# 24-105 &/or 24-70



## ksuweh (Apr 19, 2013)

I have noticed some of you own both the 24-105 & a version of the 24-70. What is the purpose of having both? I am looking at possibly buying a copy of the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II USM but I already have a EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM that I got in my 5DIII kit. If I were to own both the only reason I think that I might use the 24-105 over the 24-70 would be if I only wanted to take one lens & I might need a little extra reach. A low key day on vacation with nothing in particular to shoot comes to mind. Other than that why own both? Is that a good enough reason to justify owning both? Does anyone want to buy a gently used 24-105?? (on that last one I'm kidding....kinda) 

Thanks in advance!


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 19, 2013)

I just don't see the points keeping the 105 - period. 

One less lens in the bag, more money in your pocket or take the wife out for dinner ;D


----------



## Rob (Apr 19, 2013)

I have both, but I shoot Weddings & Portraits for a living and sometimes have a 2nd shooter who would use the 24-105 on my 5D2 & I use the 24-70 on my 5D3, I also have a 28-135 just in case. One thing I have learnt about shooting Weddings is to always have a backup, as I have had 2 lens's fail at the one Wedding before.


----------



## robbymack (Apr 19, 2013)

Looking at your gear list I'd have to wonder why you'd actually need the 24-70ii unless your doing a lot of event work? even then I'd be happy with two bodies your 16-35 on one and the 70-200 on the other. Just my $0.02


----------



## beckstoy (Apr 19, 2013)

I happened to purchase the 24-105 as a kit with my 5DM3, and I love it. The nice thing about the 24-7 is the f2.8, which you don't have in the 24-105.

Because I got the 24-105 first, I grew to love it. Now I have several primes and the 70-200 f2.8 IS II USM (which is amazing). I don't really find myself missing the 24-70 because I've got plenty of good lenses with f2.8 or better.


----------



## seamonster (Apr 19, 2013)

If you have a 5d3 then your high iso is good enough that the extra stop isn't going to be a big revelation. Besides, you can get some sort of 50mm 1.4 AND the 24-105 for the same price as a 24-70. I don't own a 24-70 but I can say that aside from primes, I cannot bring myself to buy a lens that doesn't have IS, which is another factor.


----------



## ksuweh (Apr 19, 2013)

Thanks for the replies guys!! 



robbymack said:


> Looking at your gear list I'd have to wonder why you'd actually need the 24-70ii unless your doing a lot of event work? even then I'd be happy with two bodies your 16-35 on one and the 70-200 on the other. Just my $0.02



I don't do a lot of event work. I do some events on the side (two weddings & receptions in the last year) but this is more of a hobby for me than anything. A really expensive hobby!! 



beckstoy said:


> I happened to purchase the 24-105 as a kit with my 5DM3, and I love it. The nice thing about the 24-7 is the f2.8, which you don't have in the 24-105.
> 
> Because I got the 24-105 first, I grew to love it. Now I have several primes and the 70-200 f2.8 IS II USM (which is amazing). I don't really find myself missing the 24-70 because I've got plenty of good lenses with f2.8 or better.



I honestly do really like this lens. It is also my first FF standard zoom lens. My other standard zoom that I had was a 17-55 that I had for my 7D. Which I miss the 2.8 of that lens, which is why I'm considering purchasing the 24-70. I do a lot of nightscapes, which the 2.8 will definitely be welcome there.



seamonster said:


> If you have a 5d3 then your high iso is good enough that the extra stop isn't going to be a big revelation. Besides, you can get some sort of 50mm 1.4 AND the 24-105 for the same price as a 24-70. I don't own a 24-70 but I can say that aside from primes, I cannot bring myself to buy a lens that doesn't have IS, which is another factor.



Having IS on the new 24-70 would be nice.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 19, 2013)

I have both, may sell the 24-105L. I suspect that a 'walkaround' shot from the 24-70 II at 70mm cropped would equal or beat the IQ of the 24-105 at 105mm (which is where the lens is weakest). 

Actually, the utility I can see for the 24-105 is for portraits in a studio-type setting. While a 70mm image can be cropped, the perspective is not going to be the same as a shot at 105mm. The shot at 105mm will be a much more appropriate perspective for a tight portrait. In a studio setting, there's plenty of light and the background is controlled - so f/4 is fine.


----------



## robbymack (Apr 19, 2013)

I'd take a hard look at the new tamron 24-70 in that case. It's saves you a grand over the canon and the IQ difference is very small. I personally had a hard time figuring out why id pay all that extra cash for a maybe 5-10% difference in IQ. My tamron is not perfect (nothing is) but it gets the job done better than my canon 24-70i, has IS, and I like the feel of an extra $1000 in my pocket.


----------



## bholliman (Apr 19, 2013)

I'm debating the same thing. I own a 24-105 and am relatively happy with it, but from reading the reviews and hearing testimonials here, its clear that the Canon 24-70mm 2.8 II and Tamron 24-70 2.9 VC have superior IQ and sharpness. While this is just a hobby, I'd like to have the best equipment possible for what I shoot the most (landscapes, family and portraits).

Since I have a 70-200mm 2.8 II and 85mm 1.8, I have the 70-105 range covered (albeit with a lens change...). The vast majority of my pictures with the 24-105mm are landscapes at the wide end (24-35mm), with a scattering of shots at various other focal lengths. Not that many between 70 and 105.

I think I'll probably pull the trigger and purchase one of the 24-70's at some point, but I need to figure out which one first.

Good luck with your decision.


----------



## FTBPhotography (Apr 19, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> I just don't see the points keeping the 105 - period.
> 
> One less lens in the bag, more money in your pocket or take the wife out for dinner ;D



Always have a backup, but he mentioned he doesnt shoot professionally so that may be a invalid reason for him.


----------



## FTBPhotography (Apr 19, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> I have both, may sell the 24-105L. I suspect that a 'walkaround' shot from the 24-70 II at 70mm cropped would equal or beat the IQ of the 24-105 *at 105mm (which is where the lens is weakest). *
> 
> Actually, the utility I can see for the 24-105 is for portraits in a studio-type setting. While a 70mm image can be cropped, the perspective is not going to be the same as a shot at 105mm. The shot at 105mm will be a much more appropriate perspective for a tight portrait. In a studio setting, there's plenty of light and the background is controlled - so f/4 is fine.



Interesting, Ive always heard it sucked at 24.


----------



## FTBPhotography (Apr 19, 2013)

seamonster said:


> If you have a 5d3 then your high iso is good enough that the extra stop isn't going to be a big revelation. Besides, you can get some sort of 50mm 1.4 AND the 24-105 for the same price as a 24-70. I don't own a 24-70 but I can say that aside from primes, I cannot bring myself to buy a lens that doesn't have IS, which is another factor.



My understanding is they were going for maximum IQ, so they 86'ed the IS. Although, the 70-200 2.8 mkII is super sharp, so IDK.


----------



## bseitz234 (Apr 19, 2013)

FTBPhotography said:


> Interesting, Ive always heard it sucked at 24.



Has a lot of distortion at 24, but it gets softer at the long end. Different kinds of flaws.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 19, 2013)

bseitz234 said:


> FTBPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting, Ive always heard it sucked at 24.
> ...



Yep...and while you can correct for distortion at the cost of some loss of corner sharpness, you can't correct for lost detail.


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 19, 2013)

FTBPhotography said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > I just don't see the points keeping the 105 - period.
> ...



That's why he should sell his 24-105 if he decided to get mrk II.

Invalid when you have too many lenses with similar focal range and not getting use. mrk II will out perform 105 at any focal range, including crop in PP to get 105 look.


----------



## ksuweh (Apr 19, 2013)

My mind is made up! Thanks for all the comments & help! I am going to get ride of the 24-105 & buy a 24-70 MArk II. I have a 24-70 Mark II coming as a CPS loan to try it out in May......I might not even make it to May before I buy one! HAHA


----------



## robbymack (Apr 19, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> FTBPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



Ah that just solves the zoom problem but gives up the perspective. I see a value for both, if nothing else the 24-105 makes a great one lens travel solution.


----------



## robbymack (Apr 20, 2013)

ksuweh said:


> My mind is made up! Thanks for all the comments & help! I am going to get ride of the 24-105 & buy a 24-70 MArk II. I have a 24-70 Mark II coming as a CPS loan to try it out in May......I might not even make it to May before I buy one! HAHA



Don't say that too loud, you'll get the pro who thinks CPS is only for them in a tizzy. I'm sure you'll be happy, until of course the next object of desire comes out with a thin red line on the end


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 20, 2013)

ksuweh said:


> My mind is made up! Thanks for all the comments & help! I am going to get ride of the 24-105 & buy a 24-70 MArk II. I have a 24-70 Mark II coming as a CPS loan to try it out in May......I might not even make it to May before I buy one! HAHA



Let get ready to sell that 35L too, once mrk II arrived ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 20, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> Let get ready to sell that 35L too, once mrk II arrived ;D



Maybe. But the wide angle + thin DoF with a close subject is something you can't get with the 24-70/2.8 II.


----------



## Act444 (Apr 20, 2013)

FTBPhotography said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I have both, may sell the 24-105L. I suspect that a 'walkaround' shot from the 24-70 II at 70mm cropped would equal or beat the IQ of the 24-105 *at 105mm (which is where the lens is weakest). *
> ...



On the 60D it is great, no issues at all.

But on the 5D, there is definitely some distortion and softness toward the edges.

Still, despite those flaws, I find it a much more versatile lens on the 5D than the 60D. Although the lens gave more reach at the telephoto end with the 60D, it often wasn't enough for true telephoto shooting so it could be a bit awkward sometimes...


----------



## Dittoman1 (Apr 20, 2013)

interesting, you don't think I should sell my 24-70 f/2.8L because I bought 24-105 f/4L??


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 20, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Let get ready to sell that 35L too, once mrk II arrived ;D
> ...



I know...it was a joke ;D ;D ;D

Neuro, you have any pictures from 1D X + mrk II in low light?


----------



## gshocked (Apr 27, 2013)

Hi,

Great thread! A question for the people that have had both: which is better for indoor, low light - events?

Thanks!


----------



## ksuweh (Apr 27, 2013)

gshocked said:


> Hi,
> 
> Great thread! A question for the people that have had both: which is better for indoor, low light - events?
> 
> Thanks!



By far the 24-70 f/2.8 version I or II would be better for low light than the 24-105 f/4 IS for objects in motion such as at events. The IS of the 24-105 only helps with stationary objects. The f/2.8 lets in twice as much light as the f/4.0 so that you can either have a shutter speed that is twice as fast or an ISO that is half as much for the same exposure. The high ISO capabilities of these newer cameras just keep getting better & better, making this low light/larger aperture issue less & less important. By NO means is it a non existent issue, just not as big of an issue as it has typically been.


----------



## nvsravank (Apr 27, 2013)

robbymack said:


> Ah that just solves the zoom problem but gives up the perspective. I see a value for both, if nothing else the 24-105 makes a great one lens travel solution.



If you are cropping a pic taken at 70 mm then that means that the plan is to keep the perspective the same. I guess you don't understand perspective. Perspective is based strictly on the distance between subject and camera.


----------



## dswatson83 (May 3, 2013)

Just get the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC and you get the best of both worlds. It is an awesome lens, great build quality, f/2.8 aperture, and image stabilization. How do you beat that! Plus it is way cheaper than even the version 1 Canon 24-70 f/2.8. The new V2 Canon 24-70 f/2.8 is a slightly bit sharper than the Tamron but the Tamron is still way better than what you have been using, the Canon 24-105mm and is even better than the new Canon 24-70 f/4L IS

Canon 24-70 f/4L IS vs Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC - FIGHT!


----------



## RGF (May 6, 2013)

I have both, originally got the 24-105 and then added th 24-70 ii. I use the 24-105 when I hand hold and / or want extra reach. I use the 24-70 when I work from a tripod. May sell one, not sur which.


----------



## Vossie (May 11, 2013)

Just got my 24-70 2.8 II today. I intend to sell my 24-105.


----------



## Tanja (May 11, 2013)

dswatson83 said:


> Just get the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC and you get the best of both worlds.



well.. only when you get a good exemplar.

every good review website reported great sample variance as far as i know.


----------



## gshocked (May 26, 2013)

Hi all,

I rented out the 24-70 f2.8II and it was fantastic. I used it to shoot a conference event with down lights and the focus was still great even on a 5D mk II. Some shots were still blurry but I didn't want to push the ISO too high. Although I'm wondering if I should've got the 24-105 is instead, as I was mainly shooting static people...? Anyone got any thoughts.

Just a opinion on a different lens. I also had a 70-200 2.8 IS II and that lens was my savior! I found myself using this more than the 24-70. Has anyone else been in this situation?


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 26, 2013)

I thought perspective was sensor to subject distance? How would standing 20 feet away and shooting at 105mm and then stay put and shoot it at 70mm change the perspective?? I guess if you walked closer due to shorter focal length that would change the perspective, but how does cropping the 70mm photo taken at the same distance change the perspective?


----------



## spinworkxroy (May 26, 2013)

gshocked said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I rented out the 24-70 f2.8II and it was fantastic. I used it to shoot a conference event with down lights and the focus was still great even on a 5D mk II. Some shots were still blurry but I didn't want to push the ISO too high. Although I'm wondering if I should've got the 24-105 is instead, as I was mainly shooting static people...? Anyone got any thoughts.
> 
> Just a opinion on a different lens. I also had a 70-200 2.8 IS II and that lens was my savior! I found myself using this more than the 24-70. Has anyone else been in this situation?



i've personally owned both and used both for events before. For generic events like like company functions etc..the 24-105 is fantiastic because of the IS and focal range. What it loses in is the distortion and sharpness and the photos lack the "punch". However, like i mentioned for company events, these points are usually not that important and this lens will work great.

For more important events like weddings, then those points above will be very important. This is where the 24-70 shines. you can shoot the 24-70 at f4 and take the same shot with the 24-105 at exactly the same focal range and you will see a difference in the quality. With the current FF sensors being soo good in high ISO, for important events i will usually use the 24-70 and bump up the ISO if need be..i just trust that lens more thant he 24-105 when it comes to outright quality


----------



## candyman (May 26, 2013)

Tanja said:


> dswatson83 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Just bought the Tamron. Mine is very good. Go to the Shop and check it in the Shop. I tested also the Canon 24-70 and spoke to the sales about variation in samples for the Tamron. He confirmed that they also received variations in quality of the Canon.
I am happy with the Tamron.
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=11251.msg273191#msg273191


----------



## Haydn1971 (May 26, 2013)

Call me old fashioned and snobby if you like, but buying into Canon as I have is because of the glass - I can't quite get my head around wanting the highest quality then buying a third party lens, other than for the fun aspect of a lens like the Lensbaby which gives me wild odd photos.


----------



## candyman (May 26, 2013)

Haydn1971 said:


> Call me old fashioned and snobby if you like, but buying into Canon as I have is because of the glass - I can't quite get my head around wanting the highest quality then buying a third party lens, other than for the fun aspect of a lens like the Lensbaby which gives me wild odd photos.


I can understand that. All my lenses are Canon and L-class. But I did an actual comparison of the two lenses and just could not justify the high price difference. The difference in IQ, build, accuracy in AF is just too small (for me) to pay extra 700 euro. The sales btw confirmed also that the big price difference is one of the reasosn for 300 euro cashback. Though it is still not enough


----------



## captainkanji (May 26, 2013)

I have the 24-105 for my 6D and am pretty happy with it. I will be renting the new 24-70 in November for an event and letting a friend use the 105 on his 7D. A lot of the events I go to have less than adequate lighting, and even though my 6D is a low light monster, I'd prefer to keep the ISO to a minimum. I'll also be renting the 70-200 2.8. I have the f/4 non IS version, but it's not the greatest in low light. My only fear is that I'll like them both so much, I'll end up selling my organs to upgrade them.


----------



## candyman (May 26, 2013)

@op
I kept my 24-105. I like this lens as outdoor walkaround because of the range to 105mm. And, I use it icw with flash indoor. For that it is also a great lens.


----------

