle with low light and it often requires a flash. The 70-200 f/2.8 is large, heavy and not easily maneuvered. I didn't think that would be an issue when I first bought it, but the more I used it, the more ease of movement became a factor in selection given a particular project. Both are excellent lenses, however if the 24-105 is your first L lens, you won't be disappointed and can always get the 70-200 in the future. In addition, the "whites" draw a lot of attention.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Apr 9, 2013)

The 24-105 is an awesome lens, and hands down the best single lens to own if you're only going to own one with a 6D -- assuming, of course, that you don't need something else for specialized photography.

But if you're always going to have some other lens mounted to the camera, it's obviously a waste.

Since you're dithering between the two...and, since, by "car shoots" I assume either car shows or portraits of cars, I'd very much suggest the 24-105. Just from the size of the subjects, I'm guessing you'd only ever use the 70-200 at the shorter end of its range, and the 24-105 has that covered just fine, _plus_ it's got all the way out to as wide as you ever want in general-purpose photography. (Wider than that can, of course, be amazing, but it's getting into more of a specialized range that requires a bit of care.)

Horses for courses. If you were shooting football, you'd have a 400 f/2.8 glued to one body, a 70-200 f/2.8 glued to another, and that's about it. A landscape photographer could make a good living with just a TS-E 24 and a 1.4x teleconverter. If you were seriously into the macro world, you might not have a lens that could focus past three feet -- if that.

But if you want a jack-of-all-trades lens, the 24-105 is it. It goes wide; it goes long; it's stabilized; it's got great image quality; and it's not terribly slow (as in, it's faster than any other "kit" lens out there). Indeed, you can get a shallower depth of field with less noise at a the same shutter with a 24-105 on the 6D than you can with the 15-55 f/2.8 IS on APS-C -- and at wider and narrower fields of view, too.

Awesome lens.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## BrettS (Apr 9, 2013)

TrumpetPower! said:


> The 24-105 is an awesome lens, and hands down the best single lens to own if you're only going to own one with a 6D -- assuming, of course, that you don't need something else for specialized photography.
> 
> But if you're always going to have some other lens mounted to the camera, it's obviously a waste.
> 
> ...



+1


----------



## rpt (Apr 9, 2013)

24-105L. No question. Get it as a kit lens and save money for the 70-200 II in the future.


----------



## jhpeterson (Apr 9, 2013)

TrumpetPower! said:


> But if you want a jack-of-all-trades lens, the 24-105 is it.


Yes, jack of all trades, but likely master of none!
Not to pan the 24-105, as it's a very good lens and I have one. I also have the 70-200/2.8, the IS II version. It's an even better one!
It sounds to me the longer zoom is more in line with the OP's needs. If you look at car publications, you'll find the ads as well as editorial shots of exteriors are primarily taken with a telephoto lens.


----------



## sdsr (Apr 9, 2013)

VitorMachado said:


> Currently in the market for a 6D and was wondering which lens should I buy with it? If I were to go for the body only ($1,699) instead of the 24-105 kit ($2,329), I'd be basically getting a 600$+ head start on the 70-200 f/2.8 ($1,300). These lenses would both serve as general purpose lenses but the 70-200 f/2.8 would benefit me more in my work of field (automotive photography). Also note that right now I have exactly enough for the kit. So if I decide to get the 70-200 f/2.8 I'd still need about $600-700. Thanks in advance!



Are the cars moving or stationary, how much space is around them, and how far from them will you be? I ask because I'm wondering why you think 70-200 would be more useful than 24-105. (Photographing cars isn't really my thing, but I went to an outdoor vintage car show last summer with just my 24-105 and along the way rather wished I had brought a longer zoom as well; but I ended up using the 24-105 mainly at its wide end and probably could have made do with my 17-40. The only time I wished I had a long zoom was when I wanted to do a portrait of a hood ornament with a strongly blurred background.)

But if you would prefer 70-200, and if the cars aren't moving, why not the 70-200 f/4 IS or 70-300L? They cost around the same as the 70-200 you mention but have IS, which is almost always useful. Both they and the 24-105 work really well on my 6D in even very low light (I've never experienced even a hint of the "struggling" another poster referred to).


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Apr 9, 2013)

VitorMachado said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > A 70-200 is a useful lens, but generally a standard zoom is more useful. What do you mean by 'automotive photography'?
> ...


Going only by your subject title, 70-200 f/2.8 is a superior lens in every way to the 24-105 f/4 L ... but if you are doing "car shoots" you would be better off with the wider angle of view of the 24-105 f/4 L


----------



## scottkinfw (Apr 9, 2013)

My Thoughts exactly. 70- 200 great lens, but in many ways, because it is lighter, easier to maneuver, etc., I almost prefer the 24-105, and great iq.



bholliman said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > One option might be the 70-200 plus the 40mm pancake as a normal lens.
> ...


----------



## VitorMachado (Apr 9, 2013)

Wow I didn't expect all these awesome replies 8) Anyways, for all of you asking.. Yes shooting a car (static) at a car show/event calls for wide angle being that the cars are usually lined up closely. BUT an actual shoot of a car itself gives me basically as much room as I'd like. Spots like open top floor garages, empty dead end roads, industrial buildings (after hours) allow me to shoot at almost any angle, from long focal ranges. This is why I was considering the 2.8, because a shot at 135mm wide open just looks simply beautiful. Being that many of you guessing correctly this is my first L lens, I'm trying to pick the most versatile lens for multipurpose use. Now that you can see my situation I'd like to see some more opinions! Thanks again these replies were very helpful.


----------



## wickidwombat (Apr 9, 2013)

you could also go the 135 f2L and get a 1.4 TC aswell
giving you 189 f2.8

and also how does that car drive? its wheels are hard up against the arches
it must rub like crazy and i dont even want to think about what it woul be like over speed bumps


----------



## FTb-n (Apr 9, 2013)

I have both lenses with a 5D3 and a 7D. I shoot mostly sports and indoor events. The 70-200 is my prefered lens for most of what I shoot. The sports part is easy. But even with candids, I like to shoot from across the room and this lens is great.

But, the 24-105 is still essential. It sounds like you want both at some point. Get the 24-105 now, it's only costing you $630 as part of the kit. Getting it later will cost you closer $1,000. Plus, I suspect this lens will fill much of your current needs with the automotive shots.

FWIW, I often carry the 5D3 with the 70-200 and the 40 pancake when I "travel lite-ish".


----------



## jhanken (Apr 9, 2013)

> The 24-105 is an awesome lens, and hands down the best single lens to own if you're only going to own one with a 6D -- assuming, of course, that you don't need something else for specialized photography.




+1. I think you probably also should have a fast prime or two in your kit. The available shallow depth of field can add nice drama, and the extra light can help with hand-held shots indoors.


----------



## Hannes (Apr 9, 2013)

Have you considered a used sigma alternative while you save up the money for the canon one? The sigma ones are obviously not up to the same standard as the canon ones in many ways but they are a lot cheaper used and draw less attention. You should be able to sell them at minimal or even no loss at all if you buy a used. Then there is the newest sigma 70-200 with stabiliser costing less than a new canon non is while having about the same or possibly slightly better performance.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Apr 9, 2013)

VitorMachado said:


> Wow I didn't expect all these awesome replies 8) Anyways, for all of you asking.. Yes shooting a car (static) at a car show/event calls for wide angle being that the cars are usually lined up closely. BUT an actual shoot of a car itself gives me basically as much room as I'd like. Spots like open top floor garages, empty dead end roads, industrial buildings (after hours) allow me to shoot at almost any angle, from long focal ranges. This is why I was considering the 2.8, because a shot at 135mm wide open just looks simply beautiful. Being that many of you guessing correctly this is my first L lens, I'm trying to pick the most versatile lens for multipurpose use. Now that you can see my situation I'd like to see some more opinions! Thanks again these replies were very helpful.


In that case 70-200 f/2.8 is an excellent choice.


----------



## sevvo (Apr 10, 2013)

FWIW, my progression was: 50mm f/1.8 -> 40mm f/2.8 -> 24-105mm -> 70-200 f/2.8L IS II

I bring the 40, the 105 and the 200 whenever I have a project or assignment.


----------



## akraj (Apr 10, 2013)

jhanken said:


> > The 24-105 is an awesome lens, and hands down the best single lens to own if you're only going to own one with a 6D -- assuming, of course, that you don't need something else for specialized photography.
> 
> 
> 
> +1. I think you probably also should have a fast prime or two in your kit. The available shallow depth of field can add nice drama, and the extra light can help with hand-held shots indoors.



+1 
I find myself using my 35/1.4 a lot.. but the 24-105 is an excellent lens


----------



## tntwit (Apr 12, 2013)

Judging by your equipment list at the bottom of your posts, it looks as though you may have gone ahead with the 24-105.

Just an FYI, Canon has the 70-200 f2.8 (non IS) refurbished for under $1000. I don't recall if that was one of their 15% off sales or not, but just something to keep in mind for when you are ready for that purchase.


----------



## VitorMachado (Apr 12, 2013)

tntwit said:


> Judging by your equipment list at the bottom of your posts, it looks as though you may have gone ahead with the 24-105.
> 
> Just an FYI, Canon has the 70-200 f2.8 (non IS) refurbished for under $1000. I don't recall if that was one of their 15% off sales or not, but just something to keep in mind for when you are ready for that purchase.



Yes indeed I did go with the 24-105. I figured I would cover the more "used" focal ranges before getting fancy. And wow, thanks for that I'll really look into it. +1


----------

